Liz Cheney’s opposition to marriage equality as she campaigns in Wyoming for the GOP senate nomination (against incumbent GOP Sen. Mike Enzi) has caused a rupture with her openly gay sister, Mary Cheney, and Mary’s wife Heather Poe. Anti-gay activists have also criticized Liz Cheney for not being more anti-gay (for these groups, you can never be too anti-gay, as Virginia’s failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli learned (and here).
Liz would be better off not trying to delegitimize her sister’s wife (her own sister-in-law) and kids. That would be a principled stand that showed some integrity, rather than battling with Enzi to see who can be more intolerant.
More. Dick and Lynne back Liz. As much as I disagree with Liz Cheney, she is less awful than incumbent Mike Enzi, who wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. But she could have help saved the GOP from itself. Now, the betting is the family feud will only solidify Enzi’s substantial lead.
Furthermore. Matt Barnum writes in Politico Magazine, Free Mary Cheney!:
The Republican Party is on a collision course with an electorate that is rapidly shifting on gay rights. … At the same time, the gay rights movement needs the backing of Republicans now more than ever after its string of historic victories in deep blue states. Why? Because it’s the only way to win marriage equality in more conservative parts of the country.
Both sides need to face the same realization: There may not be many of us yet, but Republicans who support gay rights are both the future of the GOP and the future of the LGBT movement.
43 Comments for “The House of Cheney”
posted by Houndentenor on
To throw you sister under the bus to win an election is one thing; to sell her out to run in an election in which you are almost certain to lose takes a special kind of sociopath. I don’t know how anyone could trust her on any issue after this. She’s obviously willing to do anything to anyone even with only a sliver of a chance of success.
posted by Doug on
Anyone who would throw a family member under the bus to advance their political ambitions is a pretty miserable excuse for a human being. Even Dick Cheney didn’t go that far when he was running for Vice President.
posted by clayton on
Doug, you may be right that Dick Cheney never threw a family member under the bus, but he stood by in silence while his party and running mate did just that.
posted by Doug on
Absolutely correct, not sure which is worse, throwing your family under the bus or sitting by and letting the entire GOP and Bush throw them under the bus. Both are despicable but then what does one expect from the Cheney family.
posted by JohnInCA on
To be fair, she threw *herself* under a bus. Cheerfully.
posted by Jorge on
Doug, you may be right that Dick Cheney never threw a family member under the bus, but he stood by in silence while his party and running mate did just that.
Mary Cheney was still working for the vice presidential part of the campaign at the time, if I remember correctly from her book, and there was an internal conversation about Bush’s stance. She does not give any indication she was thrown under the bus by anyone but John Edwards and John Kerry.
Anyway, I don’t really care. I think the Cheney-Poe family is making an issue out of a nothing that I am surprised is catching them by surprise. But, given the intensity of their feelings, I think Lynne Cheney should consider bowing out of the race.
posted by Doug on
Neither John Edwards or John Kerry threw Mary Cheney under the bus. She was an out lesbian at the time and given the GOP’s platform and her working for the Bush/Cheney campaign there was nothing inappropriate about what was said.
posted by Jorge on
John Kerry brought Mary Cheney into an unrelated topic in an attempt to make people have a negative opinion of Mary Cheney (and by extension the Bush/Cheney campaign). One could suspect the same about Edwards. With Kerry it was extremely transparent, and in case it wasn’t, the Cheney family, Mary included, explained why they took great offense to it (Kerry’s comments came across as fake). The adviser who said that Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation was “fair game” added fuel to the fire.
I think you should take a second look at your position before being so eager make complaints that the principal has not solicited. It gives the impression that you are being insincere.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s just not the truth.
The question in the debate was “do you think homosexuality is a choice?” Personally I think it was a bad idea to bring up Mary Cheney specifically because the next day the Cheneys were everywhere screaming about what a horrible person Kerry was, instead of the real story which was “Bush says he’s not sure if people choose to be gay” which I think is BS and pandering. He knows enough gay people to know that no one “chose” to be gay.
