Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  answer fail

Does Dan Choi Really Not Understand the Political Landscape of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?

Why aren’t Republicans stealing Democrats’ territory by supporting the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Lt. Dan Choi doesn’t know. And he doesn’t care. Uhhhh.

Appearing on Hardball, Choi had no answer for Chris Matthews’ very valid — and often asked — question about why Republican politicians like Sen. John McCain don’t see any political upside to supporting open service. That’s a major problem.

Choi presents himself as a leading advocate for DADT repeal. And yet tonight he revealed himself to be filled with broad talking points, but few to no tangibles. Unable to offer a substantive explanation about the GOP’s refusal to support repeal (they could say it’s about reducing big government, or protecting our country, or anything else to shove it to Democrats), Choi can be seen going off on a maniacal tangent: “In my analysis, I don’t need to understand why a certain politician votes a certain way. I just need to know that currently under the law I’m not allowed to tell the truth. And I’m not an equal citizen. I come back from war in Iraq and I’m a second-class citizen. People take polls about whether I’m popular or not. I think that’s an insult and that’s what I’m focused on.”

That’s fine to be “focused on.” It’s also a ridiculous strategy to help enact repeal.

That Servicemembers United’s chief Alexander Nicholson was seated beside him, Choi’s glaring omission is even more notable, given Nicholson’s expertise on the political strategy behind repeal.

“It’s a matter of doing the right thing,” says Choi. “It doesn’t matter [what elected officials] say to me.” It does. And it should. Choi just made clear his passion for repeal is not the same thing as knowing how to get it done.

This whole thing was embarrassing.

By:           Max Simon
On:           Nov 12, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 57 Comments
    • reason
      reason

      People like Dan Choi with their tough talk are just pulling the gay community along on a string of B.S. One can be angry all day long but that doesn’t get you anywhere. You can be angry that you don’t have a job and sit around at home all day screaming at the top of your lungs, where does that get you? It is clear from this interview that Choi has no idea what is going on or how to repeal this law. He has no idea of the constitutional powers of the president. How did this guy graduate from West Point?I am starting to figure out why he wants to be an enlisted member of the services instead of an officer. He is obviously clueless when it comes to strategy, and understanding the process need to get to an ends. I am pleased that some in the media are actually starting to do their homework and speak the truth about the difficulties of repeal. Choi has been around harping about how the president can do stop loss and all of this other b.s. that cannot legally halt DADT. People in our community follow along thinking that a West Point graduate knows what he is talking about, well if this interview doesn’t provide evidence that he flat out clueless I don’t know what will. It is weird how he smiles when he thinks he is off camera, as if he knows he is selling the GBLT community a bill of goods.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 3:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bystander
      bystander

      Choi likes to grandstand, but i doubt he has actually accomplished much of anything. Send in the people who actually know how to lobby republicans and conservative democrats, because Choi has no idea how to do it.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 3:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickbach
      Nickbach

      You have GOT to be kidding me – this article doesn’t even come close to being defendable… as a STRAIGHT man – I find it offensive that a suppossed GAY rag such as Queerty dares to even suggest that DADT is political at ALL – it is a civil rights issue that should transcend politics.. truth be told it’s a religious problem within the Republican party – that creates a disconnect with Gay Conservatives… this rubbish only shows how ridiculous Querrty is…

      Nov 12, 2010 at 4:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • damon459
      damon459

      I watched this episode and he came off as a bitter hot head with no ideas.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 5:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Derek Washington
      Derek Washington

      Sorry Nickbach, ALL civil rights cases going back to freeing the slaves have been political.

      Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 5:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAW
      JAW

      @Nickbach:

      Nick… I think that we all agree that DADT is a civil rights issue, but the Republicans HAVE made it, and all gay rights, a Political issue.

      I have always felt that Dan was a grandstander. He is in it to see himself on camera and make a name and some money for himself.

      When DADT is history, I will be interested in seeing if he really reups at his local recruiting station, and not in Times Square

      Nov 12, 2010 at 6:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Chris Matthews needs to rememeber that it wasn’t the Republicans who promised to repeal DADT. Obama promised it, not the Republicans. Therefore, it’s Obama who must deliver on his promise.

