Boy, oh boy, Baltimore Sun staffers sure did pen a blistering analysis of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!
While the Sun editorial doesn’t necessarily bring anything new to the table, but does offer quite the scathing conclusion:
This policy of pointless discrimination perhaps serves only cowards in Congress and demagogues on the campaign stump. Anyone who truly supports the troops will vote to treat all of them with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Remember top Republican candidate Mike Huckabee’s previous comments on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Oh, and don’t forget his uniform response at the CNN/YouTube debates. As for the demagogues, well, that may very well be the Democrats.
By the way, today’s the 66th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Just thought you should know that…
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Mike
The single best, most touching refute I’ve ever heard of DADT came from Charles Mitchell, a soldier who wrote the NY Times from his base in Iraq:
“I am on my second yearlong tour in Iraq, the first having ended 15 months ago. In my opinion, troops here want only someone next to them who is dependable in a firefight, knows first aid and keeps a good morale. We don’t care if that person is male, female, gay, straight, white, black, cheats on his wife or her husband, is Catholic or Jewish, rich or poor.
“When you live in close quarters in combat over a long period, all you care about is whether the person knows his job and is trustworthy.
“With all that is going on here, it amazes me that ‘gays in the military’ is still being debated by those out of uniform.”
January 2, 2007
Amen
Jason
I’d just like to point out that the Democrats have been in control of Congress for a year and still haven’t repealed DADT. Sure Bush might veto such an effort. Put why should that stop them? Are they holding it so it can be a campaign issue? And if they are, isn’t it a bit troubling that they would allow discrimination against us to continue so they can score some political point? Or perhaps they are holding it because they think repealing it now would jeopardize their chances in 2008? Either way, the delay seems inexcusable…
We all know DADT is wrong, so posts reminding us of this fact are pretty pointless. Let’s start a discussion about why it’s still in place when our supposed allies control the national legislature. Tie it into their recent failure on the non-discrimination act and I think we’d be faced with some uncomfortable (inconvenient?) truths about our political clout and whether we are being used/taken for granted.
Mike
“Democrats…haven’t repealed DADT. Sure Bush might veto such an effort. Put why should that stop them?”
Jason, that’s exactly what will stop them. It is IMPOSSIBLE to repeal DADT right now. It simply cannot be done until there is a Democratic president, or less likely at >2/3 majority.
You can’t criticize the democratic Congress for not getting anything done while demanding that they spend our money and time pushing bills that are guaranteed to fail.
Jason
Mike – I wrote a huge response to your comment, then deleted it all. Two points:
1. You are right, I’ll amend. They’ve been in power for a year and haven’t voted to repeal DADT. However, I think you overstate your defense of them. The bill has already been written, has been for years (they basically reintroduce it every session), and has numerous sponsors – all Democrats. The cost in terms of money in bringing it to the floor for a vote at this point would be minimal. It never got to the floor before, I assume, because the Republicans controlled the Congressional agenda. Democrats control it now. So the bill is written, hearings are unnecessary. A vote takes, what, a couple of hours? Congress spends tons of “our money” endlessly debating and investigating less important matters (e.g., do we condemn an important ally, Turkey, for actions of the Turkish government during WWI? Yeah, not “II”, but “I”).
2. Have the Democrats stated for a fact that the reason they haven’t brought the DADT repeal to a vote is because of the likely veto? If so, then I think that is a half-assed cop-out given what I state above, but I give you credit for repeating their own defense rather than making one up yourself. If not, then I think you and I are both wrong for making assumptions about their motives. You for assuming they are afraid of a veto and me for thinking they are afraid of the political repercussions. I think instead that they owe our community an explanation for why DADT is still the law of the land and then we can draw our own conclusions about where we stand with them.
I’m just tired of the constant “DADT is bad” stuff. Yeah, we get it. What are we going to do about it? And more importantly, why hasn’t anything been done about it. Instead of us speculating, someone should just ask them. And not the standard softball question of “What would you do about DADT?” Ask them the hard question: “Why haven’t you done it yet?” If we don’t like the answer we get (if I don’t like the answer I get, anyway), I’m gong to stay home on election day.
Matt
Well, Jason, I certainly understand your frustration, but do you really think we’ll all be better off the day after election day if the republicans gain legislative seats and the white house, thanks to folks staying home in a snit? Hell, even useless inaction is preferable to positive action in negative directions, which we’d be assured of under four or eight more years of the repubs. Sometimes it really does come down to the lesser evil, and in this case it’s really which annoys you more: evil or ineptitude?
Meantime, I think you’re absolutely right: hold their feet to the fire, demand answers and accountability, and keep on demanding once they’ve won the white house and a relevant majority in Congress.
Mike
You feel frustrated because we live outside the political system, so we naturally demand everything “here and now.” But I guess here’s my question. What if they told you this?:
“Look, we want to see DADT repealed, but the measure will fail because of the veto. The absolute only chance we have at actually repealing it is with a democratic president, so our political strategy is to do everything we can to both keep a majority and win the White House in 08.
Given the political climate’s conservative stance, we cannot hedge our nominal clout on these social issues, because they have proven to be a backlash in national elections and we know the Republican Party will successfully exploit them its conservative base.
Our priority is to do everything we can to get a democratic administration so that these issues can actually be passed, and that might mean playing it safe on certain social issues until 2009.”