So no, it wasn’t irrelevant to the topic. Handled badly, perhaps, but it was relevant to the question. You are welcome to have a different interpretation of the facts, but you shouldn’t just make up facts to suit your argument, which is what you have done here.
posted by Jorge on
(Looks up the transcripts.)
John Edwards’s comment was directly related to the question (Gwenn Ifill made direct reference to Dick Cheney’s previous use of his family as an example during a question to Cheney on gay marriage). I happen to think the whole “I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter” (and I did watch the debate) thing is a little slimy. Can I prove it? No.
I watched the third presidential debate as well. The question John Kerry was given was so far removed from the Cheney family and Mary Cheney in particular that his use of her as an example (and quite early in his response) could not possibly have been an accident. That’s not a fact, that’s an inference, but it’s such an easy one as to be a distinction without a difference. So yes, it was an irrelevant topic. For you to be accusing me of making up facts to suit an argument is a little much, and I think you should refrain from such frivolousness.
posted by Houndentenor on
Again, the question Bush was asked was whether being gay was a choice. An absurd question with an easy answer. Bush hedged. Kerry offered the nearest homosexual in the room as an example. It was a mistake, especially given the skillful misdirection that followed, but it was hardly irrelevant to the topic. “There’s a gay person right there, why don’t you ask them if they chose to be gay” is a perfectly reasonable response to the question.
posted by Jimmy on
So it’s a nothing event to have your only sibling publicly delegitimize your spouse and children, all for naked political ambition? Perhaps for the Cheneys, that level of nasty is nothing, since they are cold blooded reptiles.
posted by Jorge on
So it’s a nothing event to have your only sibling publicly delegitimize your spouse and children.
It is not. I don’t think your question is relevant to this situation.
I will go one further. Speaking of delegitimization, I can’t say I’d approve of Mary Cheney being in a live-in relationship for so many years before getting married. And with children? I say this without knowing for certain all of the facts; if I were to assume, I would think they should have cemented their relationship earlier instead of waiting for the law to catch up. Seems to me if anyone delegitimized their union it was the Cheney/Poe family itself, for deferring its value to the whims of the law.
–Not even to family approval or religion. But to the law, and nothing more.
posted by Doug on
“I can’t say I’d approve of Mary Cheney being in a live-in relationship for so many years before getting married.”
So your view is that all gay live-in relationships prior to marriage or civil unions are illegitimate? That is so bizarre it does not deserve comment.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s complete nonsense. So the Cheney-Poes should have lived apart until the governments of a few states decided they could get legally married? Oy.
posted by Jorge on
So your view is that all gay live-in relationships prior to marriage or civil unions are illegitimate? That is so bizarre it does not deserve comment.
You commented.
That’s complete nonsense. So the Cheney-Poes should have lived apart until the governments of a few states decided they could get legally married? Oy.
No. They should have gotten married.
It’s a moot point for me right now, but prior to a couple of years ago I told my parents I would neither go to another state nor wait for my state, if I found someone, there was going to be a wedding, and I was going to consider myself married. After all, where I stand I’d probably have to wait several lifetimes before my church would recognize it otherwise (and I consider that far more important than state recognition). You don’t need the state’s permission to get married and you don’t need a priest’s permission, either. Only two others count, and one of them is God. There is no appreciation in this country for the fact that a marriage is quite simply a marriage.
posted by Houndentenor on
Cheney and Poe were legally married on the 15th anniversary of their previous commitment ceremony, so your point is moot.
posted by Jorge on
Then why is Mary Cheney using that marriage as a wedge against her sister? She is trying to have it both ways. Well, you know what they say about when you assume.
posted by Houndentenor on
Because when the Cheney-Poes travel to 35 states, their marriage is no longer legal. Under normal circumstances (everyone healthy and safe) that isn’t a huge problem, but in emergency situations (medial, for example) that creates a huge problem as legally Ms. Cheney and Ms. Poe have no relationship at all under Wyoming law. This would concern me a great deal, especially since in their case it involves children. Beyond that I can’t make any claim to know why Mary is making a big deal out of this now when she seemed fine with working on the 2004 Bush campaign but perhaps having children and reading horror stories (like the one in Florida where the woman was banned from seeing her partner in ICU while she died because they weren’t “married” in Florida even though they were legally married in their home state) has woken her up to the reality of what her own party is advocating. But, you’d really need to ask her.
posted by Houndentenor on
“a nothing”? Really? The legal status of one’s family is “a nothing”?
