"Freedom means freedom for everybody," Cheney said at the 2000 vice presidential debate. It doesn't change his legacy, but it is something we should remember today.
If I'm being frank: as a queer person, I could not care less about Cheney's history here. I don't have any interest in someone who defends us while upholding global violence against people of color -- considering the existence of queer people of color, all it does is highlight how disingenuous that support is.
You can be as frank as you'd like. And, I don't really disagree (as I say in the piece multiple times). I do, however, think it is notable — particularly this week! — and that many people don't know it.
I know you say it in the piece. Saying you get it doesn't make harms outweigh whatever minute good might be found when the hostility I'm referring to applies to so many of those who are being framed as in some way defended here. That there are no 100% absolute goods or evils anywhere is a strong belief of mine, but coming out to remind everyone that someone like Cheney wasn't as bad as people think is -- especially right now -- in incredibly poor taste. I'm no more interested in Cheney ostensibly being supportive of queer people than I am Israel.
At least he was consistent in the old Republican party’s view on freedom. A society is not being free unless everyone is free. While his only motivation was having a gay daughter, at least he stood up for her. As a trans woman, I find that a factor in acceptance and subsequent support is largely based on having met a trans person and realizing that we are not as different as the misinformation would have one believe. Therefore, however the ball gets moved forward is a good thing. Nobody is perfect and for a guy with his reputation to support gay rights had to have moved the ball forward, even if only by a small amount.
Saying everybody should enjoy freedom and semi-supporting something gay is a FAR CRY from actually a stance of moral support for freedom. He was a lying warmonger who lied us into a futile war on innocent people in Iraq FOR OIL. Give me a break.
Not crazy about sanewashing Cheney. The only reason he changed his stance is bc he discovered his daughter was gay; without that very personal connection, he'd have continued his hard anti-gay public stance to the end.
His stance wasn't principled; it was raw unbridled self-interest.
If I had skipped the beginning and end of this, I might see what you're saying, but to claim this is "sanewashing" Cheney seems more than a bit unfair.
I view anything less than utter condemnation of Cheney as trying to rehabilitate his image.
Altogether too much in that vein has been posted today.
Nothing he did was worthwhile; he was the prince of corrupt self-interest, and set the stage in every possible way for Trump. His memory needs to be reviled at every mention.
Nice way to miss the point, Doof Who Lives Down To His Nickname.
Let me explain it in words of less than four syllables:
If someone as bad as Dick Cheney can be better on queer issues than any current GOP person holding any prominent elected office, what does that tell you about who controls the GOP today?
Dick Cheney is RESPONSIBLE for over 3 millions deaths of Not-Caucasian-People. There is NO good side to his existence, regardless of lesbian daughter or queer helptitude. Harvey Milk is twisting up TORNADOES in his grave at the mere suggestion. Nothing is worse than that. All the rainbow flags in the Castro won't float that boat.
The current GQP wouldn't exist in its current state absent Cheney's dubious contributions.
Attempts to soften that point by noting that he deviated from the GQP hardline bc he had a gay daughter do nothing to humanize him, and only make it clearer that self-interest alone governed his actions. The man had not a shred of empathy or compassion and deserves no mercy even in death.
Please, no queer-washing. Talk instead about the widespread death and misery he was directly responsible for. That’s what we need never to forget. Good riddance to him.
1. I am not a wire service. No one is learning that Dick Cheney died from my newsletter. It’s not an obit.
2. I do have expertise in coverage of an area where he did something notable. I covered that — in context.
The opening section gives you links to exactly what you are looking for — and I made clear that I do think those are more important. So, I guess I'm not clear what you want and think it's completely wrong to claim that this, in light of that, is, in any sense, "queer-washing."
I read the article in your newsletter carefully and in its entirety (including following links) and should have stated that upfront.
I continue to disagree that his statement— and it was a statement he repeated several times essentially unchanged — was either notable or worthy of even the faintest praise you gave it. That, to me, is queer-washing, intended or not. He was a monster and the world is, briefly, better for his absence from it.
If I said “he didn’t say that,” that would be contrary to history. You chose to use “notable” to describe his saying it. I disagree with and dislike that choice.
You say it was notable and I say it wasn’t. You think you’re right and I think I’m right. FTLOG, let’s agree to disagree so we can each get on to more important things.
Going to disagree with what most of the other commenters seem to be saying - it absolutely matters to me when the Republican nominee for VP goes on live television and says to America that it's nobody's business who we love. It matters when he tells people that we should do "everything we can" to accommodate that. It's not a platitude or an empty gesture of appeasement when the man who's going to be one of the most powerful people in the government says that you deserve more than you're getting rather than grudgingly allowing you to keep what you've got and no more.
