Barack Obama | Chuck Hagel | James Hormel | Michelangelo Signorile | News

BigGayDeal.com

Signorile: Log Cabin's Hagel Attacks Are 'Pathetic' And 'Laughable'

Hagel-log-cabin

Gay radio host Michelangelo Signorile finds the Log Cabin Republicans' sudden, mysterious attacks on potential Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel "laughable". From his latest piece at The Huffington Post:

Certainly, the way Hagel is being attacked by neocons and even smeared as an "anti-Semite" is ugly and reckless. It's also pathetic (and laughable) that the Log Cabin Republicans and some other gay conservatives are coming out against Hagel on the gay issue, clearly just allowing themselves to be used by the neocons. Having endorsed Mitt Romney and many other antigay Republicans, they have little credibility.

But that doesn't mean that Hagel's comments about Hormel, his voting record, and the insufficient apology are not a concern for many LGBT activists, and for many progressives. If Hagel and the White House want their support, they're going have to say and do a lot more.

President Obama told NBC News' David Gregory that he believes Hagel's apology shows a "positive change," but pointed out that he has not yet made a decision on who he will nominate to replace Leon Panetta as head of the Pentagon.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. 99 percent of the time Log Cabin is "pathetic and laughable," but not this time.

    Posted by: calvin | Jan 2, 2013 10:45:09 AM


  2. The LCR issue is an irrelevant distraction——which the Administration is clearly exploiting by transparently pulling the strings of their puppets like Mara Kiesling, HRC, and OS-SLDN to take the focus off of the the REAL issue which was and remains why a Democratic President who claims to be our "fierce advocate" wants to appoint ANOTHER REPUBLICAN with a ZERO percent rating regarding gay equality BY...wait for it...HRC for his years in office to a job totally controlling the lives of tens of thousands of gay service members. YES, people CAN change, but WHY did Hagel only ALLEGEDLY change AFTER it was good for HIM and him alone? WHY didn't he apologize TO Hormel rather than the press? WHY didn't he apologize for opposing the hate crimes bill when he was a Senator? WHY didn't he apologize for not lobbying his Repug brethern to repeal DADT in 2009 and 2010 if he SOOOOOO supports gay service?

    And WHY did the Commander-in-Chief allow his LAST Repug SECDEF to refuse to order the Pentagon to prepare to make gay troops equal IN the military in every way possible with repeal implementation? WHY has he for a year and a half refused to order the CURRENT Secretary of Defense—a Democrat with a history of support for gay rights—to clean up that mess which includes the ARBITRARY denial of important partner benefits which are unequivocally NOT banned by DOMA?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 2, 2013 11:07:48 AM


  3. Hopefully, if President Obama, who is committed to LGBT equality in and out of the military, thinks that Chuck Hagel is the best man to guide the Defense Dept, he will have the stamina to nominate him and put up a good fight to get the Senate to approve him.

    Posted by: andrew | Jan 2, 2013 11:17:23 AM


  4. Calvin, they are pathetic this 10% of the time as well. They are nothing more than tools of the neocon & israel lobbies and the koch bros funding machine. LCR has no credibility on any level.

    Posted by: antbnyc | Jan 2, 2013 11:34:24 AM


  5. @ Andrew: if "President Obama [was so] committed to LGBT equality in and out of the military" then LGBT service members WOULD be equal. But the fact is, they are NOT, in MULTIPLE ways which have nothing to do with DOMA. Rather than simply parroting Administration press releases, you might consider learning the facts.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 2, 2013 11:49:46 AM


  6. @Michael Bedwell: I don't read Administration press releases. I do know that social change takes time and that Obama is the most gay friendly man who could have been elected to the Presidency. I trust his judgement. You might consider not being so arrogant and dismissive in your responses to people.

    Posted by: andrew | Jan 2, 2013 1:48:28 PM


  7. Those ridiculous Uncle Toms at LCR are happy to be a front for dangerous neocon groups.

    THAT is not in dispute.

    I'd trust Obama before I'd trust LCR.

    Posted by: MaryM | Jan 2, 2013 3:12:35 PM


  8. I think his "apology" was insincere and self-serving and I don't want him in that appointment. Obama should find someone else. Maybe even a DEMOCRAT! At least an Independent. Even Barney Frank has come out against the nomination. Used by the neocons or not, we do not want Hagel. Deal with it.

    Posted by: G | Jan 2, 2013 3:49:29 PM


  9. Intent and Motivation are interesting.

    If you're going to criticize someone make sure you do it for the right (read: justifiable and backed-up) reasons.

    The LCR's specifics about their objections to Hagel are guffaw-worthy.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 2, 2013 4:33:49 PM


  10. @ Andrew: so "change takes time"? Care to give us ONE reason why Obama:

    A. after promising as a candidate to, "As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act [MREA], which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military" instead forced, according to no less than Nancy Pelosi, our allies in Congress to accept the Pentagon's demand that they gut the MREA of its mandate for post repeal in-service equality?

