OC Delegation interest group ratings

As a service to Red County / OC Blog readers, here is the first summary of three legislative ratings from some of California's special interest groups.   I list the score from 2005, then 2006, then rank by the average score with the more "conservative" scores at top and the more "liberal" scores at bottom (hey, this is "Red County" right?). 

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

California Chamber of Commerce – this is a basic measure of how pro-business a lawmaker is, defined here as against higher taxes and more regulations.  The exception being that in 2006, the Chamber uncharacteristically supported AB 1381, a bill that stripped power away from the elected board of the L.A. Unified School District only to give power to the teachers union and the Mayor of Los Angeles.  The good provisions AB 1381 have since been ruled illegal by the courts as predicted by many Republicans, most of whom who voted "no."  http://www.calchamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/0C0BD5A6-D2F5-4A70-9F77-97C12A84C3E2/0/102006_vote.pdf

	2005	2006	Avg.
R- Bob Huff	100.0%	94.1%	97.1%
R- Mimi Walters	100.0%	94.1%	97.1%
R- Chuck DeVore	100.0%	94.1%	97.1%
R- Todd Spitzer	92.0%	100.0%	96.0%
R- Van Tran	92.0%	97.1%	94.5%
R- Dick Ackerman	93.0%	93.8%	93.4%
R- Lynn Daucher	92.0%	94.1%	93.1%
R- Bill Morrow	93.0%	92.9%	92.9%
R- Tom Harman	91.0%	92.9%	91.9%
R- Bob Margett	86.0%	93.8%	89.9%
D- Tom Umberg	33.0%	50.0%	41.5%
D- Rudy Bermudez	17.0%	23.5%	20.3%
D- Joe Dunn	13.0%	18.8%	15.9%

The Sierra Club’s 2006 legislative rankings included plusses for votes raising taxes and increasing burdensome regulations.  Low-ranking lawmakers should be considered pro-jobs and pro-free-market.  http://www.sierraclubcalifornia.org/news/documents/SCCRepCrdfall06web.pdf

	2005	2006	Avg.
R- Mimi Walters	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
R- Chuck DeVore	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
R- Bob Huff	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
R- Dick Ackerman	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
R- Bill Morrow	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
R- Bob Margett	0.0%	11.0%	5.5%
R- Van Tran	10.0%	9.0%	9.5%
R- Todd Spitzer	20.0%	0.0%	10.0%
R- Lynn Daucher	20.0%	9.0%	14.5%
R- Tom Harman	30.0%	0.0%	15.0%
D- Tom Umberg	60.0%	45.0%	52.5%
D- Rudy Bermudez	100.0%	82.0%	91.0%
D- Joe Dunn	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Lambda Letters Project – this rating is from a very liberal social issues group with an emphasis on homosexual “rights.”  A high score means that the lawmaker is voting for the agenda of this liberal group.  http://www.lambdaletters.org/

	2005	2006	Avg.
R- Dick Ackerman	13.0%	12.0%	12.5%
R- Mimi Walters	13.0%	15.0%	14.0%
R- Bob Huff	19.0%	13.0%	16.0%
R- Chuck DeVore	18.0%	19.0%	18.5%
R- Bill Morrow	22.0%	16.0%	19.0%
R- Tom Harman	22.0%	18.0%	20.0%
R- Todd Spitzer	25.0%	21.0%	23.0%
R- Van Tran	29.0%	28.0%	28.5%
R- Bob Margett	40.0%	20.0%	30.0%
R- Lynn Daucher	34.0%	39.0%	36.5%
D- Tom Umberg	95.0%	92.0%	93.5%
D- Joe Dunn	99.0%	96.0%	97.5%
D- Rudy Bermudez	98.0%	99.0%	98.5%

Comments

[Critic]

Sorry to see so many OC legislators getting a zero from the Sierra Club, which is really a fairly moderate group.

Once again, our elected officials are completely out of touch with their constituency.