I don't know if it's just a generational gap or the passage of time making memories hazy, but I think people today underrate the importance of having the government recognize your relationship as valid. DOMA was bad in substantive ways, but there's also a powerful psychological effect from an official government condemnation of your relationship with your partner. I came out as gay shortly before Prop 8 passed in California, and the gut punch of having that message enshrined in the state constitution was there regardless of how far off in my future marriage might be. I'm not going to say that Cheney himself should be seen as any kind of real supporter of gay rights, but it mattered that he did this. This moment mattered.
I haven't seen this kind of division in our community in a very long time. Some very complex moral issues here that even when I was an academic philosopher would have found difficult to unpack. I'm retired now and my take is to gratefully accept the good in Cheney, not speculating on his motives which may remain occult, while simultaneously condemning the manifestly malignant influence he was on our country, its traditions, and the world. By his own lights, he thought he was being virtuous, but Cheney directly authorized and enabled much evil. For that he can't be forgiven. I don't think Chris is at all trying to sanitize or rehabilitate him.
I think the point you’re making here is that most people aren’t all one thing or all good or bad. Yes, in Cheney’s case that doesn’t forgive the great harm he did and yes, it had to be personal for him to come to this viewpoint. But we’re going to have to make it personal for many on the fence to see change.
I too was surprised at Dick Cheney and many others who showed sanity, even if only in isolated issues that directly affected them and their families. Rand Paul comes to mind right now, because I never thought I’d be grateful to him for anything either and yes he’s showing guts when too damned few are.
Respectfully, I think that the key here is, as you acknowledge, that Cheney's "daughter Mary is a lesbian". As is often the case, he was willing to give a damn about rights when it benefited him on some personal level. I highly doubt he would have been open-minded about the issue if not for that family connection.
That's possible, and yet, that's how too many people change their minds. I don't think this says anything about his character or anything like that. It is, however, notable, as a factual matter — especially in that moment.
The few conservatives I’ve discussed LGBT issues with also came to change their minds because of family members or kids of close family friends who came out. It’s be great if they didn’t need such close personal impetus but the reality is a hell of a lot of people do. And it’s not just limited to conservatives either.
Thanks for this. I know you're getting flack, and I really understand how everyone feels, I despise Dick Cheney and his impact on this country and am not at all sad to see him depart. No one wants to see this man lauded or whitewashed for literally anything. But I do appreciate the history lesson. I was only 20 when those debates occurred, and I don't think I took any time out of my busy college schedule to watch, and if I did it certainly wasn't memorable.
It's as interesting to me that Cheney said what he said as it is that Lieberman said what he said. It's a reminder to me how utterly different things were in the 90s, and turn of the millennium... how mealy-mouthed and conservative dems were (familiar!) and how sort of "whip-lashy" the sentiment around queer rights and gay marriage was, specifically in the 2000s. I DO remember vividly the day that Barack Obama got elected and simultaneously Prop 8 passed in California. As an idealistic young person it was shocking to me, how could both be true? It completely took the wind out of what should have been a joyful day.
Anyway, at 27 in 2008 the VP debate of 2000 would have felt like ancient history, but now as a 40+ year old, 8 years is so recent. This data point is just one more piece of context that helps inform how we got from here to there and back again. One does not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to Dick Cheney. And you're not, I think that's clear. But it's always interesting and informative to see who is say what when and why, and what the response was, and it is unfortunately timely and relevant to the coverage you provide.
No one should forget Cheney's role in the foreign policy disasters of the 2000s which, as you indicate, reverberate into the present. However, there was a time when Republicans - some of them, anyway - stood for freedom. That position sometimes led them to do terrible things, but occasionally brave things, too. Thanks to Trump, we no longer have to concern ourselves with freedom-loving Republicans. They are all considered RINOs now.
Cheney’s eagerness to break the laws and traditions of the US and the international community far exceed the familial bond that led him to speak favorably of gays and gay rights.
I do wonder, given how suffocated I feel by the current administration, how we can maximize each states, and collectively all states fundamental decision-making power, and what does that really look like?
Hopefully not a bloody, civil war. The divisiveness must stop. We are human beings first. We must find common ground in the values and experiences that connect us, or at least as Cheney said, “tolerate”.
My condolences to the Cheney family. I didn’t like Mr. Cheney’s politics, but am sorry for their loss.
Didn’t like him, fake news about weapons of mass destruction, water boarding, huge Halliburton contracts, but he voted for Harris and was very critical of Trump.
If I'm being frank: as a queer person, I could not care less about Cheney's history here. I don't have any interest in someone who defends us while upholding global violence against people of color -- considering the existence of queer people of color, all it does is highlight how disingenuous that support is.
You can be as frank as you'd like. And, I don't really disagree (as I say in the piece multiple times). I do, however, think it is notable — particularly this week! — and that many people don't know it.
