OH, SWEET EGO. So, the first Director of Public Policy Planning at State Department would rather be at home. Oh, to have so much, then decide it’s just not enough.
Ann-Marie Slaughter writes that admitting “I want to be at home” was one of the hardest sentences for her to write in her defensive, self-indulgent Atlantic Monthly article. An admission that didn’t make the first drafts of the article, because she was evidently guilty or embarrassed about it. It took me a couple of drafts of this paragraph to keep the snark level low, because reading and listening to another privileged feminist professional opine that rising to her power position just doesn’t afford enough family time is just too mindnumbingly annoying. This was a surprise to her? That Slaughter spent her entire adult life without knowing her own personal priorities until now is really something coming from a woman in her 50s (which I am as well).
I can’t wait to read her article on menopause.
One suggestion I’ll offer to Ms. Slaughter. Just because you think something doesn’t mean you need to share it.
But the Atlantic article is getting so much buzz that the New York Times, and Slate.com decided to get some traffic love in their piece Talking About the Atlantic Piece That Everyone Is Talking About.
May the gods preserve us from privileged feminists who get their dream job then decide they want to go home.
And what is Ms. Slaughter talking about? What “generation of women” has told the “younger generation” you can have it all? We’re both far younger than Gloria Steinem, but went through the fire of the modern feminist revolution, and I don’t remember anyone telling me I could have it all; and I had a brother politician who was one of the Republican co-sponsors of the first E.R.A. bill in the Missouri State Senate, also debating Phyllis Schlafly on the finer points of feminism. What I was told is that I would be afforded opportunities comparable to men but I’d have to fight for them and that I wouldn’t be judged for being a professional woman, instead of focusing solely on motherhood and family, but could also actually choose neither of the traditional roles once expected. There wasn’t a feminist litmus test. Boy was that a whopper, because choosing to be childfree, I took a barrage of crap for decades, though none of it made a dent. No one ever told me it would be easy, fair or financially rewarding either, though economics is a basic premise of equality. Following your bliss isn’t for the faint of heart and feminism doesn’t guarantee the road won’t be rough, either.
I also knew I was responsible for what I chose and whining about what I didn’t get along the way wasn’t part of the deal. Well, you could whine, but nobody had to listen. Yet, here we all are listening.
There is not a bigger waste of time in the second decade of the 21st century than still hearing or reading from feminists the case of “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” That Slaughter engages in trumpeting the importance of flexibility in the workplace, then says not even that would coax her to stay, is worthless to everyone.
Yet the decision to step down from a position of power?to value family over professional advancement, even for a time?is directly at odds with the prevailing social pressures on career professionals in the United States. One phrase says it all about current attitudes toward work and family, particularly among elites. In Washington, ?leaving to spend time with your family? is a euphemism for being fired.
Talk about reaching to make your case. Excuse me, but ?leaving to spend time with your family? more likely means you’ve had a Larry Craig – John Edwards scandal and hope the media will buy it.
This understanding is so ingrained that when Flournoy announced her resignation last December, TheNew York Times covered her decision as follows:
Ms. Flournoy?s announcement surprised friends and a number of Pentagon officials, but all said they took her reason for resignation at face value and not as a standard Washington excuse for an official who has in reality been forced out. ?I can absolutely and unequivocally state that her decision to step down has nothing to do with anything other than her commitment to her family,? said Doug Wilson, a top Pentagon spokesman. ?She has loved this job and people here love her.
Think about what this ?standard Washington excuse? implies: it is so unthinkable that an official would actually step down to spend time with his or her family that this must be a cover for something else. How could anyone voluntarily leave the circles of power for the responsibilities of parenthood? Depending on one?s vantage point, it is either ironic or maddening that this view abides in the nation?s capital, despite the ritual commitments to ?family values? that are part of every political campaign. Regardless, this sentiment makes true work-life balance exceptionally difficult. But it cannot change unless top women speak out.