Also, as others have pointed out, the entire Cheney family had a very public hissy fit all over the media the day after the debate when Kerry had mentioned that Mary is gay. It was not a secret. In spite of Lynne lying on the Today show in 2000, Mary had been out at least since the 1980s when she worked for Coors to try an undo the gay bar boycott of their beer which was having an economic impact on the company. It seems that Kerry mentioning something that was a actual fact was more troubling to the family than Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in all 50 states.
posted by Clayton on
@Jorge Mary Cheney “does not give any indication she was thrown under the bus by anyone but John Edwards and John Kerry.”
So let’s see: the opposition candidates make a simple statement of fact about Mary Cheney, and that’s throwing her under the bus.
But the ticket on which her father was running (a) proposes a constitutional amendment that would permanently deny her equality at the same time that the ticket (b) encouraged dozens of similar constitutional amendments at the same level. And that is…what? A minor inconvenience? Business as usual? A topic for a very serious family discussion with Father in his study?
I think it’s pretty clear who was throwing Mary Cheney under the bus.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. First off all, I am not sure how much credibility I am suppose to give Mary Cheney’s self-serving book in terms of describing whether or not she was shoved under the proverbial bus by her father and the party. The thrust — if you will — of the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign was to push — hard and deep — the issue of “Vote Republican or else gay people will marry each other.” Neither of the major party candidates backed full marriage equality (I maybe I am wrong about that), but I think that the Kerry/Edwards campaign was — at least — saying that gay bashing was wrong and that gay couples needed something along the lines of civil unions (along with other gay rights issues).
Now Mary may have in fact supported 95% of what the Bush/Cheney ticket was all about. She seemed to say as much in her book. My big beef here is not that she was a conservative Republican — although I may disagree with that — but that had had many chances to trying and move her own party forward and instead she chose silence…until she wanted to sell a book.
2. With Dick Cheney I suspect that he was willing to use the voter’s homophobia to get elected — probably something he done prior to being on the VP ticket. “Nothing personal, just business” as Hollywood Mafia-type characters might say. Liz may be playing the same sort of game or she may actually believe what she says. It just further evidence of how cold, cruel and crazy much of the Cheney family appears to be, and should never be given any sort of political power.
Mary Cheney was still working for the vice presidential part of the campaign at the time, if I remember correctly from her book, and there was an internal conversation about Bush’s stance. She does not give any indication she was thrown under the bus by anyone but John Edwards and John Kerry.
Anyway, I don’t really care. I think the Cheney-Poe family is making an issue out of a nothing that I am surprised is catching them by surprise. But, given the intensity of their feelings, I think Lynne Cheney should consider bowing out of the race.
– See more at: https://igfculturewatch.com/2013/11/17/the-house-of-cheney/#comments
posted by Houndentenor on
You are right. Kerry’s stance on the marriage issue was muddled and uninformed. At one point he endorsed a state “marriage amendment” and then had to walk that back when he learned that it also banned civil unions. It was a mess (like the rest of his campaign) and handled badly. Technically Bush’s and Kerry’s positions on marriage were similar. Neither was for marriage and both had made statements favoring civil unions (but with no plan to make those happen). The only real difference was the Bush’s platform called for a constitutional amendment while Kerry obviously didn’t want to talk about the issue at all. Democrats were (and mostly still are) almost as scared of the religious right as the Republicans are.
posted by Jorge on
1. First off all, I am not sure how much credibility I am suppose to give Mary Cheney’s self-serving book in terms of describing whether or not she was shoved under the proverbial bus by her father and the party.