      If Obama showed half the enthusiasm for DADT repeal that he showed for his health-care plan, we’d have had DADT repealed long ago. Since the health-care bill passed, the numbers in Congress haven’t changed, only the enthusiasm of our so-called “fierce advocate” has.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 6:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j
      j

      @Nickbach: See, I agree with you, but I don’t understand why he couldn’t give an answer and why he had to come off as so snot nosed and bratty. I coulda gave 101 reasons why republicans haven’t backed this, the most important one being that if they had they would all but have completely lost the support of the religious right. That the republicans are willing to sell out their economic and political beliefs to maintain influence is nothing new. I don’t see why dan couldn’t have said that instead of acting like a child.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 7:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Benjamin
      Benjamin

      The most dangerous place to stand is between Dan Choi and a TV camera.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 8:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Will
      Will

      Notice Choi’s quote. How many times he said “I”. It’s all about him. Telling.

      Alexander Nicholson is a much better advocate for this issue.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 9:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jennifer Q
      Jennifer Q

      Dan Choi is an ignorant “attention whore.” Why do we give any attention to these mis-fits?

      Nov 12, 2010 at 10:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatever
      whatever

      It’s great to see queerty’s love affair with Choi has ended. It’s about time!

      Nov 12, 2010 at 10:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jason White
      Jason White

      Don’t we have ANYONE that could appear on these show beside these two boring idiots? These guys can’t even complete sentences.

      It’s painful to watch. Choi gets angry and starts shouting childish jibberish. I think he was high or on some meds.

      Then Nicholson gets asked about “math” or enough votes and he rambles on about nothing.

      These two clowns won’t be invited back – thank God.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 10:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      I was mortified watching this last night. Choi always came across well when he was on Rachel Maddow’s show, but here he came across as a hotheaded idiot, and not really someone I would want with access to weapons. Perhaps Rachel asked him questions he knew the answers to, but he got really rattled with Chris Matthews. Time to find someone else to be the poster boy for repealing DADT.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran
      Kieran

      Yeah, let’s have a bitchfest over Dan Choi showing some human emotion and passion about an issue that has affected his life and career personally. You gotta laugh when you read some of these worthless, do-nothing critics who just love criticizing those who are actually out there fighting on the front lines for gay rights. The truth is most of you self-hating bitches aren’t worthy to shine Dan Choi’s boots.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JusticeontheRocks
      JusticeontheRocks

      Kieran, Keiran, Kieran. Fighting for something only works if you do it well. Just because a person is passionate about something doesn’t mean they are qualified to be the public spokesperson about it.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 11:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brutus
      Brutus

      @jason: Obama can’t deliver on it by himself. Some Republicans have to come along. If Obama had shown the enthusiasm for DADT repeal that he showed for health-care overhaul, the Republicans would have lined up to block that instead, for example criticizing him for making a tiny minority special interest group a priority while the economy goes down the drain.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Forrest
      Forrest

      He came across as a clueless wonder who thinks throwing a temper tantrum will
      Work. If you have passion at least be cogent and informed. He is neither.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Russ Klettke
      Russ Klettke

      I spent several years volunteering, proudly, with the Human Rights Campaign on DADT, DOMA, ENDA and several other initiatives. We were frequently criticized for working within the system that is Washington, and the gains came at an excruciatingly slow pace (much more since the Obama administration came into office, with the Hate Crimes act and partner visitation rights now in effect). Dan Choi inadvertently revealed what a lot of those critics fail to recognize, that there is a complexity to national politics that sometimes, on the surface, defies logic. Chris Matthews was trying to drill down into that when he asked why, with 70% of Americans supporting the repeal of DADT, that the Democrats/Obama were not pushing it to a floor vote. Choi answered with a simplistic non-answer, that it would be the moral thing to do. Yeah, we know that Dan. Chris is with you on that. Choi wasn’t qualified to be in that interview, because he obviously doesn’t know why.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • papparon
      papparon

      I agree with both Kieran and Nickbach – Dan Choi has done more to bring attention to this matter than all of the Queerty know-it-alls combined. If any of you disagree with his tactics, I suggest you put yourself out there in public view and let us pick you apart like jealous bitches.

      Furthermore if anyone doesn’t get the fact that this issue is fundamentally a struggle between religious factions and the gay community, then they have their blinders on too tight.

      The reason the religious zealots do not back down (and are not likely to do so) is that they have core values that are rooted in the BIG LIE about Gays. If those roots are damaged, the tree comes tumbling down, and THAT is what has them really scared. If that happens, then their POLITICAL influence is lost and that’s why they fight in the political arena while they still have a lot of influence there.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jimmy Fury
      Jimmy Fury

      Wow… that’s a terrible argument. Dan Choi can’t read minds so he’s a bad person now? I don’t get it. How is he supposed to know why individual republicans don’t support DADT. It’s not his job to provide their arguments against him.

