The issue of gays in the military is ripe for comedy. The Onion has been all over it. So too has The Daily Show. The Weekly World News as well. And so have the gay tanks. So why was Saturday Night Live‘s Fox News parody such a let down?
Perhaps because even the right wing noise machine has been curiously silent since Tuesday’s DADT hearings. “If this were a Sherlock Holmes story,” writes Frank Rich, “it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark.” Not only was John McCain one of the lone right-wingers to call for DADT’s continuation, but even the talking heads were taking a pass. Continues Rich: “The Fox News report on Mullen’s testimony was fair and balanced — and brief. The network dropped the subject entirely in the Hannity-O’Reilly hothouse of prime time that night. Only ratings-desperate CNN gave a fleeting platform to the old homophobic clichés. Michael O’Hanlon, an ‘expert’ from the Brookings Institution, speculated that ’18-year-old, old-fashioned, testosterone-laden’ soldiers who are ‘tough guys” might object to those practicing ‘alternative forms of lifestyle,’ which he apparently views as weak and testosterone-deficient. His only prominent ally was the Family Research Council, which issued an inevitable ‘action alert’ demanding a stop to ‘the sexualization of our military.'”
Rich points to growing American support for letting gays serve openly as the reason why the right-wing is tapering its rebuke. (“The occasional outliers notwithstanding, why did such a hush greet Mullen on Capitol Hill? The answer begins with the simple fact that a large majority of voters — between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll — now share his point of view.”) But that doesn’t explain the full story, or even most of it. Polling says most Americans support having their health care needs taken care of, but that doesn’t mean they back Obama’s health care reform. (It also doesn’t explain the tea party phenomenon, but that’s another post.)
And with Michael Steele suffering a complete absence of control in the GOP, it’s hard to believe word is coming from high to “lay off this one.” Is Karl Rove calling the shots?
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.
That there are so few Republicans out there attacking a DADT repeal is indeed surprising. It’s almost as if they’re hanging McCain out to dry. Or there’s our theory that involves Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr.: That railing against DADT has taken on such a fringe-y zealot feel, courtesy Hunter & Co., that reasonable and less polarizing Republicans don’t want to associate themselves with Crazytown.
AndrewW
Because they know nothing is going to happen.
The one-year study will be after the mid-term elections. At that point they’ll determine whether or not the votes are there for repeal.
romeo
@Andrew: that’s what I think, too. Looks like the economy is going down for a second, and maybe deeper tank. That will hurt the Repubs. Going out on a limb and predict that Dems will get a 62 seat majority in the Senate in November. Why 62? Let’s just say I have a crystal ball. Wait and see.
Jake the libertarian
Actually I have a more optimistic view of it. I think that the Rebubs are finally starting to figure out that their hard line anti-gay stance is doing them more harm than good. Independents are turned off by homophobia and it makes the harder for voters on the fence to support them.
I am not saying that they will become friends by any means, however the Republicans are attempting to become a smaller government part again… I think their social agenda will take a back seat to that and they will pick their battles. Hopefully DOMA and DADT will be one of those things they decide not to fight. I hope so anyway.
Kieran
I think what gives is that they’re getting desperate to find people willing to risk life and limb fighting in their bloody, senseless wars in Iraq, Afganistan, and soon to be Iran.
David
Is Greta Van Susteren not a full fledged lesbian?
Mr. Enemabag Jones
If DADT is dropped, the Repubs will be able to campaign on reinstating it. They can pass themselves off as “protecting” America’s sons from all those militant homos, who will no doubt infiltrate the military. And of course, the voters will buy it. Sad, really.
The only people who want DADT and DOMA repealed more than us, are the Republicans. Without terrorism, racism and anti-gay prejudices, they have nothing.
romeo
voters are not buying it, Enema. We have a large majority on our side for DADT. The general public is much more fair-minded on this issue than marriage. Also, all polls of actual recruits, the young soldiers themselves, are for repeal of DADT. This is a much safer issue for us than marriage. Also, ENDA is majority supported. The Repubs just scream louder. Sort of like their assertion that with that one vote from Massachusetts, they’re the majority party again. The Dems need to get off their high-minded asses and out ugly the Repubs. and shove change down the Repubs throats. The public respects that.
America is a Roman society, not a Christian one. The people want their leaders to be gladiators, not pussies.