Only recently have I begun to appreciate the extent to which many young professional women feel under assault by women my age and older. After I gave a recent speech in New York, several women in their late 60s or early 70s came up to tell me how glad and proud they were to see me speaking as a foreign-policy expert. A couple of them went on, however, to contrast my career with the path being traveled by ?younger women today.? One expressed dismay that many younger women ?are just not willing to get out there and do it.? Said another, unaware of the circumstances of my recent job change: ?They think they have to choose between having a career and having a family.?
I don’t care what any woman does with her life, but when she decides what she’s got isn’t what she really wants, I’d appreciate it if she’d not globalize it into a feminist whine about how woman can’t have it all. Newsflash bitches, men can’t either!
Ms. Slaughter seems to have brought her children in to explain just how important her job was and the sacrifices required from her family because of it, which her husband gladly supported, from what I can understand. But leave that aside. The reason she left isn’t about the teen needing her, it’s about how much she needs them.
Pause and let that one sink in.
Is that possibly the message here? That women would simply rather be at home, because it’s all just too hard thinking about what your teenager is doing when you’re at work? Well, hells bells, thank the gods for Slaughter’s memo, because younger women can now no longer expect women who have made it to stay there and continue to change things for the next generation.
It’s women like Slaughter who can tell the best story about the hardship of working moms, devise a way through to help women who have to work, because the boys aren’t the right spokesperson. Instead she wrote an article about how power demands too much from girls. Oh, but she’s not the only one!
Since it’s all just too much for the privileged feminists it’s pretty clear women coming up are screwed.
I simply cannot believe we’re still talking at this level.
The real truth is somewhere between boredom and emotional sentimentality, along with the privilege of having reached her dream position and deciding it wasn’t all that. Slaughter and other dynamo women made it, but judged “it” wasn’t worth keeping when compared to the tugs of home and hearth. It couldn’t be any clearer that the burning desire to run the world and dominate it that men have deep inside doesn’t seem to run in women.
Sounds to me the biggest mistake Slaughter made was not starting her own small business so she could craft her own hours and make the choices she wants.
No wonder we don’t have a female president yet. Our most brilliant females are still clutching 1950s fireplace fantasies out of “Mad Men,” along with guilt and their own emotional needs about being at home, deciding to leave a demanding job that her family understands is about changing the world, but she’s just not that into it anymore now that she’s actually doing it.
Duty doesn’t figure into it for these women, we’re being told, like it does with men. However, American society needs these women, who now we find out aren’t up to it, making it better, more equal, with more females leading so the scale can tip toward getting real healthcare that works, understanding the poor’s plight, that programs around the world to help women make America more secure, the list is endless. Where women tread things change dramatically, because no one has a voice like a woman speaking about economic equality, family challenges, including parental care, etc.
If success and reaching your dream job, while having a family at home support you, isn’t enough for feminists, then I honestly don’t know what any of it, the Ledbetter Act, equality, pay equity, having female governors, female senators and world leaders is all about.
I’ll guess we’ll all just have to take Hillary’s no for an answer, then make sure Elizabeth Warren is really up to it, before hoping a female Democratic president could actually happen.
What an embarrassment of riches elite feminists have achieved, only to find out it’s all just too much, the price too high, no matter what currency is applied.
Maybe conservatives can give feminists some advice, because evidently they’ve had this figured out for a long time.
Regardless of your feelings about dad (or mom, or that other sister - or Mary for that matter), this is helpful, as is Dick Cheney's response.
In an open letter to G20 and European leaders, 52 experts in the financial industry, including seven former executives from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, urged the world’s leaders to pass a financial transactions tax (a small tax on stock trades). The letter states that “these taxes will rebalance financial markets away from a short-term trading mentality that has contributed to instability in our financial markets.” Even a small tax could raise large amounts of revenue and many of the tax’s proponents say that the money could go to the world’s poor. This week, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) told ThinkProgress that a transactions tax would be beneficial for the U.S. economy.
Damn, I love all this; these folks are sincerely bad ass activists. In the theme of ?nothing left to lose?, they understand that they, and their values and solutions must prevail...or else.[...]