      Seriously, it’s a crappy question with no short interview-friendly answer. He had two options, make a sweeping generalization accusing all republicans of only having 1 reason (which is untrue) or do what he did and say he doesn’t know.
      The only way to answer that question accurately is to quote every individual republican. The only way to do *that* is to ask every individual republican.

      Frankly, I don’t see any of you out there so how about you all climb off of those extraordinarily high horses.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Russ Klettke
      Russ Klettke

      The question was about poor Democratic leadership in failing to bring to a vote a very (70% of Americans) popular idea. It wasn’t about Republican opposition. It wasn’t about the morality of it. It was about strategy, and Choi either hadn’t investigated it on that level or he didn’t understand how strategy matters (I suspect the latter).

      Clue: It’s all about strategy. And it’s rarely as simple as it appears on the surface.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ronbo
      Ronbo

      I side with Dan! You’ll notice that the issue the nitwit opinion presenter was “framed” around Congress enacting the law. Doesn’t everyone know that the courts REVIEW the laws enacted by the Congress. The President ENFORCES the laws. Presidents can enforce the laws many, many ways. Look how George Bush enforced the Geneva Conventions (as enacted by Congress). Whoever says that you must do something only one way is “framing” the issue. They are trying to box-in Choi who knows this, knows that it is a trap and expects informed people to know it also. If you don’t, perhaps you aren’t paying attention.

      PS – Have you ever heard this nitwit opinion presenter EVER chastise a guest for being passionate? His normal mode is “get loud, get offensive, get ratings”. When someone shows passion for gay equality, Matthews sputters because his old, white, conservative, rich, straight audience represents a very bigoted segment of the population. Among his favorite guests: Peggy Noonan and Pat Buchanan, Bay Buchanan, Tucker Carleson, etc….

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @Alexa: Rachel isn’t any different from most commentators in that when someone shares her viewpoint she will go out of her way to make them look good. It is like Sarah Palin on Glen Beck, he goes down to her level, yes Glen Beck apparently has a level beneath him, and makes her seem capable of answering a question.

      @jason: You are clearly no different than Choi, you don’t understand the process. Scott Brown was elected after Health Care had passed the procedural measures that required 60 votes. So yes the number of votes in the senate has indeed changed, the crazy part is some people on here were celebrating Browns victory like dummies. That ensnared Obama’s agenda prematurely, freshly embolden the GOP, and with elections about a year away the GOP stuck with its just say no plan. The president laid out his goals, it is up to the supporters to get out there and help make it happen. Yes we can, not yes I can. Some think the president has these extraordinarily powers like Choi eluded to that just do not exists, people need to brush up on their knowledge about executive power. It is not dictatorial power. This community decided to start attacking the president as soon as he got in instead of helping. Then some say well I voted for him in 2008, okay, so you registered for class and never showed up.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ronbo
      Ronbo

      @Brutus: Brutus, you are wrong. Obama enforces the law – he can do that many, many ways. Do you recall how Bush enforced the law (Geneva Convention as enacted by Congress) including: torture, depleted uranium and un-regulatedc mercenaries? Gosh, Bush violated the laws every way, including Sunday. I guess Georgie Boy has been thoroughly punished. No wait, he is on his comeback book tour with his entourage of liars, killers and theives. Obama simply has no backbone for doing the right thing. If he had been in charge of things way back when, black Americans would still be 2/3′s of a white person. But, I don’t know for sure, he could just be a religious bigot. Does it really matter: Obama is wrong.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @Ronbo: Your are wrong on so many levels, Chris has stated his support for DADT repeal for years. When people start talking about what it takes to get it done, and challenge the misinformation put out there by know nothing activist suddenly the passion comes out. Choi did the GBLT community a disservice by giving them false information about what really needed to be down. Instead of focusing on legislators that could have been pried away they focused on attacking Pelosi,who already passed the legislation in the house, and Obama, who would sign it the day it lands on his desk.