[Dave Swanson]

Or is it that you're out of touch with your neighbors Mr. Critic?

The Sierra Club, a group which in its beliefs states that it is against population growth, refuses to take a stance on Illegal Immigration. Maybe if they would live up to their stated mission on issues which Republicans from OC would actually vote their way some of the OC Legislators would get a higher rating.

[larry gilbert]

Chuck.
Your post proves that old saying that "you can't please all of the people all of the time." That said congratulations for a great Conservative scorecard.
Larry Gilbert

[Bruce]

These are valuable insights into how our representatives vote. These ratings are formed by advocacy groups to reflect their own values; these are not attempts to twist the meaning of a vote. I appreciate Chuck's help in knowing our representatives.

[Critic]

Or is it that you're out of touch with your neighbors Mr. Critic?

No, I've not only rung a lot of doorbells and talked to my neighbors about environmental issues, but seen very reputable polling that shows tremendous support among all groups in Orange County, including a strong majority of Republicans, for clean oceans, clean air, clean water, habitat protection, and the other issues that are on the Sierra Club's agenda.

As to their position on population growth, here's their official position, which seems pretty mainstream to me.

Population growth affects the environment. We work to slow that growth and its impacts by promoting voluntary family planning and by encouraging the public to advocate for women and girls' access to basic rights, including health care, education, and economic opportunity.

I've never really followed the Sierra Club's debate on immigration, and don't know that there is a need for every organization to take a position on every issue.

Smart Republicans are giving at least lip service to environmental issues in their campaigns, and the Governor sure figured out where public opinion was.

It's been hard for me watching the Republican party become less and less relevant to California, and diminish its importance in every election as representatives fail to keep up with their constituents.

[DanC]

Chuck --
thanks for the report card.

While the blog may be "Red County" the OC is tied for second with the number of registered Democrats with San Diego trailing Los Angeles.

I am not surprised by your scores. But I have to take an issue with you placing quotes around the word "rights" when it comes to our gay and lesbian neighbors. For someone like you who wraps himself in the terms of "freedom" and "liberty" it's interesting that you vote to deny the same rights, freedoms and liberties simply on the basis on sexual orientation.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to all citizens. You promote the concept of limited government except when it comes to denying rights to homesexuals.

Please re-read the 14th amendment again and justify why gays and lesbians should not enjoy all the same rights that you and I do.

I also think its good for business to be pro-environment.

[Critic of Critic]

Critic,
The Sierra Club is anything but moderate. The group is part of the radical environmentalist agenda to take over and increase the power of government--this time through the scare tactics of claiming global warming is a bigger threat to our existence than radical Islamofascists. The earth has been on a general warming trend for at least the past 600 years (this is scientifically valid) and the fact that the earth continues to warm with short fits of cooling is not news at all. The leftist enviro lobby is making a move to make government a more powerful and influential force in our lives and Republicans stand for, at least in my view, smaller government and greater personal & economic freedom. The Sierra Club stands for the exact opposite of those values. It is no wonder that Republicans don't vote with them on their issues (which often have nothing to do with the environment, but just a general leftist agenda).

[Critic of Critic]

DanC,
Republicans do not oppose the right of homosexuals to marry. In fact, homosexuals DO have the right to marry. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. A homosexual may marry a member of the opposite sex. To attempt to redefine marriage is a change to thousands of years of tradition and what marriage has been understood to mean. To change the definition of marriage creates a NEW right.

[tylerh]

Chuck,

Thank you for posting these groups' scorecards.

I am puzzled by one point, however. You are on the record opposing Civil Unions for same-sex couples, and you put scare quotes on gay "rights." I understand how this helps you politically in the present, but given (1) you're a young guy, (2) you seem to have higher political ambitions, and (3) the long term demographics of the issue are clear, you seem to be creating unnecessary future trouble for yourself. Allow me to expand.

