Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Election 2008 | John McCain | Military | Mitt Romney | News | Ron Paul | Rudy Giuliani

GOP Candidates on Gays: Discrimination Trumps National Security

Despite the fact that former General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili, former Defense Secretary William Cohen and many Republicans have come out in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, the GOP candidates issued an across-the-board "no" on the issue in last night's New Hampshire presidential debate.

Not a huge surprise, but the lack of thoughtful consideration and understanding of the current national feeling about it was both telling and disappointing. Recent polls have consistently shown that a majority of the American public favors repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Aside from Romney, who actually flip-flopped once again in support of discrimination, this line-up of bigots wouldn't consider changing the policy at this point in time, with a few agreeing that such a consideration would be "disruptive".

Disruptive is discharging 58 talented Arabic linguists as we're losing a war in the Middle East, just because they're gay. For these candidates, pandering to their bigoted base is more important than thoughtfully considering the national security of the country.

You may have missed...
Former General Shalikashvili: Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell [tr]
First Marine Wounded in Iraq Comes Out of the Closet; Calls for Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" [tr]
General Pace's Remarks Ignite National Debate on Gays in Military [tr]
More Gay Linguists Discharged Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Watching the Republican candidates debate was more like a "tell all" book on everything that is wrong with this country and the current administration. Romney's illogical stance on virtually every issue has made him the laughing stock of the group. While Hillary is far from perfect, she is the clear choice for President. America needs the the dynamic dual efforts of Bill and Hillary Clinton to even hope to mop up the horrific mess left by Bush and Cheney .

    Posted by: Johnny Lane | Jun 6, 2007 8:45:08 AM


  2. Watching this just made me sick. It's like looking at Bush through a chamber of mirrors! A condensation of all that is wrong with the administration and irrefutable proof that a complete change is needed.

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Jun 6, 2007 8:58:04 AM


  3. The reason I like Wolf Blitzer is that he does NOT allow pols to sidestep the question. He will go after you and say, "You didn't answer the question." (He did with the Dems and with the Repulicans).

    On another note, was Mitt Romney calling us a "social experiment"?

    Posted by: damien | Jun 6, 2007 9:14:53 AM


  4. that was quite the deafening silence at the end of that clip, eh?

    Posted by: morgan | Jun 6, 2007 9:35:50 AM


  5. Very telling. Weasels all and McPain/Ghouliani are the biggest weasels of all. I liked Romney's flip-flop on the issue. What a whore! Ron Paul, who gets so much coverage in the political blogosphere as a more liberal Republican has a 100% conservative voting record. The bottom line is Gays, Guns and God is all the Republican's have to run on.

    Posted by: Tom | Jun 6, 2007 10:06:06 AM


  6. Ditto, SoulBrotha.

    Posted by: Giovanni | Jun 6, 2007 10:48:21 AM


  7. I wasn't a big fan of their answer, but the title of this post does not remotely reflect what the candidates said. They said National Security trumps Social Advancement. I understand logically that argument, but I don't agree with it - I think the right thing to do is always the right thing to do. But to say they said "discrimination trumps national security" is simply not the case.

    Posted by: Cyd | Jun 6, 2007 11:07:06 AM


  8. These bigots/boobs and their lack of common sense or logic or sense of decency and fairness in their pandering to the lowest element of their "party" are a disgrace to this alleged democracy. Rudy showed has true colors, a bigot, which I've known al along, but, now its out in the open. The android, Mitt, and what the heck kind of name is "mitt?" he just can't keep his lies straight, I guess that's due to his "faith" and trying to make sure that everyone knows he's "different." if, one of these boobs/bigots gets into office, this country will continue to go down the toilet.

    Posted by: Geoff | Jun 6, 2007 11:45:18 AM


  9. What the Republicans do well (and Democrats need to start doing) is spinning bigotry and discrimination into catchy slogans. Like 'if the democrats win, the terrorists win' and bullshit like that.

    Why not "If gays are not allowed to serve their country, then the Islamic extremists win, because they also don't believe gays deserve any place in society."

    But this illustrates quite frighteningly that the current Administration has more in common with Islamic extremists than it will ever admit.

    Posted by: mark m | Jun 6, 2007 12:01:32 PM


  10. did we watch the same debate? I didn't hear that at all.

    I heard both Rep. Ron Paul, and Huckabee say that it isn't homosexual attitudes that are a problem, it's disruptive sexual behavior (and that it would be a problem even if it were heterosexual.)

    Both said the current law seemed to be working, and that the UCMJ already makes clear what is and isn't acceptable.