Read The Full Article:
Right-wing media are touting a Washington Post Fact Checker article alleging that the Obama campaign "failed to make its case" in a new ad claiming that Romney "shipped jobs" overseas. But a different Post article pointing to data from the Securities and Exchange Commission has affirmed that Bain Capital, with Romney as head, "owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas."
Wash. Post: Bain Capital "Owned Companies That Were Pioneers In The Practice Of Shipping Work From The United States To Overseas Call Centers And Factories." From a June 21 Washington Post article:
During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Bain's foray into outsourcing began in 1993 when the private equity firm took a stake in Corporate Software Inc., or CSI, after helping to finance a $93 million buyout of the firm. CSI, which catered to technology companies like Microsoft, provided a range of services including outsourcing of customer support. Initially, CSI employed U.S. workers to provide these services but by the mid-1990s was setting up call centers outside the country.
Two years after Bain invested in the firm, CSI merged with another enterprise to form a new company called Stream International Inc. Stream immediately became active in the growing field of overseas calls centers. Bain was initially a minority shareholder in Stream and was active in running the company, providing "general executive and management services," according to SEC filings.
By 1997, Stream was running three tech-support call centers in Europe and was part of a call center joint venture in Japan, an SEC filing shows. "The Company believes that the trend toward outsourcing technical support occurring in the U.S. is also occurring in international markets," the SEC filing said.
In addition to taking an interest in companies that specialized in outsourcing services, Bain also invested in firms that moved or expanded their own operations outside of the United States. [The Washington Post, 6/21/12]
Obama Campaign Ad: At Bain Capital, Romney "Shipped Jobs To China And Mexico." Anew ad from the Obama campaign accused Romney of outsourcing jobs overseas during his time at Bain Capital. From the Obama For America ad:
VOICEOVER: Running for governor, Mitt Romney campaigned as a job creator. ... But as a corporate raider, he shipped jobs to China and Mexico. As governor, he did the same thing: outsourcing state jobs to India. [YouTube, 6/20/12]
Wash. Post'sGlennKessler: "The Obama Campaign Fails To Make Its Case." The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler wrote a blog on June 21 that gave the Obama campaign ad "Four Pinocchios," writing:
The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of "corporate raider" to its examples of alleged outsourcing. Simply repeating the same debunked claims won't make them any more correct. [The Washington Post, The Fact Checker, 6/21/12]
Fox Nation: "WaPo's Fact Checker Slaps Obama Ad With 4 Pinocchios." In a June 21 post linking to Kessler's article, Fox Nation posted a video of the Obama campaign ad and titled the post: "WaPo's fact Checker slaps Obama Ad with 4 Pinocchios." [Fox Nation, 6/21/12]
HotAir: "Four Pinocchios To Team Obama For 'Corporate Raider' Slur." From a June 21 post on Ed Morrissey's blog, HotAir:
One would think that Team Obama would have learned a lesson from its previous attempt to demonize private equity, which flopped so badly that even its own surrogates defended Mitt Romney's "sterling business career." Instead, the Obama campaign shifted its attack slightly and called Romney a "corporate raider." Apparently, everything Barack Obama and his team know about the investment community they learned from Wall Street, and every private-equity executive is simply Gordon Gekko in better attire. Glenn Kessler rips the charge in his latest fact-check at the Washington Post [HotAir, 6/21/12]
TheBlaze: "Four Pinocchios: Washington Post Savages Team Obama's Latest Anti-Romney Ad." From a June 21 post on TheBlaze:
Because the previous attacks on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's business record have been, you know, so successful, team Obama has decided to combine all of their anti-Romney/business talking points into one 30-second ad:
The only problem with this commercial is that it's pretty much false. Even the Washington Post (the Washington Post!) gave it a big, fat "F" for being misleading and dishonest. [TheBlaze, 6/21/12]
Newsmax: "Washington Post: 4 Pinocchios for Obama's Newest Anti-Romney Ad." From a June 21 post by Newsmax:
A new anti-Romney ad put out by President Barack Obama's re-election campaign is being slammed for being "misleading, unfair, and untrue." The Washington Post's fact checker awarded it four Pinocchios, designating the ads claims as "whoppers."
