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"?

No doubt his arteries are clogged up with pounds of MacDonalds hamburgers and pizzas.

I at least hope he lives long enough to see JFK AND Hildabeast go down in flames. Then he can go down in flames, metaphorically speaking. I hope his big honkin' bible is printed on asbestos so he can carry it with him.

Give him a enema and send him home. The widow Hillary will gather the sympathy vote in 08'

sorry, I cant muster any sympathy. I'd feel the same if they said Saddam was gettin bypass surgery. It's a waste of time and money.

My prayers are for all those he lied to, hurt, and misused.

I wonder if this is heart damage from snorting cocaine.

Where can I send a happy meal?

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.
Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.
On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity."

[W]e were thrilled when Miller wheeled on his accuser and said that back in 1964 when the Atlanta Constitution had printed that so-called quote he'd marched down to the paper's offices and demanded and received a correction. He'd never say a thing like that. A great moment.
The next day that great moment became one of our greatest nightmares. Al May, the veteran political reporter for the Atlanta Constitution, interviewed Miller as Paul drove them and Shirley Miller to an event in rural Georgia. May made small talk for a little while. Then he sprang the trap. "Zell," he said, "I've talked to all the editors who were around back then, checked the morgue and the archives, and you never asked for a retraction and the paper never printed one."
"I know," Miller said, biting the words off the words like they were bitter herbs.
"So why'd you say all that in the debate last night?"
Miller leaned in close to May and said, "Because, Al, I was trying to mislead the people of Georgia."

"It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," [Andy] Card said. "I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children."

The Bush administration simply mismanaged Iraq. It dissolved the Iraqi army, throwing the country into chaos. That army was not gone and would have gladly showed up at the barracks for a paycheck. It pursued a highly punitive policy of firing and excluding members of the Baath Party, which was not done in so thorough-going a manner even to Nazis in post-war Germany. It canceled planned municipal elections, denying people any stake in their new "government," which was more or less appointed by the US. It put all its efforts into destroying Arab socialism in Iraq and creating a sudden free market, rather than paying attention to the preconditions for entrepreneurial activity, like security and services. It kept changing its policies - early on it was going to turn the country over to Ahmad Chalabi in 6 months. Then that plan was scotched and Paul Bremer was brought in to play MacArthur in Tokyo for a projected two or three years. Then that didn't work and there would be council-based elections. Then those wouldn't work and there would be a "transfer of sovereignty." All this is not to mention the brutal and punitive sieges of Fallujah and Najaf and the Abu Ghuraib torture scandal, etc., etc.

No American president has more desperately sought out a war with any country than George W. Bush sought out this war with Iraq. Only Polk's war on Mexico, also based on false pretexts, even comes close to the degree of crafty manipulation employed by Bush and Cheney to get up the Iraq war. Intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was deliberately and vastly exaggerated, producing a "nuclear threat" where there wasn't even so much as a single gamma ray to be registered. Innuendo and repetition were cleverly used to tie Saddam to Usama Bin Laden operationally, a link that all serious intelligence professionals deny.

So it wasn't a catastrophic success that caused the problem. It was that Iraq was being run at the upper levels by a handful of screw-ups who had all sorts of ulterior motives, and at least sometimes did not have the best interests of the country at heart. And Bush is the one who put them in charge.

To our brothers in the Islamic Army of Iraq. We wish to inform you that we totally understand the extreme rage that is boiling in your hearts regarding the French decision to ban the Hijab in their schools, and we share you your dissapointment. We officially condemned the French decision at the time... However, killing the two hostages without considering the grave consequences of such an act would be harmful to our cause and would isolate us from our international support... Our goal is to besiege the Americans politically in every spot of the world and this act is not serving that goal... You can see how the agents of the occupation are already using this incident against us... It is our duty as scholars to point out to our brothers what is wrong and what is right... France as an anti-occupation country has been helpful to our cause... You might say that the French stance is not an altruistic one and that they have their own political interests that caused them to disagree with the Americans, and I am not going to say that is not true but it is also our goal to turn them against each other to serve our cause so France has a strategic importance for us.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

We step forward by expressing tolerance and respect for all God’s children, regardless of their differences and choices. At the same time, because every child deserves a mother and a father, we step forward by recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman.

They say that every cloud has a silver lining. The kidnapping of the two French journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot and the blackmailing of the French government by the kidnappers to force the government to repeal its new law against wearing the Islamic veil in school has two objectives. The first is to show that no Western country, no democracy -- even one that, like France, opposed the American intervention in Iraq -- is sheltered from the fanaticism of the soldiers of the "holy war" launched on September 11, 2001 by Al Qaida. The second is to show that France, despite or even because of its status as the largest Muslim state in Europe, has become a preferred target of this ideological war. . . . [But the terrorists have missed their mark.] Even if the current consensus in France remains fragile, even if ambiguities remain, even if the law against wearing the Islamic veil remains for many Muslims a strike at their religious liberty, we can do nothing but rejoice to see French Muslims on the front line of defense of the Republic.

Tuesday night I ventured over to Herald Square, where delegates had to be escorted into the Garden by riot police. An angry throng of demonstrators was lined along 32nd Street to "greet" them with screams, jeers, placards, raised middle fingers and the vilest form of name-calling. The bile and hate was palpable and, as a lifelong New Yorker, I found the offensive display hugely embarrassing. This is not how a world-class city behaves.

There were at least 200 people at the corner where I was located, but one woman in particular caught my attention. She was standing beside me, yacking away on her cell phone, when she would pause periodically to scream at passing delegates (at decible levels I thought only a garbage truck could manage) "Fuck you!!! Get out!!!" When I finally turned to her -- she was practically yelling in my ear -- and told her to "chill out," her eyes almost exploded with anger. I reminded her that these people were just human beings and entitled to a modicum of respect. That prompted her to unleash a vicious tirade against me that was mostly incomprehensible. Sensing that this was getting ugly, I quietly made my way out of the crowd, with the woman screaming after me "shame on you!!!"

Every group -- left wing or right wing -- has its unhinged fanatics, but the Bush-hating mob that decended on New York this week is clearly in a class by itself. Everyone ought to have the right to express their dissent, but what I've seen so far has less to do with exercising Constitutional rights than it has to do with intimidation, shakedowns and unadulterated hate.