I'll start by quoting a nationwide CBS News Poll of May 20 - 23, 2004. This survey asked, among other things, if the person supported marriage rights, civil union but not marriage, or no rights for same-sex couples. I ask you to look past the details of the question and the absolute levels of support -- all of which are quite arguable -- and instead focus on the change in views by generation.

Age / support marriage / support Civil Unions Only / support no rights

18-29 years 43% 32% 25%
30-44 years 29% 25% 44%
45-64 years 26% 29% 41%
65. & older 12% 32% 51%

Notice that the oldest cohort staunchly opposes legal recognition of same-sex unions, while the youngest cohort is the opposite. Other polls with different methodologies and sampling periods yield broadly similar findings.

This demographic pattern of increasing tolerance of same-sex couples amongst younger Americans stands in sharp contrast to the other divisive social issue of our day, Choice. Here, the opinions tend to be similar across age demographics, and have been (roughly) since the 70s.

This sharp demographic shift suggests that being anti-gay is much like being pro-segregationist in the 60s: Politically successful in the moment, but the key electoral component of that success is (literally) dying off and being replaced by voters with the opposite view. Thus, embracing the denial of tolerance to same-sex couples is leaning against powerful demographic currents that may lead to either a painful public recantation or a withdrawal from politics in the future.

None of this matters if your political horizon is less than ten years. Dana Rohrbacher shouldn't give a rat's tail about this looming demographic shift. But someone who has the luxury of hoping to be actively serving the public in the future might wish to ponder these numbers.

[DanC]

I don't think Dick Cheney's daughter or pending b@#$%^&d grandchild would agree with you.

Perhaps you could show me the section of the Constitution that defines marriage? I do see something about "pursuit of happiness." In fact, the 9th amendement to the constitution does say: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In the 1920s, heavyweight champion Jack Johnson was arrested for crossing state lines (in the south)with his white wife. Because that state (Maryland I believe) had a law that denied blacks from marrying whites.

Civil unions carry Constitutional issues, because Civil Unions do not provide the same rights granted to married couples. This debate will eventaully be resolved by SCOTUS.

I point you to the Loving v. Virginia decision(where statutes prohibiting interracial marriage were held to be unconstitutional). With this decision, the SCOTUS has a precedent in which to judge same-sex marriage.

[Chuck DeVore]

Tylerh,

Thanks for your comments. Let me ask you some questions: if the public decides polygamy is OK, then you are fine with changing the law? How about allowing anyone to marry anyone else, presumably that would have to include a father marrying his son or daughter -- if only to escape the death tax.

We live in a republic bound by rule of law. A true democracy does not respect rule of law and will tend to live in the moment, even risking minority rights.

Thankfully, our tradition is more Lockean than Hegelian. Hegel would maintain that the majority is the state and that the state cannot, by definition, be wrong. Hegelian philosophy is what brought the world muscular statist nations such as Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR.

I believe that bowing to public sentiment on certain issues, especially those involving Natural Law, will only lead down a path detrimental to the long-term health of our republic.

Laws governing the age of consent, incest, polygamy, and the like, are based on a firm understanding of Natural Law and the rights of people to enjoyment of liberty.

Interestingly, the Republican Party's first platform (certainly not popular with the general public in 1855) called for "opposition to those twin pillars of barbarism, slavery and polygamy."

Some things are wrong, even if the press, the entertainment industry, and popular opinion say otherwise. If that ends my political career early, then so be it.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.chuckdevore.com

[DanC]

http://www.hsiproductions.com/directors/maxvitali/mv013007.aspx

Might be enlightening for you, who knows.

"We live in a republic bound by rule of law. A true democracy does not respect rule of law and will tend to live in the moment, even risking minority rights."
But the Republic is already risking minority rights here and the true Democracy, and are movements to change the law to define marriage as you do or to allow gay marriage. But even laws enacted by the majority may be unruled unconstitutional.

The examples you give are extreme stretches. A father marrying his daughter to avoid payinga death tax. How romantic. How unlikely.

