Huh?

I don’t know anymore than you do about Nunn. This isn’t about tax cuts vs. deficits, but it was another example of a broken promise by Clinton. Now that one was annoying but tolerable. His signing DADT and DOMA into law is a different matter entirely.

Pure opinion on your part. How do you know his mindset? He listened to his economic advisers that cutting the deficit was more important than a tax cut.

Why? Because Clinton insinuates this in his book to help clear his own failings? Or perhaps you have trouble seeing past the facade he created which was pure BS?

Nope. I didn’t see anything about Sam Nunn in his book. It’s pure opinion on my part.

No, this wasn’t Reagan’s move but that of the Carter Administration in its final days:

Continuing inconsistencies in standards, required documentation, and administrative hearings led, however, to a further review of the policy during the Carter Administration. The Department of Defense issued Directive 1332.14 on January 16, 1981, in response to court rulings that had questioned inconsistencies in the way the prior policy had been implemented (National Defense Research Institute, 1993). The purpose of Directive 1332.14 was to make clear that discharge would be mandatory for any service member who “engaged in, has attempted to engage in, or has solicited another to engage in a homosexual act” (Cited in RAND, 1993, p. 8). The new policy voided all clauses in military regulations that had permitted the retention of homosexuals (Shilts, 1993); prior to the development of the new directive, final decisions about the separation of service members had been left to the discretion of individual commanders (Korb, 1994). Directive 1332.14 also stated that, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, a gay or lesbian service member was to receive a discharge under honorable conditions.[15] The 1981 directive would remain in effect until President Clinton’s efforts to remove the ban in 1993 (Burrelli, 1994).
U.S Military Policies Concerning Homosexuals: Development, Implementation and Outcomes

Matt: I agree that Clinton should’ve tried harder, and he also acknowledges that mistake in his book.

Bully for Clinton, he seeks to undo his ‘legacy’ after the fact. I give this as much creedence as that middle class tax cut he swore he worked the hardest he ever had in his life to achieve. That doesn’t help those who believed him in 1992 only to be stabbed in the back by him for political expediency.

I’m convinced that Sam Nunn was conducting a personal vendetta against President Clinton for being passed up as Sec. of Defense for Les Aspin.

Why? Because Clinton insinuates this in his book to help clear his own failings? Or perhaps you have trouble seeing past the facade he created which was pure BS?

If this issue rankles you so much, be fair . Perhaps you should also pour your vitriol on the Reagan people?

Again that was Carter not Reagan. However in fairness to both of them, neither ran on a promise to lift the ban only to cave at the first sign of opposition like a spineless political coward.

Republicans initiated the FMA through Musgrave, and too many Democrats supported it. In addition, Bush pushes abstinence only sex education (adding the bit about “until in a committed relationship” was a stupid afterthought in this day and age); the CDC has removed instructions from pamphlets on condom use, officials have repeatedly voted against non-discrimination legislation with language pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity; and the website http://www.osc.gov has removed language that would prohibit the discrimination of government employees based on sexual orientation. I must also asume that, in support of capitalism, the GOP have not introduced any legislation that would ensure that, cost-wise, insurance companies would provide coverage equal to that of non-HIV infected persons. Clinton created “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, and too few Republicans are fighting to repeal it.

I miss Germany. A country that sent gays to concentration camps now offers gay and lesbian couples infinitely more protections under the law than the US.

Strange, huh? Will I move back to Germany? Not a chance! I’ll fight until our community can work, play, and marry just like our straight counterparts.

Still a step-up from what was codified in 1981 under Ronald Reagan. The policy written by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service…” no ifs, ands, or buts. It was designed to completely eliminate any past loopholes in the Carter Administration to retain Gay servicemen (of which I am one). This is the policy that Clinton was left to undo in 1993. I agree that Clinton should’ve tried harder, and he also acknowledges that mistake in his book. I’m convinced that Sam Nunn was conducting a personal vendetta against President Clinton for being passed up as Sec. of Defense for Les Aspin.

If this issue rankles you so much, be fair . Perhaps you should also pour your vitriol on the Reagan people?

When He encourages legislation that seeks to protect ALL GLBT from discrimination in the work place

All anti-discrimination legislation is an unconstitutional intrusion of the government into the workplace and a violation of freedom of association.

So the fact that John Kerry and Howard Dean endorsed, supported, and loudly cheered for state constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights doesn’t count — because they didn’t actually vote on them.

Right-o.

Moreover, you didn’t answer my question.

Instead of pumping tens of millions of dollars and endorsements into fighting actual initiatives, you gave it away to homophobic political candidates who supported those initiatives.

Why was it more important to elect homophobic candidates than to defeat the initiatives, Demetrius?

I find it curious how some liberals are speaking here about how Dick or Mary Cheney hasn’t done enough, yet turn around and defend a spineless man like Bill Clinton. Instead of acting like the Commander-in-Chief he was as POTUS and actually following Truman’s example by executive order, he caved. He barely even put up a fight when Sam Nunn — a Democrat — led the charge for DADT. “Forced upon Clinton” is a flat-out lie. The man had a choice and the one he picked was to sacrifice gays for political expediency, which is typical for Dems. The result? The ban against gays is now codified into law making it very difficult to repeal and every single servicemember who came out in 1992 believing Clinton’s word has been discharged. Thanks for nothing Bill.

he’d be folk hero to gay and lesbian activists.

No, he would not be. He would be just another Democrat.

Not only did he risk alienating part of his party’s conservative base in the 2000 Vice Presidential debate by speaking out in favor of gay couples living openly, but in the 2004 campaign, he opposed his running mate, President Bush, on only one issue when he spoke out against a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

But what has he done beyond that? If someone attacked my daughter for who she was thru one of these inane proposals, I’d do more to work against it. Don’t Republicans always speak out vehemently on family values? Isn’t protecting your daughter from attack a family value?

Once again their narrow partisanship prevents them from telling the real story about this Administration — and the ever-improving conditions for gay people in America, even under George W. Bush’s leadership.

Protecting your employees from discrimination is a given. It’s nothing special. If you define an “ever-improving situation” as fighting to keep anti-gay referendums off ballots, referendums sponsored in various states by the Republican party, then wonderful: Good Job!

Pointing fingers at Democrats and whining “Well, they do it, too!” is disingenuous. Unfortunately, some Democrats choose the politically expedient answer to Gay issues, but very rarely are they the instigators. That role of instigating these horrible referendums are the Republicans.

Cheney feels that each state should be free to define marriage as it wants

Federalism. Look it up. Learn something about how this nation is supposed to work.

What in the %%4#@ does the Cheneys (generous) contibution to charity have to do with this issue? Do you know if any of that money went to gay causes?

So only “gay causes” count, eh?