      This thing about picking up the phone, nearly the entire democratic caucus voted for repeal. What is a call to the GOP going to do besides send the same message that we will do anything in our power to make you a one term president.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • slobone
      slobone

      Good Lord — I don’t know who comes out worse from that clip, Choi or Chris Matthews. As soon as it became obvious that Choi was a ranting nutcase, why didn’t Matthews just switch to the other guy? Is it possible that he thought it would be better TV if he didn’t? With friends like these…

      Nov 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
      Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

      ATTENTION: The person above continuing to attack others while HIDING behind the ludicrous-on-its-face nom de Net “Reason” IS A LIAR. WHY should anyone listen to anyone who doesn’t have the balls, the honesty, the integrity to post under his/her actual name? [My full name, BTW, easily found at my Website, is Michael Bedwell.]

      TODAY’S LIE?

      “…the president [through] stop loss …cannot legally halt DADT.”

      Liars, particularly behind the safety of a mask, are often reckless. Had he/she written “the president cannot REPEAL DADT,” that would have been true, if missing the functional point.
      Laws “on the books” are MEANINGLESS when they aren’t ENFORCED. And Obama indisputably has the UNILATERAL, UNEQUIVOCAL power, given to the Presidency BY CONGRESS, to LEGALLY halt enforcement of DADT. [That coward “Reason,” smirk, has unquestionably read the following several times but denies it, is the LIE…and his/her motivation, as always, is to provide excuses for Obama regardless of the bullshit they’re based on.]

      In 1983, Congress passed federal law “10 United States Code § 12305”— “Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation.” It reads [emphasis mine]:

      “Notwithstanding ANY other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, THE PRESIDENT MAY SUSPEND ANY PROVISION OF LAW relating to promotion, retirement, OR SEPARATION applicable to ANY member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.”

      NOTA BENE: it does not say, “except the separation of homosexuals.” While the ban had not yet been transformed into DADT in 1983, Congress certainly knew of the policies of discharging homosexuals, AND, again, they explicitly wrote “notwithstanding ANY OTHER provision of law,” NOT, “except some law that might be passed in the future.”

      12305 has already been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. A supermajority vote is required for Congress to override any executive order, and they’d never get it, even next year. In fact, I can think of only two instances in history when Congress has overridden a Presidential Executive Order; one by Truman, one by Clinton. Neither involved telling them they could not exercise A POWER EXPLICITLY GIVEN TO THEM BY CONGRESS.

      Given Congress didn’t even try when Truman racially integrated the military, nor when Eisenhower ordered federal troops to enforce integration of schools in Little Rock—both during times that the Congress and public were FAR more racist than either are homophobic today—there is simply no obstacle in Obama’s way other than his lack of will to set himself free from the bargain with the Devil, excuse me, phony repeal advocate Repug Gates he’s obviously agreed to.

      A growing number in Congress are joining Reid, Levin, Pelosi, Alcee Hastings, Gillebrand, and 70 some members of the House who asked for such an order OVER A YEAR AGO. Would they risk their careers by urging something legally inappropriate?

      Sure, McShame would fill his adult diapers. WHO CARES???? He’ll NEVER vote for Congress to end the ban anyway.

      The Obama Mafia talking point that such an order wouldn’t be a permanent solution is the moral equivalent of telling bleeding soldiers he refuses to stop their bleeding, though he could, because Dr. Congress hasn’t arrived.

      Legislation itself isn’t “permanent.” They can always restore, e.g., a repealed tax. And the amendment Gates demanded gutted of any creation of a military nondiscrimination policy [as the murdered-by-his-hands Military Readiness Enhancement Act would have done] is particularly impermanent. [And WHY would he fear such a policy if he has no desire to continue to discriminate?] The LAW of DADT could be repealed and this Pentagon leadership continue to discharges gays on their own steam [as they did for 60 years] or a future one could with impunity.

      In June of LAST year, Obama himselfsaid such discharges “weaken national security,” so, in effect, HE is CHOOSING to weaken national security.

      “Orderly change” blah blah blah? A lavender herring, as it were. “The Study” Gates hoped would be the final nail in the coffin containing the effort to end the ban legislatively has backfired on him, despite its “push poll” questions intended to generate in advance a kind of gay panic about showers and, ooooooooooh, sleeping in the same room with a homo. Even 60% of MARINES say it would be no big deal.

      Soooooo, Bots, what’s your Lord & Savior Obama Christ, waiting for—the same guy who said on his job application he’d start personally fighting to end the ban the take he took office, who said, “All that is required is LEADERSHIP”?