    I also thought that Rep. Ron Paul's answer about individual rights trumping group rights was spot on. If every individual has the same rights, then gender minorities, ethnic minoritites, and religious minoritites will all be protected too.

    Laters.

    Posted by: Kevin Houston | Jun 6, 2007 2:23:51 PM


  11. Uh, still waiting for Real Friend of the Gays Guiliani's deaf, dumb, and blind defenders to clock in......

    Posted by: Leland | Jun 6, 2007 3:05:01 PM


  12. Since we all know what the gay Republicans are going to say, I'll just go ahead and say it for them:

    "Giuliani is merely playing to the base. Once he gets the nomination, he will reveal his true moderate self to us. And then everything will be wonderful and happy. We said the same thing about George W. Bush 8 years ago, and we were right. The perception that he's anti-gay is really just a Democrat smear campaign. No really, Bush has been a great president!"

    (Insert more out-of-touch-with-reality statements here)

    Posted by: John | Jun 6, 2007 3:22:03 PM


  13. Well done Kevin Houston. At least someone was paying attention.

    Posted by: E Metzver | Jun 6, 2007 3:47:48 PM


  14. I hated the first part of Paul's answer but loved the second half. He is absolutely right that individual rights trump any group rights.

    But to say that the current policy is working is ridiculous and insulting. But the real topping on the cake of this silliness was to say that "now is not the time" and pull the whole 'terrorism' card. Fucking 9/11. I wish we could put people like that into a tall building and knock it down.

    Posted by: Patrick W. | Jun 6, 2007 4:23:30 PM


  15. To Kevin Houston: The problem with their answers about "behavior" is that straight people are not kicked out of the army for their straight sexual behavior but gay people are. Yeah, the UCMC makes clear that straight sex is acceptable and gay sex isn't. That doesn't answer the question of whether the policy is a good one, which it clearly isn't since it is costing us skilled people that we need at no benefit whatsoever besides making the high and mighty feel "moral". Their attempt to cast the military's policies towards gays and straights as equal was insulting to the intelligence of the American people, but apparently they've hooked at least one person.

    Posted by: John K | Jun 6, 2007 8:04:18 PM


  16. Right on, John K.!

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Jun 7, 2007 12:01:44 AM


  17. John K you are right but do not go nearly far enough. The policy is not a good one -- not because it is costing skilled people we need -- but because it is discriminatory. Ending discrimination is the RIGHT THING to do, even if there were no Arab speking gays.

    The Republican apologist gays here need to get a grip. I realize America is one of the most limited countries in the world in terms of Political choice (TWO parties? Wow, some free market!!!) but come on people, wrong is wrong.

    Posted by: strepsi | Jun 10, 2007 6:56:47 PM


  18. I personally really like Ron Paul except for the fact that he is anti-choice and borders on being anti-gay. I won't even consider voting for any of the other Republicans but I like him in every other regard and I think if he somehow did get elected he would probably end the DADT if presented with the legislation to do so and was shown evidence that it wouldn't hurt the military. If I'm not mistaken sodomy (oral and anal) is against the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) for straights as well but it isn't enforced for them which means that either it needs to be enforced equally or it should just be thrown out for everyone including gay and straight people for being a stupid policy. DADT needs to end.

    I don't see Ron Paul winning the Republican primaries just because the forces within that party don't want him to win, although I do think Paul is providing a vital stage for Libertarian ideas to be spread. I think that McCain will win the nomination personally and he will lose to a democrat. On the Democrats side I would like to see Bill Richardson or Mike Gravel win but that's highly unlikely and I would probably go with Edwards or Obama over Hillary just because she seems to not believe in anything.

    Posted by: Jason Young | Jun 11, 2007 3:19:44 AM


  19. Strepsi: Absolutely, I did not go far enough. I fully believe it is unfair and discriminatory. Unfortunately, that isn't good enough for some people, so I was limiting my comment to other arguments.

    To add to this, I want to comment on one thing that Jason Young wrote, although I mostly agree with him. Enforcing sodomy restrictions against straights as well as per the UCMJ would not alleviate that problem. Straights would still be left with their "natural" sex, while gays would be banned from virtually all sex. If a straight person goes home and has sex with his girlfriend, he would be fine, but a gay person who goes home and has sex with his boyfriend would be discharged under equal enforcement of sodomy restrictions. All this to say that, the only acceptable option is the second of the two choices you listed: it should just be thrown out for everyone including gay and straight people for being a stupid policy.

    Posted by: John K. | Jun 13, 2007 12:10:31 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «About the Banner #18« «