Marc
@romeo:
you have lost your mind. scott brown did not overwhelmingly carry independents in massachusetts because the economy hurts Republicans.
why is don’t ask don’t tell always presented as a policy of the Republican party. dadt is a Democrat party policy. clinton asked sam nunn D-ga (even though nunn had fired two of his own staffers simply for being gay) to formulate a policy. a Democratic majority in congress passed dadt and a Democrat party president signed it.
in fact, on military service, adoption, and marriage the clinton adminstration record could fairly be called the most anti-gay in us history.
the plain facts are that 58% of Republicans and conservatives favor lifting the ban.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/conservatives-shift-favor-openly-gay-service-members.aspx
religious conservatives reached their apex in the Republican party when it seemed as if the marriage worked for Bush in 2004. but, in 2006 when the Republicans in desparation trotted out the marriage issue and still got clobbered, the social conservative agenda lost its mojo. Republicans at the root are pro private property and pro military, everything else is can be debated.
the conservative position on abortion has basically been vindicated politically, and that and the death penalty is the linchpin social issue on the right, again everything else is fungible.
the military service issue is an opportunity for gay people to build bridges and move a huge step forward. every christian knows, “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” matthew 22:21.
don’t forget that before civil rights for blacks in the 50s and 60s came the desegregation of the military in 1948.
hopely gay people will not fuck it up by pimping out this issue to the partisan politics.
do not link this issue to Democrats versus Republicans. unbelievable as it seems, dadt is one of few issues on which obama has a chance to reach bi-partisan unity.
Republican hating is so ignorant.
romeo
Dear Marc, I won’t argue with you that I’ve lost my mind, but that happened a long time ago and is old news. LOL
But I don’t share your views about the repubs because I know that they are desperate to hang on to the economic levers of this country. And they will still play the “religion” card for all their worth if that’s the only traction they can get. If you’re right, then let them show it in their rhetoric. Let them start working for the country instead of against it in stonewalling legislation.
As for Clinton and DADT, he tried to open up the military, but it failed, so DADT was a compromise until it could be opened up.
In any case, if you’ve ever seen my posts about the Dems, you know I’m not a particular fan of their dumbfuckery either. Makes me doubly nuts to see them stumbling around this way. Speaking of gladiators, Roosevelt was a gladiator, from a wheel chair no less. When the right wing Supreme Court tried to block him in helping the people in the depths of the Depression, he fucked the Supremes over good. We’re in a similar situation now. Reagan was a phony, and the present collapse can be attributed directly to him and the sharks that used him.
tjr101
@Marc: DADT was an unfortunate compromise Clinton had to reach to allow gays to serve in the military. At the time the very right-wing congress lead by Republicans wanted a complete ban of homosexuals in the military. Had DADT not been instituted there would have been a witch hunt. I’m in no way defending DADT but it was the lesser of the evils at the time.
Marc
@romeo:
the Republican party is not defined by religion, that is ahistorical. even, if it were defined by religion, i strongly believe gay people have to stop making other people’s religion the enemy. we will never win that fight.
actually clinton did not have to compromise at all. before dadt, the policy on gays in the military was not written into statute. clinton could have simply done what truman did in 1948 and used his executive and commander-in-chief powers to end the band out right. clinton publically stated that he would do whatever sam nunn wanted to do. sam nunn was only the most homophobic member of the senate other than jesse helms. by sending the policy to congress to decide clinton gave away executive power and has made the issue exponentially more political.
the current collapse can be attributed to a regulatory decision made that lifted that cap on how much the big banks could leverage their assets.
mutiple times, Republicans actually proposed regulatory fixes to some of the more risky lending at fannie mae/freddie mac. but, by this time the biggest player holding about 80% of sub prime mortgages was fannie mae.
fannie maa has been run by a series of Democrat party big shots like franklin raines, who departed the job of running the place with a $92 million dollar bonus.
in fact this is very very funny… the guy who was in charge of fannie mae when the crash happened is a fellow named Herbet Allison. Do you know what his job is now?
…he is the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability of the United States in the obama administration. this is some funny shit ain’t it.
rewind to the proposed regulatory changes. they were defeated on a party line vote.
ftr, i am an independent/libertarian. i’ll admit lately more to the right than to the left. but, i am not alone in that.