      [img]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs560.snc3/30596_1180047921011_1822575019_344731_1788851_n.jpg[/img]

      Nov 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian

      I’m not a huge Dan Choi fan, but I think Chris Matthews was being a bit unfair to him. Dan’s role in the debate is to be an example of well qualified service members who are being discharged from the military. He’s not a strategist. In the past he’s repeatedly shown himself to not have a strong grasp of legal or constitutional principles, but that’s not his job.

      In the made up Queerty feud of the week of Choi v. Matthews — I think it’s a draw.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @papparon:

      Thank you!!!

      Hearing all this Dan Choi vitriol from people who’ve likely done nothing to put their name, face, and reputation before the proverbial firing-squad to advance our rights is, for lack of a better word, disgusting.

      Dan Choi came off as angry. Very angry. I applauded him and thought he expressed what our entire community was feeling about having to take a “poll” on whether we should to be treated equally.

      He’s pissed. It’s about time we ALL got really, really pissed and demand the change we so rightly deserve.

      I thought we were all Dan Choi on Hardball that day and ready to kick ass. Guess I was wrong.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 2:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      No. 23 · Ronbo

      I have to say that Chris Matthews did ask a bonehead question, but he also said he understood Choi’s “passion”. He didn’t berate him, as you said.

      I like Matthews. He’s always been an advocate for equality, so your tirade against him is a little misdirected, IMHO.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 2:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kathy G
      Kathy G

      That is one of the most embarrassing exchanges I have ever seen. Choi has no idea what he’s talking about and repeatedly says “he doesn’t care what anybody thinks.” For what it’s worth, I think Choi is a complete ass-hole and I am offended that he is chosen to speak for the LGBT community. It’s a good thing people don’t watch MSNBC, I’d hate for people to see this exchange. What was the chubby guy doing there? Is he supposed to be Choi’s bodyguard? Ugh.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: It is clear that you don’t know the difference between a law and a policy. Where do you people come from? DADT is a law passed by congress that prohibits stopping discharges through executive order “stop loss.” Desegregation of the Army was an executive order to end a policy, segregation of the army was never a law. When a law is passed and you run afoul of it you are breaking the law. So it doesn’t matter how racist people were back then becuase they had no legal grounds to challenge the executive order. In the case with DADT they have sufficient legal ground to challenge an executive order, meaning that the president cannot halt or repeal DADT. If the president were to break the law you would be the first person on the wagon calling the president a worthless criminal, and demanding impeachment. You already got your John Boehner’s and Darrell Issa’s into power ready to pounce if the president goes an nanometer past the legal line.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
      Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

      @reason:

      It’s clear you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground… nor how to read FOR COMPREHENSION.

      There is NOTHING, not a word, not a syllable, in 10 USC 654, aka “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” that “prohibits stopping discharges through executive order ‘stop loss’.”

      What part of “the President may suspend ANY provision of law” in 12305 don’t you understand? He would NOT be “breaking the law,” but FOLLOWING one that, in terms of national security, TRUMPS ALL OTHERS, you cretin!

      Exactly WHO would “have standing”? A member of Congress? NO, because it would be a LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS that he would be implementing. They would have to pass a law repealing or amending 10 USC 12305 first.

      A private citizen? Elaine Donnelly? Fred Phelps? Focus on the Family? BALDERDASH because they couldn’t show how his order would harm them.

      Someone at the Pentagon? DITTO! No standing.

      An individual member of the military? DITTO! No standing.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KATHYRYAN
      KATHYRYAN

      Dan choi continues with his blame Obama BS! We all blame Obama for dragging his skinny feet on this issue, but Choi can’t admit that Rethugs are the worst poison ever.Is Choi a Republican????. By all means tell us. Chris asked him point blank- why are Dems the bad guys when they delivered all the 58 yes votes and Repubbs delivered Zero on DADT. Choi couldn’t answer. Can we get a different spokesperson on DADT STAT? Choi is now working on my last nerves. If you can’t stand the heat, stay away from the Camera!.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wondermann
      wondermann

      @reason: Thank you, for saying what was needed to be said.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 6:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ben Marks
      Ben Marks

      Can we stop paying attention to Choi now? Please. His performance was juvenile and embarrassing. Let him starve.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 7:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      Matthews asks Choi essentially, Why do Republicans think this is a good idea?

      Choi replies, Why the hell should I know why anybody thinks anything?

      Look, Matthews tried to force Choi to speculate. I’d find that objectionable too. Then Matthews becomes a condescending twat. “Let me tell you how the country works.”

