Posts Tagged ‘Dick Cheney’
Bill Clinton inhaled. And Barack Obama says he’s cool with same-sex marriage.
We all knew Bill Clinton inhaled, but he couldn’t admit it. We all knew Barack Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage, but he couldn’t admit it. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage in 1995 — the first time.
The idea that Joe Biden saying he was in favor of gays getting married was a gaffe is part of why the Washington MSM media mentality is so destructive. When hatemongers spew hatred, they get the tip of the cap from the MSM elite. When a sitting vice president speaks about love, it’s an embarrassment.
Never mind that Dick Cheney said it before it was cool in some circles. Biden said it, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and then the first President of the United States to say it said it: gays and lesbians should be able to get married.
The Dems are the ones that set up Irony Fest ’12 in placing its national convention in North Carolina, the state that just passed Amendment One that bans gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. What a fun time that will be in Charlotte. On the other hand, the Democratic National Convention will be the closest that natives may get to gay and lesbian visitors. Seriously, if you are gay or lesbian, would you go to North Carolina if you didn’t have to go?
Mitt Romney said for his part that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Will the MSM have the guts to ask Romney about the fact that his grandfather was part of a polygamy commune in Mexico? For those who argue for the traditional definition of marriage, as Romney does, Mormons would argue that their tradition is polygamy and Romney is a Mormon.
Part of that traditional definition of marriage would have nullified the marriage of the president’s parents. In fact, Virginia wouldn’t have recognized Obama’s parents marriage at the time Obama was born. For this reason alone, Obama should have been in favor of gay marriage from at least since the 2008 convention.
But Democratic politicians have felt the need to hide their true self and beliefs because the MSM and others pressure them to do so. George W. Bush proposed a Constitutional amendment that took away rights from Americans. No eyes were batted on that news. Then again, the Dem politicians look foolish when they do fall in the MSM trap.
We know where Romney stands on the marriage front, but his take on gays has come under question in two separate instances. Romney’s refusal to stand up for Richard Grenell, his foreign policy spokesman, who was likely hounded out of his job because he was gay, was disgraceful. And Romney went out of his way to dispel the notion that a prank he had played on someone when he was in high school had nothing to do with whether the victim was gay. “That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.”
Then again, the boy was picked on because he stood out. Regardless of sexual orientation, the “prank” — pinning the boy and cutting off his ponytail — was rather cruel.
Romney did come up and said gay people should be able to adopt, leading to the idea of a family, but not have the parents get married. Huh?
The one person who has the proper perspective who we have not heard from on this issue is Newt Gingrich. After all, we had a major presidential candidate on the GOP side with a blood relative who is a lesbian. Candace Gingrich is the half-sister of the former Speaker of the House. Though political junkies knew of Candace’s existence, the MSM left her out of the equation when gay marriage issues came up. We’ve heard this “well, the public already knows about this” mentality. Guess what? A whole new generation of young people didn’t know. And not every reader, listener, and viewer remembers every little nuance of candidates, past and present.
“No to all incumbents and no to Amendment One.”
The best line was from one of my Facebook friends from North Carolina. While I can’t agree over the incumbents stance (oversimplification of what is happening politically), I love how he acknowledged what conservatives have traditionally stood for: getting government out of people’s business. This includes the bedroom.
Trust me, he is plenty conservative. But he also knows that government shouldn’t be deciding who can get married.
We interrupt the scintillating 2012 GOP presidential race to give you an update from a blast of the past. Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz cancelled a speaking engagement in Toronto over what happened in Vancouver last fall. Just like blaming a reception in Los Angeles for not going to New York City.
Cheney should know that Canada is a diverse country, but it sounds more like sour grapes for being branded a war criminal by protesters. Waterboarding, torture, and an unjustified war will do that. After all, Cheney and George W. Bush lived in bubbles from 2001-2009, so they didn’t get much of a differing opinion against their own views.
If Cheney really had that bad a time in Vancouver last fall, and blames a whole country for those actions, then why did Cheney schedule a speaking engagement in Toronto?
Conflict of interest can be subtle or extremely obvious, but when justice is involved, even the slightest conflict of interest reduces faith in the justice system.
One of the recent storylines in the comic strip “Candorville” had a female judge who was presiding on a child-custody case concerning her daughter. Interestingly, the judge ruled against her own daughter. While admittedly this is fictional, in real life, you wouldn’t expect such a scenario to occur. The mother-daughter relationship would be considered a conflict of interest, and the case would be assigned to a different judge.
Simple, easy-to-follow conflicts of interest haven’t bothered conservatives when it comes to the Supreme Court. After all, the obvious conflicts of interest have all occurred on the conservative side, including but not limited to Bush v. Gore.
Conservatives want Elena Kagan to not hear , known as “Obamacare.” Kagan worked for the Solicitor General’s office, though the Obama Administration points out that it started to separate her away from the legislation when she was being considered for a possible seat on the highest court.
Conservatives may have a case here of a conflict of interest. And liberals are smart enough to realize this may be true, and may result in Kagan not hearing the case before the Supreme Court.
The MSM coverage of this case has focused mostly on Kagan, and not as much on Clarence Thomas, who has yet another conflict of interest before the Supreme Court. Thomas’ wife has worked for several conservative groups tied to the case. Antonin Scalia and Thomas upped the ante by attending a dinner sponsored by the law firm arguing the case before the Supreme Court.
Thomas thinks so little of his conflict of interest that he has not put down his wife’s income on required forms. Money in a household certainly qualifies as a conflict of interest.
Thomas’ wife was soliciting resumes for the Bush team. Scalia’s sons, Eugene and John, worked for firms that worked with the Bush team. Eugene later worked as Solicitor of the Department of Labor under Bush in 2001. Both fell within the confines of conflict of interest; neither withdrew from the case. To no one’s surprise, they ruled on the side of their familial interests.
In 2004, Scalia had a conflict of interest with a long-time friendship of Dick Cheney as a suit seeking records from Cheney’s energy task force. Scalia’s arrogance came through in a memo at the time. “I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned,” he wrote. “If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.”
In terms of the Supreme Court, this last decade or so has been the worst stretch in terms of perception of justice thanks to these numerous conflicts of interest. In all but one case, conservatives were asked to recuse. In all but one case, the MSM didn’t spend much time on the story. Even in that one case, with an obvious conservative conflict of interest, the liberal example gets more attention.
What has made these conflicts of interest so problematic is that the Supreme Court was supposed to be the one place where politics didn’t enter into the equation. The recently retired John Paul Stevens proves an excellent example: appointed by a Republican (Gerald Ford), Stevens proved to be an independent thinker throughout his long stay on the Court. “Independent” doesn’t mix well with Scalia or Thomas.
No one thought Scalia or Thomas in those rulings were going to vote against the way they did. Conflicts of interest aren’t just about the vote, but how the vote is perceived. The brazenness by Scalia and Thomas adds to the wounds.
As much as we’d like to go back and fix the wrongs caused by conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court (especially Bush v. Gore), we can’t. If conservatives want to finally play this game, they need to acknowledge their hypocrisy of previous conflicts of interest. If nothing else, having to withdraw from cases would reduce the arrogance of Scalia and Thomas outside the courtroom. Then they will have to know that “Obamacare” could be decided by 6 Supreme Court justices, so that conservatives will finally understand the true meaning of conflict of interest.
While George W. Bush sticks to Calgary, Dick Cheney went with Vancouver for his book tour. Those that order waterboarding and torture aren’t supposed to be allowed into Canada. Yet Cheney went through and had a $500-per-table book club event in the Winter Olympics city.
Protests were loud. A Canadian politician got into the headlines.