Marc
@tjr101:
dadt was adopted on 11/30/1993. the Republicans did not take over congress until 1995 after the 1994 mid-term elections. Democrat is not a synonym for pro-gay, i wish people would get that.
Same Crap
@Marc: Regulatory fixes? You mean the Republicans that controlled the presidency and Congress from 2003-2007 couldn’t pass them during any of this time when the subprime mess was brewing? I know the current Republican meme is that mean old Barney Frank in the minority party wouldn’t let you because his lisp was too powerful to overcome. But the only ones who buy this bullshit version of history are you right-wingers.
Independent/Libertarian, my ass. You regurgitate all the Republican talking points right down to your tried overusage of “Democrat” party.
I’ll say it again, a losertarian, I mean, libertarian is a Republican who too ashamed to call himself that.
Same Crap
And why are you as a supposed libertarian even pushing regulations of the financial market? Doesn’t that go against your free market principles?
Josh
@David– Greta is a Scientologist and they have their own version of “ex-gay” therapy.
She is a self hating lesbian married to a self hating gay man.
Marc
@Same Crap:
the key vote came in 2007 after the Democrats had control of congress.
bush took office in 2001 with Republican majorities, try to get your facts right.
the Democrats have bigger majorities in congress with obama in the white house than the Republicans have EVER had EVER, even with the loss of 60 votes. so, if the dadt law is not repealed in a year as promised, i hope that you will be holding the Dems to same tough criticism.
libertarian is not a synonym for anarchist. and, free market principles do not mean no regulation. your understanding of free market principles is just wrong. if you have not studied the history of liberalism, take a class.
i apologize for a statement which i made ealier, i do not like for these types of discussions to become personal.
Same Crap
Fine. The Republicans had SIX years to push financial regulations, and they wanted to do it when they are in the minority. Funny how Republicans want to do everything when they are in the minority, cut spending,call for financial regulation, embrace fiscal responsibility. None of that seemed to matter when they are pushing a war of choice and passing an unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D.
Marc
@Same Crap:
given the glaring mistakes of the Republicans how dumb can the Democrats be with ample foresight to be doubling up on them. pardon me, tripling up. obama has tripled the deficits in one year that accumulated over eight in the last administration.
partisan Democrats like to live in a partisan past in which it is forever the 2008 campaign in which they won the arguments.
the rest of us live in the present and the long term future of us economy is perilous. even as, the Democrats plan for more reckless spending and higher taxes with an eye towards the political debate not fiscal responsibility.
you want to talk about budget surpluses in the 1990s. it strikes me that we had divided government and its divived goverment we need, now.
ON TOPIC
do gay people want to linger in the culture wars, pondering an inadequate riposte from the hated foe or seize an opportunity to make a great step forward for full human rights. all eggs in one basket politics is no strategy for a minority.
Bill Perdue
This is what gives.
Both Democrat and Republican Party leaders support the wars and occupations in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to steal oil and other resources in South Asia. They and their front groups in the GLBT movement cravenly support the latest version of the myth of ‘national security’ and encourage enlistment.
Their opinion about Clintons bigoted DADT policy is changing as they contemplate a long hard fought war in South Asia with increasing US causalities. They understand perfectly well that resorting to a draft would create a vast increase in organized antiwar sentiment. Obama and the Congressional Democrats know they need more cannon fodder. In calling for an end to DADT Obama and the liberals said nothing about the violence against GLBT servicemembers, or their loss of benefits, kangaroo courts martial or the psychological violence of forcing people to deny their sexual preference. The one and only thing on their minds is a fresh source of meat for the grinder.
To date deaths in Iraq as a result of the Clinton-Bush-Obama invasion and occupation of Iraq are 4375 and 31,616 wounded, over half seriously. If you add in soldiers form US puppet states the total is 4693. Similar figures for The Bush-Obama invasion and occupation of Afghanistan are 984 Americans, and the total including those from puppet states is 1,628. 9496 Americans have been wounded. Causality and death figures have nearly doubled since Obama took office (from icasaulities.org. Suicide figures for returning vets and active duty personnel number in the thousands and are rapidly escalating.
