“The one thing I wanted to see last night was Mary Cheney on stage with her family after the president’s speech. That would at least have given me some sign of hope, but it was just asking for too much from this crowd. And, I’ve considered myself a moderate of this crowd for a while now. It really bugs me. I’m RC, married with two little kids living in the burbs of Chicago and I can’t get over how much this bothers me because it wouldn’t have been something to get to me before.” Steve Waldman makes a similar point at Beliefnet:
What possible explanation is there here that doesn’t make the Cheneys look like ghoulish parents? I suppose we should wait for more information; perhaps she had an appendicitis attack and was immobile. More likely, either they discouraged her from appearing or she voluntarily exiled herself, not wanting to embarrass her dad, at which point dad should have said, “I love you. You belong up here with me.”
As I wrote earlier, perhaps Mary said she couldn’t wound her partner by going up their without her. If that was the case, the compassionate thing for the Cheneys to do would be take away the awkwardness by having the podium scene without spouses. They would have produced a slightly less cheery photo up but made a powerful statement about love, pride and family.
And this has nothing to do with one’s position on gay marriage. Having Mary Cheney up there would have in no way contradicted either Dick Cheney or George W. Bush’s policies on gay marriage. Bush should be asked about this, too. Powerful evidence was offered that, on a personal level, Bush is a compassionate man. So why didn’t he go to Cheney and say: “Hey, don’t sweat it Dick. Mary is part of our family. Don’t worry about the politics”?
But that’s not the way they are, is it? The Republicans talk about family values; but they believe in disappearing their loved ones when politics demands it.
EMAIL OF THE DAY II: “I always find historical analogies interesting and have been pondering how the current Bush Administration compares to governments in time of change. I think there is a Bismarck analogy, but not exactly the one you used.
I agree with your discussion of Bismarck’s domestic and foreign policies. He was a firm believer in German military might, but an even bigger proponent of a pragmatic diplomacy to achieve his goals. After German unification, he was the architect of a sort of collective security system for Europe. The Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and the other great powers called for the each to come each other’s aid if attacked by one of the signers. Thus, Germany removed the threat of a two front war and the other continental powers received some assurance from being invaded (again) from what was becoming the dominant economy in Europe. The arrangement left Britain blissfully untangled in continental matters and free to focus on Empire. In the late 1800s this arrangement resulted in the biggest rivalries being between England and France in Africa and England and Russia in central Asia. It left Germany out of the colonial game, but allowed it to rapidly grow it’s economy. Unfortunately, this arrangement required a lot of diplomatic dexterity on Germany’s part, some might say, a nuanced approach.
The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was cool to this approach and thought it limited Germany’s freedom of action in things like colonial policy. So, with the departure of Bismarck, Germany, now clearly the dominant economy in Europe, set out to make its way outside the nuanced collective security system. It let lapse the Reinsurance Treaty which set in motion a dynamic which eventually resulted in an alliance between France and Russia clearly aimed at Germany. France began a long term effort to establish an entente with Britain, up to now its chief rival. Germany, seeking to project its power overseas, began to build a major navy, finally pushing Britain, on the eve of the Great War, to an understanding with France and Russia.
The irony was that Germany, in trying to assert itself more forcefully, now found itself isolated, surrounded by the other powers, and less secure than ever.
Any resemblance to current events is purely coincidental.”
The Dish 