      Fuck you, Matthews.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 8:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran
      Kieran

      It’s so easy to sit on your fat ass behind a computer screen and anonymously critique a gay civil rights activist isn’t it? But ask yourself this, what have I done to end the injustice of DADT? Dan Choi is out there fighting on the front lines. He’s not MIA as I suspect most of you are.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
    • reason
      reason

      @the crustybastard: Your angry at Matthews for doing his job, their is not many in the media that stand up and do their job every once in a while. Matthews does his sometimes and I thank him for it. It is not just Choi that he challenges he has done it to tons of people including an Obama supporter during the 2008 campaign that was endorsing him but couldn’t name a policy she supported. When you go into the public arena and say that your advocating for something that you know nothing about, try to embarrass the speaker, senate majority leader, and the president you should get called out. If you claim to be a Honda car dealer and you don’t know the cars gas millage, the size of the engine, or the type of transmission you shouldn’t be working there. Dan Choi should keep his mouth out of the political arena because he doesn’t know what is going on, and ends up spreading false information that turns the gay community on the wrong people. Dan Choi has hurt DADT repeal not helped it.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @Ben Marks: Thanks for paying attention, the false information that is being spread in no way helps our community. People end up believing that stuff and spend their time attacking the people that are trying to help them instead of trying to convince the few republicans that they need to repeal the policy. I am no fan of the tea party, but when the going got tough they mobilized and stuck it to the democrats and got their people back into power. If the GBLT community had stood up like the tea party did during January when the president said he wanted to repeal DADT we would likely be facing a different reality. A potent message that Chris was probably trying to send is if you have 70% of the country supporting you, if you got organized across the country even in blood-red districts the GBLT community would have found the support to pressure the legislators. In politics 70% is an ungodly amount of support from the public and it is the activist job to go out their and put that support to work. It is their job to let the legislators in every district know where their constituents stand and that they are in tune. The president and congresspeople don’t have the time, money, or man power to do that stuff which is why their are powerful activist groups like sierra club etc. that make it happen. Every other lobby is effective at mobilizing their members except for the GBLT ones, instead you have activist like Choi out their damaging the cause. The tea party made it happen for their guy we didn’t for ours. A lot of people don’t even see Obama as our guy when he is actively trying to do something that benefits this community. Word to the wise, when someone in politics has gone as far as a state of the union in front of the entire country to support your cause they are your guy.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 8:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @wondermann: The last comment was thanking you also.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 8:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
      Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

      @reason:

      There’s your “Reading for Comprehension” deficiency again. TRY to pay attention, Mary, PLEASE, seriously.

      NOWHERE in this thread did I address the issue of the history of “stop-loss” of gays. My subject, in response to your LIE or STUPIDITY [pick your hat], was Obama’s ENTIRELY LEGAL AUTHORITY to issue a stop-loss order NOW. The LIES that the Pentagon spoon fed to the authors of the CRS report. page 9+ you, again, confuse with a priori truth despite the fact that in yesterday’s different thread I PROVED were lies based on the research by historians Allen Berube and the academicians at the Palm Center.

      NOW, if you would like to present your comparable or superior credentials to theirs, please do……oooops, I forgot, you don’t even have the balls to give us your actual name, still afraid to come out from behind the slimy rock from which you throw your coward’s rocks against Dan, me, etc.

      You confuse echolalia with elucidation. And, really, girlfriend, now, per you, its THE GAY COMMUNITY’s FAULT that any possibility to end the ban is about to fall into the same hole dug by Your Lord & Savior Obama Christ in which dozens of Dems fell because of him?????????? Some nerve ya got there, Sugar Lips.

      Finally, a famous wise man was probably thinking of people like you when he asked:

      [img]http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DilbertIgnorance.jpg[/img]

      Nov 12, 2010 at 11:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW

      Choi is a terrible representative for our community. He has no idea what he is talking about and just looks like an angry fool. We can do better. We must do better.

      Nov 13, 2010 at 12:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      The authority of the president to halt or end DADT with out congressional action doesn’t exist. The Sec. Gates has already used all the play available in the law to make it a more humane process. You can scream, cry, twist in the wind, post cartoons, and drum up as many ad-hominem attacks as you want, it doesn’t change the truth. I have provided my evidence, for yours, you bring up a liberal GBLT advocate The Palm Center that used to be called the center for the study of sexual minorities in the military. That would be like commandeering Dan Choi to do research on DADT. Were looking for objective truths, not a fairytale. DADT will not end until congress takes action or the supreme court rules, the sooner you understand that little fact the better.