Wait, if she wrote the book because of the offense the Cheney family took to John Kerry’s comments about Mary during the debate, wouldn’t the book being self-serving make her stated opinion on whether or not any one party shoved her under the bus more reliable? The whole reason the book exists was because of an “I’m offended” event by proxy. I would think if there is something self-serving about telling an “I’m offended story” that it would at least be reliable in explaining why. Why would a naricisst be grandiose about one thing and pooh-pooh another when she feels grandiose about both?
My big beef here is not that she was a conservative Republican — although I may disagree with that — but that had had many chances to trying and move her own party forward and instead she chose silence…until she wanted to sell a book.
“Until?” I didn’t see much of an attempt to move the Republican party forward in the book, either. Citing how awful Alan Keyes is doesn’t really count for much.
The thrust — if you will — of the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign was to push — hard and deep — the issue of “Vote Republican or else gay people will marry each other.”
No it wasn’t. It was that John Kerry was an unreliable and weak candidate for commander-in-chief. Karl Rove’s strategy was to attack John Kerry’s greatest strength–his foreign policy acumen. The Bush campaign did this constantly (“flip-flop!” “He said he voted for the war before he voted against him” “We should not elect a candidate who says ‘wrong time, wrong place’.” “We should stay the course!”)–it wasn’t just because Kerry made it easy for Bush.
It’s a little ironic that you talk about other people being self-serving in the same post in which you try to argue that gay marriage was the biggest issue in the Bush campaign.
Also I happen to think Dick Cheney is more conservative than Liz Cheney. He’s certainly more stubborn.
posted by Don on
the idea that Kerry or Edwards had any responsibility for Mary’s plight is astounding. I believe Flip Wilson used to say the “devil made me do it,” which is a child’s answer. Cheney was in the unpleasant position of having to toe the line of believing publicly that his daughter is mentally/spiritually ill while actually believing no such thing.
Although I feel bad for the family particularly, I believe this is precisely what it will take to blow the ignorance apart. Vilifying strangers is easy. Doing it to family members makes it much harder. But it’s going to take a lot more time to work the poison out.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t feel sorry for them in the least. I was a Republican until 1990. It was clear by that point that the party was in the grips of the religious right and the warmongers and there wasn’t any chance of either letting go any time soon. None of this came out of left field. they’ve had ample opportunity to try to influence the party in the last three decades and if they have made any attempt it hasn’t had any noticeable effect. Cheney’s apologetic manner on gay issues is clearly calculated to make him look like a victim and that was effective as it seems to have inoculated him from attacks from the right on this issue. (There were a few but not many and even those were short lived.)
posted by Jorge on
I was a Republican until 1990.
Ouch! I feel for you, man.
I hope you’ll save a prayer for those of us ex-RINOs who got muscled out between the tea party and the new conservative right.
posted by Houndentenor on
Leaving is easy, especially when you aren’t wanted there in the first place. I really don’t know how the GOP plans to be a majority party when they are only appealing to a smaller percentage of the electorate and alienating everyone else?
posted by Don on
I guess I never really got the Kerry/Cheney flap. I still don’t. A political party has a plank in their platform. The vice presidential candidate has a family member who works for his campaign who used to have a job (Coors) essentially working against that plank. How is this a dirty blow? I mean, this ain’t even close. She wasn’t a child. She actually was a paid campaign staffer and family member. How is questioning the hypocrisy at all “out of bounds.”
If it had been the primaries and a candidate’s adult daughter worked for planned parenthood and brought legal challenges for abortion rights, this would have been “off limits?” I don’t think so.
I believe the reason why it got hit so hard in return is that it was an indefensible position. The party faithful believed that Mary was mentally ill and needed spiritual help to overcome a dreaded condition. The Cheneys didn’t feel that way at all. So they had to hit back with false charges of low blows because there was no other defense that wouldn’t have left them telling the religious right “um, there’s nothing wrong with our daughter.”
I’m trying to think of a left parallel to make my point. But nothing comes to mind. Sure attacking Sarah Palin’s family was wrong, but I can’t think of something where the left attacked the right for the left being hypocritical and wrong. Surely someone here can help.
What really makes me feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone is the fact that our current First Lady is vilified for saying people should eat healthy and that’s apparently a totally appropriate line of attack while talking about the Cheneys is out of bounds?