I know you say it in the piece. Saying you get it doesn't make harms outweigh whatever minute good might be found when the hostility I'm referring to applies to so many of those who are being framed as in some way defended here. That there are no 100% absolute goods or evils anywhere is a strong belief of mine, but coming out to remind everyone that someone like Cheney wasn't as bad as people think is -- especially right now -- in incredibly poor taste. I'm no more interested in Cheney ostensibly being supportive of queer people than I am Israel.
At least he was consistent in the old Republican party’s view on freedom. A society is not being free unless everyone is free. While his only motivation was having a gay daughter, at least he stood up for her. As a trans woman, I find that a factor in acceptance and subsequent support is largely based on having met a trans person and realizing that we are not as different as the misinformation would have one believe. Therefore, however the ball gets moved forward is a good thing. Nobody is perfect and for a guy with his reputation to support gay rights had to have moved the ball forward, even if only by a small amount.
Saying everybody should enjoy freedom and semi-supporting something gay is a FAR CRY from actually a stance of moral support for freedom. He was a lying warmonger who lied us into a futile war on innocent people in Iraq FOR OIL. Give me a break.
Not crazy about sanewashing Cheney. The only reason he changed his stance is bc he discovered his daughter was gay; without that very personal connection, he'd have continued his hard anti-gay public stance to the end.
His stance wasn't principled; it was raw unbridled self-interest.
If I had skipped the beginning and end of this, I might see what you're saying, but to claim this is "sanewashing" Cheney seems more than a bit unfair.
I view anything less than utter condemnation of Cheney as trying to rehabilitate his image.
Altogether too much in that vein has been posted today.
Nothing he did was worthwhile; he was the prince of corrupt self-interest, and set the stage in every possible way for Trump. His memory needs to be reviled at every mention.
Nice way to miss the point, Doof Who Lives Down To His Nickname.
Let me explain it in words of less than four syllables:
If someone as bad as Dick Cheney can be better on queer issues than any current GOP person holding any prominent elected office, what does that tell you about who controls the GOP today?
Nice Way To Sidestep A Valid Point, snot bag.
Let me explain in words even YOU can understand:
Dick Cheney is RESPONSIBLE for over 3 millions deaths of Not-Caucasian-People. There is NO good side to his existence, regardless of lesbian daughter or queer helptitude. Harvey Milk is twisting up TORNADOES in his grave at the mere suggestion. Nothing is worse than that. All the rainbow flags in the Castro won't float that boat.
Solidarity begins at home.
The last line says it all.
The current GQP wouldn't exist in its current state absent Cheney's dubious contributions.
Attempts to soften that point by noting that he deviated from the GQP hardline bc he had a gay daughter do nothing to humanize him, and only make it clearer that self-interest alone governed his actions. The man had not a shred of empathy or compassion and deserves no mercy even in death.
Aww, triggered much, jackass?
Learn that comeback from MAGA?
Back to twitterverse, troll-y.
Please, no queer-washing. Talk instead about the widespread death and misery he was directly responsible for. That’s what we need never to forget. Good riddance to him.
As I wrote elsewhere ...
Understand two things:
1. I am not a wire service. No one is learning that Dick Cheney died from my newsletter. It’s not an obit.
2. I do have expertise in coverage of an area where he did something notable. I covered that — in context.
The opening section gives you links to exactly what you are looking for — and I made clear that I do think those are more important. So, I guess I'm not clear what you want and think it's completely wrong to claim that this, in light of that, is, in any sense, "queer-washing."
I read the article in your newsletter carefully and in its entirety (including following links) and should have stated that upfront.
I continue to disagree that his statement— and it was a statement he repeated several times essentially unchanged — was either notable or worthy of even the faintest praise you gave it. That, to me, is queer-washing, intended or not. He was a monster and the world is, briefly, better for his absence from it.
I mean, that is contrary to history. You not liking it can't make it not notable.
If I said “he didn’t say that,” that would be contrary to history. You chose to use “notable” to describe his saying it. I disagree with and dislike that choice.
OK. And, I literally link to news coverage from the time that suggests, factually, that you are wrong.
You say it was notable and I say it wasn’t. You think you’re right and I think I’m right. FTLOG, let’s agree to disagree so we can each get on to more important things.
Going to disagree with what most of the other commenters seem to be saying - it absolutely matters to me when the Republican nominee for VP goes on live television and says to America that it's nobody's business who we love. It matters when he tells people that we should do "everything we can" to accommodate that. It's not a platitude or an empty gesture of appeasement when the man who's going to be one of the most powerful people in the government says that you deserve more than you're getting rather than grudgingly allowing you to keep what you've got and no more.