Democrats and liberals ignore the fact that Clintons bigoted DADT, like his enthusiastic support for bank deregulation, union busting (NAFTA), and DOMA are morally bankrupt attacks on working people as a whole and LGBT working people in particular. And they ignore the fact that his embargo on food, medicine and sanitary supplies killed roughly half a million Iraqi children and was a war crime. But the main thing they ignore is the fact that at the time most Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted for Clintons program. (Some of the denser Republicans voted against DADT because it wasn’t draconian enough for their tastes, i.e., no confession under torture, no castrations, hysterectomies or pre-frontal lobotomies.)
Clintons bigoted DADT has been the policy of the Democrats and Republicans for the better part of two decades and it won’t be easily overturned, as all the maneuvering and backsliding if the last week indicate. As they did with the giveaways to the looter banks, Republicans will make the record in support of DADT but if the choice is between repealing DADT and a draft, I bet they’ll vote to repeal DADT.
romeo
Bill: Very astute post. I don’t entirely agree with every point. Not a big Dem supporter, but I think that many of the things they’ve done have been under pressure from Repub dominance politically. For instance, Marc referenced the increase in the deficits since Obama took office. THAT was because of commitments the REPUBS made and caused. As for Clinton, he had heavy pressure from Repub dominance during most of his administration (remember America’s arcane “filibuster” ?), but he also was more of a politician than a humanitarian. He should have fought DOMA tooth and nail. He knew better than that. He caved. But I do think that he thought DADT was a better option given that Congress wouldn’t go for full acceptance of gays.
Same Crap
@romeo: ” For instance, Marc referenced the increase in the deficits since Obama took office. THAT was because of commitments the REPUBS made and caused.”
Of course that’s the case. But Republicans, er sorry, libertarians, like Marc, want to look forward not backward.*
*Note, not looking backward only applies when Republicans are clearly to blame for a mess. If you want to pin the blame on Dems, it’s perfectly ok to look backwards.
Marc
@Same Crap:
no, you are full of crap.
1 domestic discretionary spending in the last year of the bush administration was less than 2% of GDP. it has since increased over 20%.
2 if you are refering to the TARP spending, most Republicans were skeptics of that bill. the bill was passed by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans including senator obama.
3 bush took office with a recession and 9/11, by 2004 the deficit was 413B. however, by 2007 the decifit was reduced to 162B. tax cuts and the resulting growth and job creation were clearly paying down the deficit not adding to it.
4 bush had the class and the integrity never to blame anyone for his decisions. this constant whinning from obama that he doesn’t want to make any of the decisions he has made but he is forced to because it all bush’s fault is ample proof the man is not an able leader.
ON TOPIC
dadt is a rare opportunity for gays and lesbians to get broad public support and not sell out the opportunity to the partisan interests of one party.
Same Crap
Bush never blamed anyone?
His administration blamed his failure to keep us safe on 9-11 on the Clinton administration. Just months ago, on Bushy claimed the administration “inherited” the 9-11 attacks, a not so-veiled reference to his predecessor. All throughout 2001-02, the administration referred to the downturn as the Clinton recession. Yeah, Bush was a real class act who always owned up to everything.
Goddamn. Take the mask off and call yourself a Republican. This libertarian canard is not fooling anyone.
Same Crap
And on topic, get your damn party on board. So far, the 2008 Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates have been on record opposing the repeal. Various troglodyte Republican members of Congress and candidates for Congress (e.g., Crist, Rubio) have added their voices to the chorus against the repeal.
When you go to next Log Cabin meeting, why don’t you and your fellow cabiners strategize on how to get these neanderthals to support the repeal? You like their positions on taxes and starting unnecessary wars, why can’t you pipe on tell them gays can openly be cannon fodder for these Republican military misadventures, too. That should get them to at least reconsider.
Marc
@Same Crap:
wrong. bush has never blamed clinton for 9/11. there no statements from president bush to that affect. you are making things up. produce the links as evidence. you cannot. it is bullshit.
but, lets be clear bush did inherit those attacks. it is documented fact in a 1998 interview with pbs that after witnessing clinton retreat from mogadishu, bin ladin declared that the American soldier was a “paper tiger”. it is also well established that it was at that time the planning for the 9/11 attacks began.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
this being the case, bush never pointed the finger at previous presidents, though he well had cause.
it is clear that you are just a Republican hater. you have nothing smart to say. it is a waste of time to discuss this with you further.