    B. has REFUSED for TWO years to clean up that mess he allowed to happen—or even respond to requests by HRC, January 2011, to “[revise] regulations [to] add same-sex committed partners to the definitions of 'dependent,' 'family member,' or other similar terms,” and SLDN, February 2011, "to show the leadership President Truman did when he issued an Executive Order banning racial discrimination in the armed services and to issue an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination in the armed services based on sexual orientation and gender identity to be effective on the date of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell."

    C. has refused to use the same amount of "time" that would end that ongoing ARBITRARY Pentagon discrimination—the SECONDS expended in signing an order—to require federal contractors not to discriminate against their hundreds of thousands of LGBT employees [not to mention job applicants].

    You "trust his judgement"? Try telling that to the some 800 gay service members he needlessly let be shitcanned into unemployment lines while repeal legislation bogged down. To those binational couples having to fight again and again to keep one partner from being deported when NOTHING requires the Administration to enforce DOMA or federal employee Karen Golinski whose wife is STILL being denied medical insurance coverage despite a judge's ruling that it would NOT violate DOMA. To those gay military couples being denied benefits NOT banned by DOMA on his watch as Commander-in-Chief. Etc., etc.

    In short, Andrew, at the risk of hurting your feelings again, WHOSE side are YOU on?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 2, 2013 4:38:29 PM


  11. i think the reality that the way DADT was repealed means some potential-GOP Pres can't undo it with their own pen-stroke counts for something.....

    monsieur bedwell, who's side are you on? i read, loud and clear, your issues with Obama. Yet are you suggesting another potential candidate for President? Who are you specifically suggesting *we* throw more weight and support toward?

    thank you in advance for a very clear and specific answer.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 2, 2013 4:43:36 PM


  12. First, Kiwi, Obama's reelection and inability to run again renders the first part of your second paragraph nonsensical. As for whose side I suggest we be on, it is our own, that we be the "FIERCE advocate" for ourselves that Mr. Obama proclaimed in early 2009 he was for us, but sometimes sorta was, and sometimes has been the direct opposite. I'm merely doing what HE'S repeatedly encouraged us to: hold his feet to the proverbial fire. [Had many not done that, there is no EVIDENCE he would have [RE]endorsed marriage equality when he did [even with his unacceptable "states rights" caveat].

    Finally, your first paragraph is simply and unequivocally factually wrong. Because Mr. Obama's DOJ inexplicably and unconscionably continued to fight the ruling in the LCR case that discrimination against gays by the military is unconstitutional even AFTER repeal had been implemented, and succeeded on September 29, 2011, in convincing the Circuit Court to overturn the ruling, it IS still possible for either a future President to order his Department of Defense to bring back a ban in policy form like that which resulted in over 100,000 being discharged before anyone had conceived of the charade of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, OR [as the Court acknowledged in their ruling] a future Congress to reinstitute DADT.

    Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal: “We are deeply disappointed that the Ninth Circuit chose to erase the factual findings and legal conclusions reached after years of litigation and a lengthy trial that thousands upon thousands of lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members' constitutional rights were violated for 18 years by Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The end of antigay discrimination by the military was required by the Constitution, not just by political considerations."

    That I think it's unlikely is beside the larger point of documented reasons NOT to blindly "trust" Mr. Obama to always do the right thing in terms of our equality. Thank you.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 2, 2013 6:10:58 PM


  13. @ Michael Bedwell: the bottom line is that Mr Obama, although far from perfect, is the best friend LGBT people have ever had in the White house. He is far far superior to all of our other possible choices. Let your conscience be at ease, an arrogant blow hard like you didn't and couldn't hurt my feelings.

    Posted by: andrew | Jan 3, 2013 12:53:46 AM


  14. @Towleroad: an ad from BP? Have you no standards? Anyone who believes that BP is interested in anything but profits probably also belives that Joe Ratsinger in infallible!!!

    Posted by: andrew | Jan 3, 2013 2:11:52 AM


  15. No, Andrew, Sweetie, that's the bottom line to a DIFFERENT story, not this one about the indefensible nomination by your unrequited boyfriend of yet another homophobic Repug to be his SECDEF. And, yeh, slinging "arrogant," "dismissive," and "blow hard" at me shows I didn't hurt your feelings at all—you just can't help shooting at the messenger of any message you don't like—particularly when it's backed up with documentation that you were too busy acting like a 10-yr. old little girl at a Justin Bieber concert to pay attention to on your own. Big hug.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 3, 2013 3:06:55 AM


  16. Nobody supports, especially republicans! They lost my support during the 2nd Reagan administration! Once a back stabber, always a back stabber.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jan 3, 2013 3:13:53 AM


  17. Log Cabin Republicans are playing a role by trying to change the Republican Party from within - I see that as a laudable goal - no need to hate them for it. Besides, they took the trouble of appealing DADT and winning that appeal. Its good to have friends everywhere. Obama won because of the gay vote. He should show us that our vote matters. A Chuck Hegel appointment would be a slap on our face.

    Posted by: Simon | Jan 3, 2013 5:04:34 AM


  18. @Michael Bedwell: "Sweetie", "unrequited boyfriend", "little girl at a Justin Bieber concert", "big hug"; what kind of man talks like that?

    Posted by: andrew | Jan 3, 2013 1:07:56 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Fantasia On Gay Instagram Kerfuffle: 'I Don't Judge Anyone'« «