      Nov 13, 2010 at 1:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Doot
      Doot

      This is painful to watch.

      Nov 13, 2010 at 8:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike Oliver
      Mike Oliver

      OH god. Just STFU Leut Choi. Are you really blaming Dems who all voted pesitively for DADT? Republicans are not to blame because the POTUS didnt make a phone call to them??. Seriously??Why do Repubs need phone calls persuading them to do the right thing. Last I checked the Repub Senate is full if grown/old men and women, not children. The Rethugs FILLBUSTERED DADT!!. As for log cabins, Can’t they convince a couple of their drinking buddies on the right to cross the isle and join the Dem senators in doing the right thing? I am only a 19 year old college student and I get this, why cant Choi?

      Nov 13, 2010 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jennifer Kline
      Jennifer Kline

      Dan Choi makes Joe Solmonese look like a well spoken genius. Thanks Dan.

      We should have known Choi was crazy when he did his 5-day hunger strike. He’s a loose cannon and he’s not very bright.

      Nov 13, 2010 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @Jennifer Kline:

      … and all the other Dan Choi bashers should list all their activism for the cause, all the times you’ve put your faces, names and reputations on the national stage for the equality for all LGBT Americans.

      And when that list out-shines Dan Choi’s, maybe your critiques will have some weight and validity. ‘Til then, STFU.

      Nov 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ronbo
      Ronbo

      @reason: Reason, you are wrong, once again. Read what I wrote – knowing that “enforcement” has many, many variations. To see only one, is to be blind to reality. We don’t have to repeal DADT to stop it from bullying LGB Americans out of the military. Obama could simply nullify the law by minimizing the enforcement to a level that represents harrassment. That is a legal term, Reason. Look it up before you fall in line with those who can only see in black and white saying “there is only one way”.

      Yes, Congress would be the definitive way. But it is hardly the only way. You are impersonation of the joke, “you can’t get there from here”.

      Nov 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ronbo
      Ronbo

      To Reason:

      You overpost. I think the lady doth protest too much. Are you on the blog to enlighten or as a trol?. Post when you have something valid to bring to light. Constantly harrassing others and pushing misinformation isn’t helping anyone (but the bigots).

      Nov 13, 2010 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      Hey, I know how we can get DADT repealed! The Democrats say they will repeal it. We should elect a Democrat for president, elect a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate, and elect a Democrat majority in the House. Then, they’ll repeal it!

      Oh, that didn’t work, you say? Hmmm.

      Nov 14, 2010 at 6:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dumb Choi
      Dumb Choi

      I’m glad Choi’s career as an activist is finally over – this has been painfully embarrassing.

      Nov 14, 2010 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Me Paid Activist
      Me Paid Activist

      Contact my agent for speaking engagements. Please provide a script for what you want me to say. $5,000 extra if you want me to call someone a “pus*y.”

      Nov 14, 2010 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John (CA)
      John (CA)

      It is interesting that whenever a straight musician, movie star, or even the wife of a conservative politician says anything mildly favorable – like “well, I don’t think homosexuals should be beaten to a bloody pulp and hung from a tree” – the adoring fan boys leap to their feet for a standing ovation.

      But actual gay people doing the heavy lifting for LGBT rights are mocked and shunned. This isn’t the sort of work that can be done from the comfort of the gilded closet. And the reason it is always the same couple of individuals (Fehrenbach, Choi, Almy, etc.) on every news network is because no one else wants to do it.

      Choi’s not terribly articulate in this interview. There’s no question that Matthews’ defense of the President knocked him off his stride. However, there is a venom to some of these comments that go well beyond constructive criticism. Others have gotten away with far more disastrous performances on Hardball. Chris Matthews has wiped the floor with many members of Congress who went on to win re-election quite easily. The show is not a determinant for overall effectiveness.

      Nov 14, 2010 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • customartist
      customartist

      Choi expresses frustration and then posters do the same – hmmm?

      Choi is imperfect, and yet, he is indeed doing the work. I thank him. I do not think it a better course to remain Perpetually Calm and to Achieve Nothing, as does Joe Solomonese with the largest budget of the LGBT community, and as do our Legislators.

      Why is it that decorum is uttmost in the minds of some, while it matters not if any real matters are addressed?

      Thank you Dan Choi!

      Nov 16, 2010 at 10:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.