Marc
one important point. post civil war, the united stated has never entered war without out bi-partisan political support and broad support from us public opinion.
this includes vietnam started under Democrat presidents and the iraq war started under a Republican president.
i am the son of a korea and vietnam era veteran, from a family of veterans. my father was exposed to agent orange during his tour of duty. he died from a heart condition determined by the veterans administration to have been 100% service related.
no policy issue is more personal to me than service.
Americans of all backgrounds including gays and lesbians are fighting in wars WE the people sent them to fight.
their sacrifices are so precious, so dear no debate about war should ever be reduced to ad hominem and partisan slander. it is infra dig, more than ignorant, it is indecent.
B
“His only prominent ally was the Family Research Council, which issued an inevitable ‘action alert’ demanding a stop to ‘the sexualization of our military.'” …..
Wow. The FRC apparently never heard of the “Tailhook” scandal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal ). The idea that sailors and soldiers might be sexualized more than they already are is comical.
Perhaps the FRC “thinks” the U.S. military is run by The Right Honorable Sir Joseph Porter, head of the queen’s navy in H.M.S. Pinafore. In case anyone needs a reminder, you can see Sir Joseph right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-ZZRXBEcM&feature=related
Same Crap
It’s clear you’re one of the deadender 27%-ers who thought Bush was doing a heck of a job right up til January 20, 2009, right when that despicable warmonger left office.
both vietnam and iraq serve to illustrate that the American public is largely ignorant and will buy into almost any war with the right amount of cheerleading. it’s nice to know bipartisanship exits in washington only when we agree to bomb the everliving shit out of 3rd world countries.
yeah, yeah. the service of your forefathers is so precious to you that it’s impolite to call out members of YOUR party that are the main impediments to repealing DADT. spare me.
This is a partisan issue because one party is consistently making its opposition to the repeal loud and clear with pronouncements from various legislators and quitters. Guess which one?
B
No. 25 · Marc wrote, “@Same Crap: wrong. bush has never blamed clinton for 9/11. there no statements from president bush to that affect. you are making things up. produce the links as evidence. you cannot. it is bullshit.”
Try http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm – regardless of whether Bush personally blamed Clinton, Bush’s minions did – at least as far as necessary to deflect
the blame (or at least some of it) from themselves. It’s not like they could try to blame Obama – Clinton was their only possible target.
Basically, when your excuse is “the dog ate my homework”, the dog that gets blamed is the one in the house.
Carpet Cleaners San Antonio
I love the interview,and I thinks this what America wants and this will have to happen in next elections
Marc
@B:
bush never blamed previous presidents for his decisions. he made decisions. and, right or wrong, he did not pass the buck. you and the aptly named same crap cannot contradict this fact.
i am not making an endorsement of bush, but of integrity. integrity is something this new president has not shown.
obama has made a promise on dadt that he is well able to keep. so far, obama has a very bad track record for keeping his word. if obama does not keep this promise, it is a faliure of his honesty.
as for the Republican party being a complete opponent on dadt, here are the facts.
sod gates is a Republican, a bush appointee, a long time bush family associate, and a texan.
and of course there is the long time Republican leader in the senate for conservative nominations to the federal bench, orrin hatch from the very morman state of utah.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/03/Orrin_Hatch_Open_to_DADT_Repeal/
the national review and the weekly standard are the headquarters for Republican and conservative opinion making. the latter run by bill kristol the former chief of staff to vp dan quayle. and as is reported by the left-leaning media matters, there is high-profile support in these conservative ganglia for the repeal of dadt.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002030045
in summary, any parakeet could spit back the popular cynical vitriol from the last election cycle.
the question smart gays and lesbians should have for both parties is… “what can you do for me NOW?”
B
No. 31 · Marc dissembled by writing, “@B: bush never blamed previous presidents for his decisions. he made decisions. and, right or wrong, he did not pass the buck. you and the aptly named same crap cannot contradict this fact, ” followed by “in summary, any parakeet could spit back the popular cynical vitriol from the last election cycle.”
… Hey asshole, I cited http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm (The National Security Archive maintained at George Washington University). FYI this is not “popular cynical vitriol from the last election cycle” (that was a lie on your part).
Furthermore, what I said was, “regardless of whether Bush personally blamed Clinton, Bush’s minions did – at least as far as necessary to deflect the blame (or at least some of it) from themselves.” Rather than respond to that, you basically pretended that I had said something else.