I mean, WTF?
posted by Doug on
You are correct about being in the Twilight Zone. While Mrs. Obama is being vilified for saying people should eat health, the Koch brothers are spending millions of dollars to convince people they should not buy health insurance. I’m with John McCain on this one, the GOP is a bunch of Wacko Birds.
posted by Jimmy on
“I believe the reason why it got hit so hard in return is that it was an indefensible position”
Lynne Cheney’s pearl clutching, calling Kerry a bad man, meant he got right at the heart that.
posted by Houndentenor on
Karl Rove’s signature move was to go on a full out assault on anyone who brought up a subject the GOP didn’t want to discuss. I believe that the strategy of demonizing anyone who mentioned Mary was gay had been planned months in advance. It was too fast and too scripted to have been impromptu.
And to quote other commentators this week: it’s very hard to feel sorry for Mary now when she worked on a campaign calling for a Constitutional Amendment to ban all gay marriage in 2004. Liz’s current position on the matter isn’t nearly as extreme as the one Bush was proposing back then.
As for Dick and Lynne backing Liz, that’s pure politics. Who knows what any of them really think. And it’s all moot anyway. I have as much chance of becoming the Senator from Wyoming as Liz Cheney does.
posted by kosh iii on
My only comment about the Cheney’s is that Dick should be executed and tried for war crimes.
posted by grendel on
in that order?
posted by Clayton on
Stephen states thatLiz Cheney “is less awful than incumbent Mike Enzi, who wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages.”
A contitutional amendment to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriage. Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Oh–I know! It was part of the official Bush-Cheney platform in the 2004 presidential election!
The Cheney family is reaping what it has sowed.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
J: Wait, if she wrote the book because of the offense the Cheney family took to John Kerry’s comments about Mary.
Point 1: No doubt that some of the Cheney’s were furious at the suggestion that Mary was gay (and in a long-term relationship), but why? It was a fact (Mary had been openly gay since the 1980s from what hear, no one had been pushed out the of closet and it was in the context of a question about whether or not someone is (as Lady gaga might say) “Born that way” or not. Point 2: Stating that someone is gay — when they are gay — in the context of a question about ‘do people chose to be gay?’ is hardly tossing anyone under the bus.
J: “Until?” I didn’t see much of an attempt to move the Republican party forward in the book, either. Citing how awful Alan Keyes is doesn’t really count for much.
Agreed it was not much. However, it was a small blip, given the fact that — apparently — mentioning that she was gay was some sort of insult (or an Ashcroft government secret) and then (when it was time to sell a book) she gave a fell fluffy interviews about great it was to be gay, with a wife and baby. Then it all pretty much went back into the ‘How dare you confront a Cheney with facts?’ For a brief moment I thought that the book might be a wake up call, but it was not.
J: No it wasn’t. It was that John Kerry was an unreliable and weak candidate for commander-in-chief.
Yes it was. One of the MAJOR GOP campaign initiatives was to engage in calculated gay-bashing. It was just the sort of ‘Nixonian’ tactics that Rove was quite familiar with. In addition, they also did the attack on foreign policy, but when it came to undecided/swing voters the message was clear; Vote Republican or the gays will move into your neighbor, get marry each other and performing musical theatre.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Also I never really accept the idea that Mary was any sort of ‘plight’ because — in answering a question about whether or not people are born gay — a candidate was trying to say that let’s us ask a gay person and by citing a real life gay Republican, maybe trying to make it more of a human dignity issue and not a partisan issue.
Personally, I think that major party presidential debates (both campaigns and the folks that organize it) seem to fumble around asking any sort of gay rights question. When was the first time it — gay rights — came up in a major party presidential debate? Part of the problem — beyond the Cheney spin machine of evil — is gay rights probably did not get talked about during the debates until, like 2000.