"If that ends my political career early, then so be it." -- you're being prophetic?

Always fun to debate you on issues of individual freedom and liberty Chuck.

[redperegrine]

"Hegel would maintain that the majority is the state"

He would? Please help with a citation.

Also, what does polygamy have to do with "Natural Law." In fact, what is Natural Law? Hopefully not merely a collection of "self-evident" truths.

[tylerh]

Chuck,

Thank you for your reply. If you are comfortable with your worldview and it's possible future electoral implications, which you claim to be, then I really don't have much else to say. However, you asked me a question and I don't want to be rude.

You wrote Laws governing the age of consent, incest, polygamy, and the like, are based on a firm understanding of Natural Law

I am unclear what you mean by "Natural Law" because you seem to be conflating several issues. The laws against marital consanguinity are indeed based on nature: inbreeding is dangerous, as the English Royal family discovered. The state has a compelling interest here. Likewise rules against marriages involving children: experience shows the youngest brides are often coerced.

But marriage as your are proposing is probably biologically unnatural in humans: sexual dimorphism is tightly correlated with degree of non-monogamy amongst mammals (think elephant seals for an extreme case). So you must not mean "Natural" as "consistent with biology."

If by "natural" you mean "consistent with what my society has done until now" I see two problems. First, the primary function of marriage (as opposed to living in roughly-monogamous pairs) in Northern European society has historically been to control the transfer of property between families. The use of marriage amongst the lower classes has fluctuated throughout the centuries in English Parishes, for example. Since we now use accountants instead of daughters to transfer property, one of the "natural" functions of marriage is no longer germane.

However, I have a larger problem with the "Natural Law" argument. It is remarkably similar in structure and tone to arguments given in support of segregation. Indeed, the South African government had full theological support from much of its clergy in building apartheid.

My view is the conservative one based on liberty: the government should leave people alone absent a compelling reason. Leviathan absolutely should not use the coercive power of the state to impose the view of one group on another, no matter how "Natural."

My friends Bill and Robert have been a committed couple and an asset to their community for as long as I have been married. If you don't want their bond recognized by your church, fine. I accept that. If you believe their bond is somehow bad for society, then proclaim it so. You, too, have liberty. But the fact remains that Bill and Robert are every bit as much of a loving couple and an economic unit and a social whole as my Aunt and Uncle who chose to remain childless. What is the compelling interest that requires Leviathan to deny Bill and Robert rights granted to my Aunt and Uncle?

[tylerh]

About Natural Law...

I have an idea: since Chuck thinks Natural Law is a useful basis for legislation, how about we ask the local Natural Law Party chair:

Iris Adam
PO Box 5065
Irvine, CA 92616
949-509-7555
iris4NLP@yahoo.com

I checked the Natural Law party's extensive platform. They have an entire section about family values where they are deeply concerned about the state of the American Family and present extensive ideas how to improve matters -- yet they say nary a word about same-sex unions.

..and while we're at it, is Assm. DeVore going adopt the Natural Law's platform on other issues?

[Chuck DeVore]

tylerh,

Re: Natural Law -- very funny. The Founding Fathers' understanding of the Natural Law has little to nothing to do with the modern California political party.

As for redperegrine and the question on Hegelian thought, here's a gem for you from Dr. Edward W. Younkins, the author of Capitalism and Commerce and a Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia. It nicely sums up the serious issues I have with pure democracy unbounded by rule of law, including Natural Law concepts:

"For Hegel, the State is the highest embodiment of the Divine Idea on earth and the chief means used by the Absolute in manifesting itself as it unfolds towards its perfect fulfillment. Hegel argued that the State is the highest form of social existence and the end product of the development of mankind, from family to civil society to lower forms of political groupings.