I don't know if it's just a generational gap or the passage of time making memories hazy, but I think people today underrate the importance of having the government recognize your relationship as valid. DOMA was bad in substantive ways, but there's also a powerful psychological effect from an official government condemnation of your relationship with your partner. I came out as gay shortly before Prop 8 passed in California, and the gut punch of having that message enshrined in the state constitution was there regardless of how far off in my future marriage might be. I'm not going to say that Cheney himself should be seen as any kind of real supporter of gay rights, but it mattered that he did this. This moment mattered.
Thank you for allowing Cheney to be a complex man and not turning him into a devil or an angel like everyone seems to prefer to do these days.
I haven't seen this kind of division in our community in a very long time. Some very complex moral issues here that even when I was an academic philosopher would have found difficult to unpack. I'm retired now and my take is to gratefully accept the good in Cheney, not speculating on his motives which may remain occult, while simultaneously condemning the manifestly malignant influence he was on our country, its traditions, and the world. By his own lights, he thought he was being virtuous, but Cheney directly authorized and enabled much evil. For that he can't be forgiven. I don't think Chris is at all trying to sanitize or rehabilitate him.
When the Nader folks were claiming "both parties are the same," Lieberman was Exhibit A.
I think the point you’re making here is that most people aren’t all one thing or all good or bad. Yes, in Cheney’s case that doesn’t forgive the great harm he did and yes, it had to be personal for him to come to this viewpoint. But we’re going to have to make it personal for many on the fence to see change.
I too was surprised at Dick Cheney and many others who showed sanity, even if only in isolated issues that directly affected them and their families. Rand Paul comes to mind right now, because I never thought I’d be grateful to him for anything either and yes he’s showing guts when too damned few are.
Respectfully, I think that the key here is, as you acknowledge, that Cheney's "daughter Mary is a lesbian". As is often the case, he was willing to give a damn about rights when it benefited him on some personal level. I highly doubt he would have been open-minded about the issue if not for that family connection.
That's possible, and yet, that's how too many people change their minds. I don't think this says anything about his character or anything like that. It is, however, notable, as a factual matter — especially in that moment.
The few conservatives I’ve discussed LGBT issues with also came to change their minds because of family members or kids of close family friends who came out. It’s be great if they didn’t need such close personal impetus but the reality is a hell of a lot of people do. And it’s not just limited to conservatives either.
Oh please! Cheney cared about gay people so he could have Thanksgiving dinner with family in between starting wars.
Thanks for this. I know you're getting flack, and I really understand how everyone feels, I despise Dick Cheney and his impact on this country and am not at all sad to see him depart. No one wants to see this man lauded or whitewashed for literally anything. But I do appreciate the history lesson. I was only 20 when those debates occurred, and I don't think I took any time out of my busy college schedule to watch, and if I did it certainly wasn't memorable.
It's as interesting to me that Cheney said what he said as it is that Lieberman said what he said. It's a reminder to me how utterly different things were in the 90s, and turn of the millennium... how mealy-mouthed and conservative dems were (familiar!) and how sort of "whip-lashy" the sentiment around queer rights and gay marriage was, specifically in the 2000s. I DO remember vividly the day that Barack Obama got elected and simultaneously Prop 8 passed in California. As an idealistic young person it was shocking to me, how could both be true? It completely took the wind out of what should have been a joyful day.
Anyway, at 27 in 2008 the VP debate of 2000 would have felt like ancient history, but now as a 40+ year old, 8 years is so recent. This data point is just one more piece of context that helps inform how we got from here to there and back again. One does not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to Dick Cheney. And you're not, I think that's clear. But it's always interesting and informative to see who is say what when and why, and what the response was, and it is unfortunately timely and relevant to the coverage you provide.
No one should forget Cheney's role in the foreign policy disasters of the 2000s which, as you indicate, reverberate into the present. However, there was a time when Republicans - some of them, anyway - stood for freedom. That position sometimes led them to do terrible things, but occasionally brave things, too. Thanks to Trump, we no longer have to concern ourselves with freedom-loving Republicans. They are all considered RINOs now.
Cheney’s eagerness to break the laws and traditions of the US and the international community far exceed the familial bond that led him to speak favorably of gays and gay rights.
I do wonder, given how suffocated I feel by the current administration, how we can maximize each states, and collectively all states fundamental decision-making power, and what does that really look like?
Hopefully not a bloody, civil war. The divisiveness must stop. We are human beings first. We must find common ground in the values and experiences that connect us, or at least as Cheney said, “tolerate”.
My condolences to the Cheney family. I didn’t like Mr. Cheney’s politics, but am sorry for their loss.
Didn’t like him, fake news about weapons of mass destruction, water boarding, huge Halliburton contracts, but he voted for Harris and was very critical of Trump.