Posted on 05/02/2006 1:10:54 PM PDT by meandog
New York, N.Y. – In her new memoir, NOW IT'S MY TURN(Simon & Schuster/Threshold Editions, 2006), Mary Cheney writes that when she told her parents she was gay, the first words out of her father’s mouth “were exactly the ones that I wanted to hear: ‘You’re my daughter, and I love you, and I just want you to be happy.’”
VANITY FAIR editor Todd Purdum reports that Mary Cheney tells her story in a voice very much like her father’s, and that she came out to her parents when she was a junior in high school, on a day when, after breaking up with her first girlfriend, she skipped school, ran a red light, and crashed the family car. Cheney writes that her mother hugged her, but then burst into tears, worried that she would face a life of pain and prejudice.
When Purdum asks the vice president whether he thinks gay people are born that way, Cheney scrunches up his mouth, fixes him with a look that says “Nice try,” then says: “I’m not going to get into that. Those are deeply personal questions. You can ask.”
Mary Cheney tells Purdum that her father “has very little tolerance for bullshit, pardon my French.” She also says that one common reaction from people who have read the manuscript of her book is “‘Wow, you guys really have this close-knit, loving family,’ and it always strikes me as ‘Yeah, of course we do.’ It was very surprising to me that people would think we didn’t.”
When Purdum asks Cheney if he is fatalistic about his heart disease, Cheney says, “I am. I don’t even think about it most of the time. You do those things a prudent man would do, and I live with it.” Asked what he would have for breakfast at Nora’s Fish Creek Inn, his favorite pre-fishing spot in Wilson, Wyoming, Cheney responds without missing a beat: “I’d probably have two eggs over easy, sausage and hash browns,” then hastens to add that that is not his normal breakfast. “The day I go fishing, I get off my diet,” he says.” At a roundtable lunch with reporters a couple of years ago, two who were present tell Purdum that Cheney cut his buffalo steak in bite-size pieces the moment it arrived, then proceeded to salt each side of each piece.
Cheney tells Purdum that he has not changed over the years, but perhaps many of his contemporaries think he has “because of my associations over the years, or because I came across as a reasonable guy, people have one view of me that was not necessarily an accurate reflection of my philosophy or my view of the world.”
Purdum asks Cheney if, during his “darkest night,” he has even “a little doubt” about the administration’s course. “No,” he tells Purdum. “I think we’ve done what needed to be done.” Of the debate over whether or not the administration hyped the pre-war intelligence, Cheney says, “In the end, you can argue about the quality of the intelligence and so forth, but ... I look at that whole spectrum of possibilities and options, and I think we did the right thing.”
Cheney rejects the caricature of him as the power behind the throne, insisting, “I think we have created a system that works for this president and for me, in terms of my ability to be able to contribute and participate in the process.” When Purdum says that the cartoon characterization of him must not be accurate, Cheney says, “My image might be better out there, this caricature you talk about might be avoided, if I spent more time as a public figure trying to improve my image, but that’s not why I’m here.”
Purdum reports that Cheney travels with a chemical-biological suit at all times. When he gave his friend Robin West and his twin children a ride to the White House a couple of years ago, West commented on the fact that Cheney’s motorcade varied its daily path. “And he said, ‘Yeah, we take different routes so that “The Jackal” can’t get me,’” West tells Purdum. “And then there was this big duffel bag in the middle of the backseat, and I said, ‘What’s that? It’s not very roomy in here.’ And [Cheney] said, ‘No, because it’s a chemical-biological suit,’ and he looked at it and said, ‘Robin, there’s only one. You lose.’”
Purdum talks with former New York Times reporter and former executive editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, James Naughton, who asks of Cheney: “Does he acknowledge that he is not as pleasant as he used to be?” Naughton knew Cheney as a fellow prankster during the 1976 campaign, and all but sighs in search of an explanation as to why he is so different now. “I guess I would like to believe,” he says, “without any evidence to support it, that coming very close to death has somehow compelled him to act as though he only has so much breath and so much life, that he’s only got so much time to accomplish what he has to do. But the public figure is nothing like the private one that I remember.”
Gerald Ford tells Purdum: “He may have changed a bit, but that was required for the change of circumstances.” Ford, who will turn 93 in July, adds, “Times change, and people change as a result of that.”
“If you’re looking for a change from one point to another, being vice president is sui generis,” Lynne Cheney tells Purdum. “It’s not quite like any other job.”
The June issue of Vanity Fair hits newsstands in New York and L.A. on May 3 and nationally on May 9.