Ask ourselves; Did Mary get fired as a result? No. Did she get tossed out of her home? No. Is the state going to take away her kid? Probably not. Is she going to be charged under the anti-gay criminal law? Nope. She been out — since the 1980s from what I hear — and had well, none of the horrible things that can and do happen to gay people did not happen to her.
posted by Kosh III on
“When was the first time it — gay rights — came up in a major party presidential debate? Part of the problem”
Paul Tsongas 92
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Did someone ask Paul during the debate or did he bring it up? What did he say? — this would probably be a primary debate and I was thinking more along the lines of a general election debate —
posted by Kosh III on
IIRC (it’s been a while LOL)
Tsongas made civil rights for gays a part of his standard platform.
Obviously it was not in the fall debate and I don’t recall how much if any debates were held during the primaries.
The gay press amply reported on it at the time.
posted by Jorge on
And to quote other commentators this week: it’s very hard to feel sorry for Mary now when she worked on a campaign calling for a Constitutional Amendment to ban all gay marriage in 2004. Liz’s current position on the matter isn’t nearly as extreme as the one Bush was proposing back then.
I agree with this 100%.
Yes it was. One of the MAJOR GOP campaign initiatives was to engage in calculated gay-bashing.
You want gay-bashing, how about the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidate’s calculated and cynical attempt to draw anti-gay conservative votes away from Bush? Fortunately for Bush, Republican supporters aren’t nearly as evil as liberals think they are.
I don’t consider your position here very credible when Tom S states it, and that’s counting the times he’s provided backup. Your best example will not be one that deals with the presidential election, even odds it won’t even be from the GOP, and if it is it won’t be an example of gay-bashing.
Both sides need to face the same realization: There may not be many of us yet, but Republicans who support gay rights are both the future of the GOP and the future of the LGBT movement.
The future of the GOP? Yes. The future of the GLBT movement?
The movement has always been a coalition deal between radicals and traditionalists, and has long been carried by progressive politics. What has changed since? Not nearly so much. I highly doubt that most, hmm… [mainstream? mainstream-acting? traditional? conservative? ordinary?] GLBT or Q people are going to be Republicans anytime soon. We have one such person as the incoming First Lady in NYC, and if she really is half of the mayor-elect’s brain then she’s uber-liberal. You make too much of the fact that a lot of young people are Republican or right-leaning, and not enough of the fact that most young people are not. The movement shall remain progressive for a very long time.
posted by ShadowChaser on
Several months ago, Rachel Maddow had a piece on the attempt by some socially conservative activists to amend the Wyoming state constitution to ban marriage equality; Wyoming bars same sex marriage by statute but not by constitutional amendment.
Maddow noted that the Wyoming State Senate in the most Republican legislative body in any of the 50 states (26 Republicans, four Democrats), only the Hawaii State Senate is more partisan (23 Democrats and one Republican).
Maddow reported that when it came time to vote on beginning the process to amend the Wyoming state constitution to bar same sex marriage, the libertarian wing of the Republican caucus in the Wyoming state senate refused to support the effort. The libertarian wing felt that the statute was enough legislation and that it didn’t want to have any more government interference into personal lives.
The legislation went nowhere.
Liz Cheney ought to take note.
Actually, if Liz Cheney is serious about running for the U.S. Senate in Wyoming, she ought to run as a Democrat. Democrats in Wyoming are an endangered species and they could use all the warm bodies that they can get. The New York Times had an interesting piece last year about the decline and fall of Wyoming Democratic party.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The Republican Party will — eventually — have to have a position on gay rights that actually reflects mainstream opinion, if it wants to remain a major party (nationally). It would be nice if [more] gay Republicans were being more productive in this regard, but the GOP cant hope to get too many voters, for too much longer, if it keeps up its current catering to the ‘religious right’ voters.
I would also agree that — whenever possible — just about any sort of policy in America is more likely to happen if it gets the broad based support of members from both major parties. I do not think that too many smart gay Democrats would seriously suggest otherwise.
However, its hard to say that (absent of homophobia) a significant higher number of gay voters would vote Republican. Higher then the current estimate which is something like 20-ish% It would all depend on what other issues voters care about — once both parties came around to supporting equality.
I suspect that their will probably be some sort of serious ‘third way’ new party or independent candidate within the next decade or so, which appeal to gay voters.