The new ad claims that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney was a "corporate raider" who sent jobs overseas to China and Mexico when at Bain Capital and sent state jobs to India when he served as governor of Massachusetts.
The Post noted that the claims of outsourcing by Bain and Romney when he was governor are "overblown." [Newsmax, 6/21/12]
Fox News attacked the food stamp program for its increasing enrollment and costs, accused the program of facilitating fraud, and expressed astonishment that states are rewarded for increasing enrollment. However, enrollment in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) increased due to the recession; there are only about 1 percent of cases that are found to be fraudulent, and the state awards for enrollment date back to the Bush administration.
Fox Highlighted Increased Enrollment And Cost Of SNAP In Recent Years. During the June 22 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, guest co-anchor Jamie Colby highlighted statistics showing the increase in SNAP cost in recent years:
COLBY: The program has ballooned in the last couple of years and it may be going to the wrong people. Check this out: a reported 46 million people get food stamps right now. That turns out to be 1 in 7 Americans. 27 million more than got them just a decade ago. And the overall cost is skyrocketing too. It's doubled since 2008, quadrupled over the past decade. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 6/22/12]
CBPP: "The Record-Setting SNAP Participation Levels Are Consistent With The Extraordinarily Deep And Prolonged Nature Of The Recession And The Weak, Lagging Recovery." In an April 18, 2012 report, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) stated:
After unemployment insurance, SNAP historically has been the most responsive federal program in assisting families and communities during economic downturns. This downturn has been no exception: national SNAP enrollment is at an all-time high.
The record-setting SNAP participation levels are consistent with the extraordinarily deep and prolonged nature of the recession and the weak, lagging recovery. Long-term unemployment reached its highest levels on record in 2010 and has remained at these unprecedented levels ever since.
CBPP's report included the following graph:
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]
EPI: "SNAP Swelled Because The Economy Entered The Worst Recession Since The Great Depression." A February 2 Economic Policy Institute post stated:
SNAP swelled because the economy entered the worst recession since the Great Depression and remains severely depressed even 18 months after the official recovery began. [Economic Policy Institute, 2/2/12]
CBPP: Growth "Reflects The Fact That More Households Are Becoming Eligible Because Of The Recession." According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the "rapid caseload growth primarily reflects the fact that more households are becoming eligible because of the recession." CBPP added: "SNAP caseloads can grow for two reasons: because more households are qualifying for the program and enrolling or because a larger share of eligible households are signing up. Both of these occurred in recent years." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]
CBO: "Spending [On SNAP] In 2022 Is Projected To Be About 23 Percent Less Than It Was In 2011." In an April 2012 report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that:
Spending (mostly for benefits and administrative costs) on SNAP in 2022 will be about $73 billion, CBO projects. In inflation-adjusted dollars, spending in 2022 is projected to be about 23 percent less than it was in 2011 but still about 60 percent higher than it was in 2007. [Congressional Budget Office, April 2012]
In the overview of its report, CBO included the following graph showing a projected decline in SNAP spending:
[Congressional Budget Office, 4/19/12]
CBO: SNAP Enrollment Will Decline Over The 2012-2022 Period, "Reflecting An Improved Economic Situation." From CBO's April 2012 report:
The number of people receiving SNAP benefits will begin to slowly decline at the end of fiscal year 2014, CBO expects, reflecting an improved economic situation and a declining unemployment rate. Nevertheless, the number of people receiving SNAP benefits will remain high by historical standards, CBO estimates. That is partly because of a growing U.S. population and thus a greater number of potential SNAP participants. [Congressional Budget Office, April 2012]
In the overview of its report, CBO included the following graph showing a decline in SNAP enrollment after 2014:
[Congressional Budget Office, 4/19/12]
"Fox Fact": "More Than $750 Million In Federal Food Aid Is Spent Fraudulently Each Year." The following "Fox Fact" was displayed during the segment:
[Fox News, America's Newsroom, 6/22/12]
"Fox Fact" Highlighted Food Stamp Fraud Among Retailers. The following "Fox Fact" was also displayed during the segment:
[Fox News, America's Newsroom, 6/22/12]
Reuters: Fraud "Accounts For Just 1 Percent Of Food Stamp Benefits." From a February 6 Reuters article titled "U.S. targets food stamp fraud as election looms":
Kevin Concannon, U.S. Department of Agriculture undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, said his agency was doubling efforts to prevent fraud, which accounts for just 1 percent of food stamp benefits, but equals about $750 million each year.
