‘Working’ for who?

June 6, 2007

On Sunday, Democratic presidential candidates were asked whether they’d let gay soldiers serve in the U.S. military. All eight said they would. Last night, Wolf Blitzer posed the same question to the GOP field. All 10 said they would not.

The amusing part, however, was listening them try and explain why.

Ron Paul, who claims to be a small-government libertarian, said, “Every individual should be treated the same way,” and also said the existing policy that treats individuals differently based on sexual orientation is a “decent policy” that he apparently would keep in place.

His competitors were no more coherent.

* Giuliani: “This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this…. At a time of war, you don’t make fundamental changes like this.”

Right. In a time of war, when the military needs able-bodied, patriotic volunteers, particularly those with specialized skills (Arabic translators), we should keep throwing them out of the Armed Forces. “This is not the time” to think about this, Giuliani says. Better to wait until the war is over and the need for these troops is less critical? It’s moronic.

* Romney: “[W]hen I first heard of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly. I didn’t think that would be very effective. And I turned out to be wrong. It’s been the policy now in the military for what, 10, 15 years, and it seems to be working. And I agree with what Mayor Giuliani said: that this is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on.”

* McCain: “So I think it would be a terrific mistake to even reopen the issue. It is working, my friends. The policy is working. And I am convinced that that’s the way we can maintain this greatest military.”

Blitzer ultimately opened it up to the floor. “Is there anyone here who believes gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the United States military? If you do, speak up now.” There was silence.

It’s absurd.

I’ll spare you the usual tirade — you’ve heard it before — but the candidates’ approach deserves follow-up because the policy doesn’t work.

Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic linguists because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable language specialists go.

Seizing on the latest discharges, involving three specialists, members of the House of Representatives wrote the House Armed Services Committee chairman that the continued loss of such “capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists continues to compromise our national security during time of war.”

The GOP candidates have made a choice — it’s more important to hate gays than protect Americans from terrorists. That’s what their policy comes down to. Americans disagree — American troops disagree — but the Republican presidential hopefuls have a pre-9/11 mentality that blinds them from reality.

As Amanda noted, “Currently in the midst of a readiness crisis, the military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits if gays could serve openly.” The GOP prefers the readiness crisis.

The idea may sound counter-intuitive, but I think James Kirchick is right about this: “Gays in the military is a great issue for the Democrats to beat the GOP with to look stronger on defense.”

A group of presidential hopefuls who ignore the blatant realities of a situation? Talk about following in the footsteps of W…

  • actually, i think we ought to encourage each of these candidates to keep talking as much as they can. the more they talk, the more they look like total f**king morons!

  • Wow, big surprise! If the eventual dem nominee can’t beat anyone from this little gaggle of idiots running for the repub nomination, then I say bring on the fiddle and let’s watch it all burn.

  • The follow-up question should have been: “Do you agree with the statement ‘I know I’d rather die in a terrorist attack than suffer through an uncomfortable shower with a gay’?”.

    Unfortunately, some of these losers would probably want to unleash tactical nuclear weapons after such a shower.

  • Of course Ruudee should have read his history (let’s look at WW2 which is a Repub standard.)

    The 442nd Regimental Combat Team was mostly made up of interned Japanese Americans and sent to fight in Italy and Southern Germany.

    The “Colored” 761st Tank Battalion (Black Panthers) who was sent to Europe in July 1944 after the US Army’s tank battalions were decimated fighting the Germans and they needed all the trained tank units they can find.

    In the Pacific, due to heavy losses among front line units, black Marines (usually in segregated combat support units) were “integrated” into “white” units.

    All three were fundamental changes and done out of desperation in all three cases.

    So, Ruudee…. no fundamental changes eh?

    If Rudee wasn’t so concerned with keeping his ass out of harm’s way from Vietanmese bullets then maybe he might realize that no one really gives a shit about social, religious, racial or sexual distinctions when the bullets fly. War is an equal opportunity employer in the worst kind of way.

  • The response from the Democrats shows they are scure in their sexuality and don’t fear gayness. Republicans, by their responses, prove they are insecure of their sexuality, though Rudy has acted on his crossing dressing side, and fear gayness. ‘Nuff said.

  • Can someone please ask Rudy and Mitt when the war will be over?

    And of course I agree that these guys are idiots, but I also think Dems should avoid firing up the anti-gay forces of the right, we need them to just stay home in 2008.

    Let them think the issue is going to be left alone. (It’s not)

  • This “raise your hand if you…” tactic is ridiculous. I don’t have cable and did not watch online, but in the few clips I have seen, when one of these questions is asked, you can see them all looking at each other as they decide whether their hand is going up or staying down. Real leadership and expression of principled opinions there…

    Obviously, some of these people must think that gays want to join the military for the sex. Right. We are at war, those who are enlisting are ending up in 120 degree heat in full uniform and body armor, and faced with the possibility of being shot or blown up, but the gay guys are all doing this for the sex. In a firefight, the straight GI might get killed because the gay GI is busy admiring the straight guy’s butt and not paying attention. Sure, that’s believable.

    And, I guess we also need to get the women out of the military, too, because I’m sure the straight guys are enlisting because of them, right? In fact, one of the big secrets of this war is how many women have been raped and assaulted by their fellow GIs who are, presumably, straight. So – out with the women, they are too big a distraction and just asking for trouble.