"The State is a superorganic whole made up of individuals grouped into local communities, voluntary associations, etc. These parts have no meaning except in relation to the State, which is an end in itself. The State can demand that its parts be sacrificed to its interests. Each man is subordinate to the ethical whole – if the State claims one's life then the individual must surrender it. Because everything is ultimately one, the collective has primacy over the individual. Hegel's State has no room for the idea of individual rights or a liberal theory of the State; instead it provides an ethical underpinning for totalitarianism. The State is an independent, self-sustaining, superorganism made up of men and having a purpose and will of its own."

As I said, Hegel asserted that the state is supreme and the state is defined as the will of the majority. Such a belief leads to horrific excesses as the state can demand the sacrifice of the individual for any reason.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Chuck DeVore]

tylerh,

Regarding your Bill and Robert example. What if Bill was Robert's father? What if Bill was 35 and Robert was 15? Start down the slope and you tell me where it ends -- because it doesn't.

In case one, assuming Bill wants to pass to Robert is estate tax-free, who is the state to way what constitutes love?

In case two, brought to you by both NAMBLA and European laws, who is the state to say that there cannot be love between a man and an underage boy?

Where do you stop, tylerh? Or can you? If you think about it logically, once you start down that path, there is no turning back – after all, any restrictions you place on the relationship at that point are simply artificial, aren't they?

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[redperegrine]

Yeah, but Chuck, as your citation clearly shows, for Hegel the State is a manifestation of an Absolute (note the capital A - psuedo philosopher at work). That means that "the majority" doesn't decide or dictate anything. There's absolutely nothing democratic about the Hegelian state. It is in fact an inevitable unfolding of his own concept of a natural law; which is probably why it became the siren song of the National Socialist party.

On a somewhat different note, it's really quite remarkable that so much of western politcal thought in the 19th & 20th Centuries was influence by this crackpot - especially the most destructive and perverse creations: Nazism and Communism.

[Cant find it...]

DanC -

You wrote:

"Perhaps you could show me the section of the Constitution that defines marriage? I do see something about 'pursuit of happiness.' In fact, the 9th amendement to the constitution does say: 'The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'"

Can you enlighten us as to where exactly in the U.S. Constitution anything is mentioned about the "pursuit of happiness"

or anything about happiness in general?

Maybe you should try reading our founding documents before you try citing them.

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC,

Regarding Constitutional rights -- state family law is left to the states, for the most part, as the Founders intended. I don't see a 14th or even a 9th Amendment violation when a state has a law that allows one person to marry one other person of the opposite sex so long as they are not close relatives and are of a certain age. It all seems rather non-discriminatory to me.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[DanC]

Chuck, the equal protection clause of the US Constitution's 14th amendment limits the ability of states to discriminate against people on the basis of race, creed or color, gender or other status. Congress has enforcement powers. Its been used to guarntee voting rights, school integratyion, and equal employment rights for women and minorities. Gay marriage amounts to a civil rights issue.

-Can't find it --
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiniess is actually part of the Declaration of Independence but the statement's origin falls under the inalienable rights of man.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." - Thomas Jefferson.

and the Wiki definition:
The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are said to be absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation. Several different sets of inalienable rights have been suggested by philosophers and politicians. Inalienable rights are defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.

But you are correct, it's not in the constitution, but rather held to a higher power.

And on Natural Law, this: Natural law or the law of nature (Latin lex naturalis) is an ethical theory whose supporters include Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Catholic Church. It is a law whose content is set by nature, and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and can thus function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it); natural law, used in this sense, can be evoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Natural law can be used synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

[Go Chuck]

Just because a young person believes that gay marriage is ok doesn't mean those people will hold the same beliefs for the rest of their lives.

People tend to get wiser as they get older, hence the change in the numbers.

Once the 18-20 year olds get married and have children and see the threat of these NAMBLA groups, their political views will significantly mature.

A gay "rights" group that gives Lynn Daucher a score in the teens is definitely way out there.

[DanC]

Chuck -- do you care to comment on Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot" at the CPAC event in DC Friday. It was all over the news this past weekend. I'd especially like your take on the laughter and applause that followed the remark and whether or not you, like so many other conservatives, found her comment funny.