Oh, and BTW, read http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5D9143AF931A25751C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 where it is pretty obvious that Bush administration members were trying to claim that the Clinton administration had done less than it actually had.
If you think the Bush administration wasn’t putting out self-serving spin to cover up mistakes or shortcomings, maybe you’d also like to put in an offer on a purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge.
B
No. 26 · Marc wrote, “one important point. post civil war, the united stated has never entered war without out bi-partisan political support and broad support from us public opinion.”
Really?
1. http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=684 has the history of the Korean war (technically called a “police action”).
Support was luke warm at best: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/korea/may.htm has some of the details. Then there is http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=684 : “Differences between Truman and MacArthur led to the latter’s firing in early 1951, and as the war ground on it grew more and more unpopular in the United States. Ultimately it would contribute to Dwight Eisenhower’s election as president in 1952, and it would be the Eisenhower administration that brought an end to the conflict through a compromise peace.”
2. The Vietnam war was unpopular with a significant segment of the American public at the start, and before it really geared up, Lyndon Johnson ran his presidential campaign on a “peace platform”, casting his opponent (Barry Goldwater) as an extremist / warmonger http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/merely-another-weapon#4003 shows some of the commercials (from both sides). Lots of nuclear bombs going off for “why you should not vote for Goldwater.” Then there is
http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Lyndon-B-Johnson-The-campaign-of-1964.html which points out how Johnson said, “We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” So, Johnson got himself elected on a peace platform and then escalated the war into a real conflict, not one where we were “merely” providing “advisors”.
3. The number of short wars (Genada, etc.) had no real public support, if only because those wars were over before the public could react one way or the other.
4. The Spanish American war had widespread public support, partly due to William Randolf Hearst allegedly wanting it. Whether true or not, he supposedly told someone, “you provide the pictures, I’ll provide the war” (parodied in the film _Citizen Kane_). The president didn’t want a war but ended up having to go along because of public and congressional pressure.
5. World War II is an exception – widespread support due to us being attacked.
6. World War I, is a complicated case. Read http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/dwyer3.html for how the U.S. got involved.
Marc
@B:
whether or not dr. rice thought the bush admintrastion had been handed a plan for al qaeda or not is not even the same topic.
you have cited NOTHING that documents bush blaming clinton.
no such documentation can be made. the issue is not what rice, mary matlin or any other individual has said. from his own lips, bush never did it.
bush had more class than that and obama doesn’t.
obama repeatedly out his own mouth finger points and passes the buck of blame. and, that kind of petty partisanship is unpresidential.
we do not have a prime minister system with a separate head of state who is above politics. the potus is both ceasar and pope. he has a political role and at the same time the president must rise above politics. instead, obama has proven to be the most partsan president ever on record.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic
gays and lesbians should take a lesson from the jews, an overwhelmingly Democrat voting minority. yet, jewish interests remain well received in both parties. why? organized jewish organizations reach out to both parties on issues where agreement is possible.
Republican hating is stupid. it doesn’t matter what Republicans have or have not supported in teh past. right now, there is a consensus to be had on military service.
if this country ever openly embraces gays and lesbians as military heros, this honor will follow every gay person. and, honor long on watch, long hidden will witness to the nation what manner of men and women we are.
think about the bullying of gay kids that is in no small part propped up in the culture because of the ban on military service.
drop the bush bashing bullshit, “keep your eyes on the prize”. this is one we can win, “hold on”.
Marc
@B:
in all of that, my statement stands uncorrected. i will just take the example of the vietnam war since i had mentioned it.
in 1965 support for the war was at 61% overall. in fact, according gallup support for the war was highest among young Americans under 30. support from people under 30 did not fall below 50% until 1968.
we went to war in iraq because American public opinion wanted it. i remember the debate. i recall as you should Democrat critics swaggering around saying bush’s father should have gone to bagdad in 1991. former nebraska Democrat senator bob kerrey bouncing out of his chair at the 9/11 hearings telling dr. rice she should had her “hair on fire” ready to invade afghanistan on the spot because of a vaguely worded briefing about what types of attacks bin ladin might attempt. a lot of people in both parties were rushing to war.
my point is that when people are risking their lives representing us, they deserve better than a debate shaped by petty politics.
i can say no more about this. *kiss*