Because he's a self-aggrandizing moron who ran such an absurdly offensive (and carpetbagging) campaign last time around, that he freed his Democrat opponent to abandon his own slam-dunk campaign and run around the country doing fundraisers for other Democrat candidates. Among Alan's more buffoonish statements was that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because the children wouldn't know who their biological parents were and could inadvertently end up committing incest. Huh??? The idiot is so obsessed with homosexuality (bordering on Fred Phelps' level of obsession) that he can't even manage basic logic when discussing related issues. Can't even remember that married heterosexuals routinely adopt children who won't know who one or both of their biological parents were.
Bad policy to start a post with a statement you can't conceivably know a thing about.
But then rather than refute what I said, you tell me the kid couldn't have written it because it was too good! Coached or not isn't this issue.
So at some point, if you chose, YOU could be a homosexual?
If someone were trying to gain government benefits and recognition for their mistress, or market the virtues of adultery to children, we would be equally outraged. Promotion of any immorality is an outrage. That's not to say all sins are equal. Would you rather be lied to, stabbed, or raped? Clearly they are not equal. There are worse things than consensual adult homosexuality; but right now in today's climate, that's a big threat to our social structure and stability. Divorce, adultery, etc. are also threats. The difference is that everyone still thinks those are bad things. Adulterers, when caught, usually have enough sense to be embarrassed and ashamed.
Also, with immoral heterosexual behavior you do not have the added fact that it is biologically unnatural. Embracing homosexuality is embracing an absurdity. To change society in that way is to fundamentally change all relationships.
Keep in mind, you fight the war of the hour. You can talk endlessly about the evils of Hitler and it would be a good thing for you to do. But it won't help you with the evils of Osama bin Laden. You remember past evils so you don't repeat them. But you give most of your time and attention to the threat at hand.
My problem with liberal Christians is that they use the fact that everybody sins as an excuse to claim sin doesn't matter. We should all repent of our sins and turn to God who has graciously provided a solution to our sin problems.
Too many people offer the wrong medicine because they have a wrong diagnosis. Today's probem: No one has the courage to speak the truth about sin. On the rare occasion someone speaks up, he gets shot down, often in the name of godly love. Those who think that's godly love haven't met our holy God. Love of God is love of Truth and righteousness. Love of neighbor is meaningless unless it includes sharing the truth of the gospel, that God sent His Son into the world to save sinners.
Disapproval is a right response to bad behavior. The goal is that the discomfort of disapproval will ultimately lead to a change in behavior. It's the conscience effect. Feeling bad about bad behavior is a deterrent to do bad and a motive to do good. It's a guide. No guilt, no remorse, no change. Ignorance may be bliss but it isn't true happiness, and it ends in the blind leading the blind.
I could if I was a perverted, sexually deviat person but I'm not.
It has nothing to do with a conscious decision to be deviant. Either you find the same sex attractive and a turn-on or you don't. I could NEVER, EVER be attracted to another woman. Just the thought of it repulses me. That's how I was born.
Your post is totally out of touch with reality.
Neither of which Keyes did, of course.
You believe "born gay"?
Homosexuality is a choice.
I was being a bit fatalistic. .. What else can you say or do? You can't disown your daughter because she acts selfishly or stupidly or immorally. Youre between a rock and a hard place.
Yes I do. Hardwired.
That's your opinion.
Respectfully, I disagree...because, in the eyes of God, all sin can be forgiven. If all can be forgiven, then logistically, all are equal in the sight of God.
My problem with liberal Christians is that they use the fact that everybody sins as an excuse to claim sin doesn't matter. We should all repent of our sins and turn to God who has graciously provided a solution to our sin problems.
My problem with liberal (and fundamental) Christians is that they totally ignore certain kinds of sin (the sin of pride, for example, which both kinds ignore). Also, it seems that too far often fundamentalists are too quick to judge the sinner into Hell (God's job), while liberals are too far often oblivious to any kind of wrong doing ("after all, Clinton's lie about Monica was to protect his wife")
Too many people offer the wrong medicine because they have a wrong diagnosis. Today's probem: No one has the courage to speak the truth about sin. On the rare occasion someone speaks up, he gets shot down, often in the name of godly love. Those who think that's godly love haven't met our holy God. Love of God is love of Truth and righteousness.
Well, I cannot disagree here.
Then I assume your opinion is different. You must be one of those who believes we are "born" that way. Any proof?
Do you believe born a thief? Born to kill? Born to cheat?
You believe that people are helpless against their baser choices? That outside influences have no correlation? There's no such thing as conditioning? You believe that sexual urges are genetic? That immorality is genetic?
I know gay people that disagree with you. Sexual orientation is a choice. Deviant behaviour is conditioned, a learned response. It is not the same thing as genes dictating skin colour, eye colour or hair colour. But homosexuals with an agenda will keep trying to push that flawed reasoning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.