I mean you were pretty quick to call on John Kerry to apologize for a botched joke comparing the President's intelligence to the Troops, so is the word "faggot" part of the conservative lexicon?

[Publius]

I was wondering how long it would be before some twit would attempt to make a connection to NAMBLA.
Perhaps Ms. Daucher got a score in the teens because she voted against the gay marriage issue each time it came up in the Assembly.
While you're commenting on Ann Coulter's namecalling, Chuck, how about denouncing the NAMBLA comment of your defender. Or do you agree with his/her connection of the two groups?

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC, Don't much care what Coulter says, she's an entertainer. If she’s elected to the U.S. Senate as Kerry is, I might start caring what she says.

As for Publius, AKA, the LiberalOC (it is rather irksome that someone from the LiberalOC would appropriate Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper’s nom de plume), are you asserting that NAMBLA does not exist?

Any unmarried person of the age of consent has the right to marry an eligible (not already married, age of consent, and non-related) person of the opposite sex. That is equal and fair.

Now, who is to say that the age of consent (or parental approval for younger) ought not be lower or even that it is an appropriate area for law? Who is to say that laws against incest are appropriate? Or laws against having more than one spouse (polygamy).

I see the connection. So do many others.

As I have said before, I am concerned over where all this will end. Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile comments about marriage make me concerned for the future of our society. He opined that "gays" should seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

What do you suppose Mr. Signorile means, Publius (The LiberalOC)? You maybe OK with an effort to “…debunk (the) myth (of marriage) and radically alter an archaic institution"? I am not.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Dave Swanson]

DanC...while you wish to see Chuck comment on Ann Coulter's comments, would you mind commenting on Bill Maher's comments saying that he was sorry that the assassination attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney failed?

All political entertainers say controversial things, in this case we have a conservative calling someone a name, which is despicable don't get me wrong. However, on the other hand we have a liberal commentator essentially wishing death upon the Vice President of the United States.

[DanC]

Sure Dave. Maher's comments were inappropriate. How's that? I believe ABC fired him once for comment he made.
And Bill is a paid professional comedian.

Ann isn't funny. She is a serious conservative author and TV pundit.

I'm more than a little bothered by all the laughter and clapping your conservative peers did after her called Edwards a faggot. She's also called Bill Clinton a latent homosexual and referred to Al Gore as gay. Given your party's stance on gays and lesbians, I'm not surprised its considered hysterical.

Nice dodge Chuck. By your non-answer, you must concur with Ms. Coulter. At least Romney, McCain and Guiliani comdemned her comments. And quickly.

Back to marriage law for a sec., Loretta Lynn was 13 when she married (and I believe a grandmother at 29...corrections anyone). Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old second cousin. Both marriages were legal at the time. A girl in Alabama married at age 12 last year. A boy, age 15 married in the same state. No informaiton on the agesof their partnrs.

While NAMBLA does exist, its a convenient boogeyman for your justification to deny individual liberty and equal rights to all citizens.

What's the minimum age to marry in California? There is no minimum age as long as there is parental consent. Even New Hampshire places the minimum at 13. If you're up to rewrite laws, maybe that's one you should tackle. For most states, its 16 with parental consent.

Lastly, scroll up the right hand side of the blog pen on THIS blog and you will find Publicis. Publicis might reply on the LiberalOC, but he/she doesn't post there.

[DanC]

Dave --
I have a transcript of what Maher said. He commented on posters at the Huffington Post expressing regret that Cheney wasn't killed and those comments were pulled from that blog the same way Matt pulls comments from these. From the transcript, Maher said this:

Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.

Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

Sorry Dave, he doesn't say he was sorry that Cheney wasn't killed. And I tend to agree with what he's said here. Cheney hasn't been right about anything leading up to and during this war. If he had been killed in the Middle East by a suicide bomber, it would merely have been ironic because the insurgency has been in its last throes for almost two years now