    The more these guys talk, the more stupid they sound, and I can’t believe any thinking person can possibly want to elect any of them.

  • The are clearly appealing to the least common denominator again. The ignorant still control the dialog of the Republican party. Does anyone here really think that every single one of these men believe homosexuals should be discriminated against?

    I think this contrast will be used to remind social conservatives of the difference between the “gays have no rights” crowd and the “we want to turn your children into warriors for NAMBLA” Democrats. Issues like illegal and disastrous wars, an eroding middle class, record deficits, systemic corruption… well, they will just have to get in line as long as the gay agenda is on the march.

  • The motive isn’t hating gays.
    It’s concern that there will be distraction of these wildly hormonal poofs that can’t keep their hands off their buddy’s arse when bullets are flying overhead.

    The picture I think they have in their head is of a man serving in communal showers with dozens of naked physically superior women (boot camp does that to a girl).

    Not far from the truth for a few recruits, maybe, but keep in mind that the ladies being admired are all armed, aggressive, feminist lesbians who will be (perhaps violently) offended by a male propositioning them.

    Indiscreet advances are extremely hazardous and gay soldiers generally are not suicidal, stupid, or even rude.

    The lack of any significant impairment in British ranks by service of openly gay soldiers has been well documented, yet the GOP candidates are forced to tow the line perpetuating the fable, feigning ignorance. (I give them the benefit of the doubt in assuming they are NOT so ill-informed as to have missed the report about the Brits.)

  • Imagine a guy joining a platoon of armed, aggressive, feminist lesbians.

    They may be looking good after boot camp has shaped em up, but he’s still not going to make advances until he’s dang sure one of em is a closet hetero.

    Gays generally are not suicidal, stupid, or even rude.

  • It’s beyond absurd how these Republicans feint, bob and weave around this issue.

    The truth is that I doubt any of them, aside maybe from Bareback–um, Brownback–and Tancredo, really care about this one. And hasn’t McCain said in the past that he knew he served with gays, and he couldn’t have cared less? But “the base” still hates them some gays, so the candidates have to pander to the haters.

    There’s comedy in here if you look at it the right way. Do these asshats really think that allowing gays to serve openly would lead to Gay Pride marches around the compound, Barbra Streisand blasting from a barracks boombox? As Bill Jacobs #11 suggests, this is almost certainly a complete non-issue. But the righties, invincible in their bigoted idiocy, absolutely refuse to acknowledge reality.

  • I think the reality of the gays-in-the-military debate is that the horror mostly involves gay males. Among fears of being raped in communal showers, etc., is the terror that a man’s gayness will somehow interfere with his unit during combat. Sexual attraction is supposed to be a possible lethal distraction. The times I was getting shot at, I was not lusting over Joey Heatherton (circa 1967).

    There have been gays in the military forever, and it’s never been a significant problem. Also, there are now plenty of women in the army. Maybe they don’t take barracks showers with the men, but women and men are certainly in close enough proximity to be tempted — Private England and Graner being a good example. Because their sexual relationship was heterosexual, nobody has gone nuts over it. Why are male/female sexual relations in a combat zone any less disruptive than gay relations?

    When I was at Fort Bragg in the Sixties, I dated a couple of women soldiers who described rampant lesbian activity in the WAC barracks. Talk about behavior in the showers! Their commanding officer was gay and made passes at women under her command. Everyone knew about this situation, but it was ignored by unit commanders and enlisted men. It didn’t affect the males.

    I have no idea how things are nowadays, but I think the whole military gay issue is exclusively over male homosexuality, which besides being a functionally irrelevant, illogically ignores the “terrible threat” of military lesbians to other military females.

  • Well, last time all the Goppers bought into the “ticking time bomb” justification for torture, so here’s another one:

    Let’s say there’s a ticking H Bomb in downtown Colorado Springs (I woulda said Manhattan, but they might not think that was so bad). The only person who knows how to defuze it is a Marine Sargeant who immediately announces he is gay. Raise your hand if you would:
    a. Renounce DADT and let the Sergeant disarm the bomb?
    b. Wait until he disarmed the bomb and then nuke the Sergeant?
    c. Waterboard him until he told a straight person how to disarm the device?

  • this is beyond sickening — so far beyond that i don’t even know the best way to express it.

    how can anybody be content with themselves with such pathetically ridiculous arguments? i’m sure they’d be willing to rally around a return to lynching and kkk burnings if only it was a little more openly acceptable to their idiot base.

    just say whatever the hell you wanna say in order to get yourself elected, regardless of how hateful it makes you sound, or how genuinely stupid and out-of-touch. is it okay in your minds that you’re so blatantly degrading people for trying to live their own lives normally? does it not hurt you a little to publicly encourage such hate against decent people? DECENT. where’s your decency?

    i’m sick. there’s a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that’ll be there most of the afternoon. that some people actually like to hear this sort of talk from the people who intend to run this country (and agree with them) is disappointing. it’s repulsive.

    if that’s what you truly believe, fine, there’s nothing anyone can say to change that. but know that you’re the worst kind of modern day bigot, and recognize that calling yourself anything less only further exposes your prejudice (not that you’d care). one day your mouths will be your downfall, and hopefully sooner than later.

    you should all be ashamed.

    • Comments are closed.