"This is $750 million that isn't being used to provide food to individuals and families and that issue isn't lost on us," Concannon said in a recent phone interview.
"We want to maintain the confidence of American taxpayers because everyone is challenged in this economy - the payers as well as the folks who are benefiting from the program," he said. [Reuters, 2/6/12]
CBPP: "SNAP Payment Error Rates At All-Time Lows." The Center on Budget and Policy Report stated:
Despite the recent rapid caseload growth, USDA reports that states achieved a record-low SNAP error rate in fiscal year 2010 (see Figure 4.) Only 3 percent of all SNAP benefits represented overpayments, meaning they either went to ineligible households or went to eligible households but in excessive amounts, and more than 98 percent of SNAP benefits were issued to eligible households.
CBPP's report included the following graph:
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]
Fiscal Times: The USDA Has "Has Aggressively Implemented A Number Of Measures To Reduce The Prevalence Of Trafficking ... From 4 Percent Down To 1 Percent." A May 24 article from The Fiscal Times reported that the Obama administration "took steps to go after merchants and beneficiaries" who illegally "traffic in food stamp debit cards." The article continued:
Trafficking is an illegal activity punishable by disqualification from the program, fines, and even criminal prosecution. Over the last 15 years, the department has aggressively implemented a number of measures to reduce the prevalence of trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as it is now called, from 4 percent down to 1 percent. [The Fiscal Times, 5/24/12]
Fox's Colby Surprised That States "Get A Bonus" For Encouraging People To Sign Up For Aid. From the June 22 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): One of the amendments I offered was to quit giving states incentives for how many people they sign up because that encourages them to sign up anybody regardless of their wealth. So they've eliminated, in effect -- in most of the states now, have eliminated the requirement -- assets, that you can't get free food if you have substantial assets.
COLBY: But, Senator Sessions, before we go, you're telling us that states actually get a bonus for signing people up for aid?
SESSIONS (R-AL): Absolutely they are. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 6/22/12]
Food Stamp Awards Won By States Have Been Given At Least As Early As 2003. The Department of Agriculture's program improvement page for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the official, current term for the food stamp program) shows that payment accuracy bonuses to states started in fiscal year 2003, and application processing timeliness and program access index bonuses started in fiscal year 2006. [U.S. Department of Agriculture, accessed 10/2/11]
USDA: State Food Stamp Awards Authorized By 2002 Farm Bill. From the Department of Agriculture's press release announcing the states receiving an award for their food stamp programs during fiscal year 2006:
Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner today announced that a total of $18 million will be awarded to States that provided exceptional administration of the Food Stamp Program in FY 2006.
"As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Food Stamp Act, we recognize the meaningful work and significant efforts of our state and community partners to improve the nutritional health and wellbeing of children, the elderly and their families," said Conner. "I commend these States for their outstanding efforts to alleviate hunger for our most vulnerable citizens."
As authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill, USDA awards $12 million in high performance bonuses among the eight States that have excelled in the area of program access. These States have the best, or most improved, program access index. The index is the percentage of households below 125 percent of poverty that are participating in the program. The following States will receive awards for best program access index: Maine, Missouri, Tennessee, and Oregon. The following States will receive awards for most improved program access index: Massachusetts, Mississippi, Vermont, and Maryland. [U.S. Department of Agriculture, 9/20/07]
2002 Farm Bill Required USDA To Give Bonuses To States With High Levels Of Food Stamp Program Performance. From USDA's explanation of Section 4120 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002:
For FY 2003, the current enhanced funding system that is based on error rates is replaced with a performance system that will award $48 million in bonuses each year to States with high or improved performance for actions taken to correct errors, reduce the rates of error, improve eligibility determinations, or other activities that demonstrate effective administration as determined by USDA. USDA will establish guidance for awarding FY 2003 and FY 2004 bonuses by October 1, 2002 and issue regulations regarding the criteria for bonus awards for FY 2005 and succeeding years. The Secretary will solicit ideas from State agencies and organizations that represent State interests prior to issuing proposed regulations. [U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2/16/12]
Bush-Era Department Of Agriculture Set Out Regulations Stating That Bonuses Would Be Based In Part On "The Highest ... Participant Access Rates." From the Department of Agriculture's final rule on "Food Stamp Program: High Performance Bonuses":
In the NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rule Making], section 275.24(a)(1) proposed that FNS [Food and Nutrition Services] would award bonuses totaling $48 million for each fiscal year to State agencies that show high or most improved performance. Section 275.24(b) proposed to make awards to 30 States in 7 categories: the lowest and most improved combined payment error rates ($24 million); the lowest and most improved negative error rates ($6 million); the highest and most improved participant access rates (PAR) ($12 million)
(3) Program access index (PAI). FNS will divide $12 million among the 8 States with the highest and the most improved level of participation as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(iii) of this section. The PAI is the ratio of participants to persons with incomes below 125 percent of poverty, as calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section (the PAI was formerly known as the participant access rate (PAR)).
(i) High program access index. FNS will provide bonuses to the 4 States with the highest PAI as determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section. [Federal Register, 2/7/05]
To see Fox previously attacking President Obama for food stamp awards, click here
At some point, either the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the National Labor Relations Board were bound to issue a ruling that the subjects affected didn't like, and they would resort to claiming that the recess appointments were[...]
Read The Full Article:
Dems and Affordable Care Act supporters at odds on strategy if Supreme Court strikes down all or part of the law next week. [...]
Read The Full Article:
Click here to view this media
Politico on Thursday suspended their veteran White House correspondent after several conservative websites complained that he had observed that presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared to be more comfortable when he's around white people.
During a Thursday discussion with MSNBC's Martin Bashir about why Romney was trailing President Barack Obama among minorities, Politico's Joe Williams, who is black, noted that the candidate was most relaxed and unscripted on Fox & Friends where the people were white like him.
"It?s very interesting that he does so many appearances on Fox & Friends," Williams pointed out. "And it?s unscripted. It?s the only time they let Mitt off the leash, so to speak."
He continued: "But it also points out a larger problem he?s got to solve if he wants to be successful come this fall: Romney is very, very comfortable, it seems, with people who are like him. That?s one of the reasons why he seems so stiff and awkward in some town hall settings, why he can?t relate to people other than that."
"But when he comes on Fox & Friends, they?re like him. They?re white folks who are very much relaxed in their own company."
In a report on their website on Friday, Politico pointed to conservative websites Washington Free Beacon and Breitbart.com for flagging the remarks on MSNBC and tweets where Williams allegedly mocked Romney's wealth.
"Regrettably, an unacceptable number of Joe Williams's public statements on cable and Twitter have called into question his commitment to this responsibility," founders John Harris and Jim VandeHei wrote in a memo to Politico staff. "His comment about Governor Romney earlier today on MSNBC fell short of our standards for fairness and judgment in an especially unfortunate way."
"This appearance came in the context of other remarks on Twitter that, cumulatively, require us to make clear that our standards are serious, and so are the consequences for disregarding them. This is true for all POLITICO journalists, including an experienced and well-respected voice like Joe Williams."
"POLITICO journalists have a clear and inflexible responsibility to cover politics fairly and free of partisan bias," they added.
According to The New York Times, Romney has appeared on Fox & Friends 21 times in the last year alone.
Mary Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, married her longtime partner, Heather Poe, in Washington D.C. today. In a statement provided to the Daily Caller, “both the former vice president and his wife were ‘delighted’ that the couple could have their ‘relationship recognized.’” Unfortunately, because the state of Virginia amended its constitution in 2006 to limit marriage to one man and one woman, the couples’ license will not be recognized when they return to their home in Virginia where they have two children.