GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Repealing DADT should be Primary Gay Issue

by

While we often differ from other gay groups in the language we use and the policies we propose, we stand united with them (as I would assume do most gay people) in our opposition to the military’s Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. Quoting a friend of mind, I have called that policy, “One of the great injustices and follies of our time.” We believe, along with many straight hawks (e.g., milblogger, Uncle Jimbo) that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces.

As we read of gay linguists, particularly those fluent in Arabic, being dismissed at a time when knowledge of that language is key to securing our nation, it becomes increasingly clear how damaging this policy is. It deprives our military of a pool of committed patriots who want to serve and have skills needed to defend our nation.

Today, Glenn Reynolds links an article about four openly gay North Carolina students who staged a sit-in out the Army Recruiting Center in Greensboro, not a sit-in as staged by all too many students at such locales over the past thirty years or so, to protest the military, but instead to protest its DADT policy. These good people are protesting not because they loathe the military, they are protesting because they love it. They want to serve.

As Matt Hill Comer, an openly gay sophomore at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro put it, “I knew if the military were to accept me, I’d have a good possibility of going to Iraq or Afghanistan… In the end, I decided I love my country enough to defend it.” He’s willing to risk his life because of his love for his country.

Instead of focusing on “marriage equality,” which the American public does not yet seem ready to embrace, perhaps gay groups should change their focus to press Congress to repeal this great folly of our time. As we frame it in terms of such proud patriots as Matt Hill Comer, we show that, while we differ from the norm in America, we love our country and our proud of its military.

This would show our fellow citizens that gay people no longer see ourselves as part of a counterculture; gay people do not seek to undermine our society’s institutions, instead we wish to be part of the mainstream, willing to defend our great nation and its institutions, including the military. In advocating repeal of DADT, we show our commitment to the War on Terror, that many gay people wish to serve. And if gay people can serve openly, the military will have broader pool from which to draw new recruits.

The campaign alone to repeal the ban — if framed properly — could accomplish much even if we fail to change minds of our federal legislators. And as this campaign would show gay people in a better light, it may cause some social conservatives to reconsider their opposition to state recognition of same-sex unions and even to gay marriage.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Comments

  1. I think this is actually a good cause, and a worthwhile one.

    Although a sit in at a recruiters office may draw media attention, the place it has to be advocated is in congress, because congress is where DADT got passed, and where it has to be rescinded.

    What bothers me about DADT is that almost every legitimate concern about openly serving gays can easily be handled with the UCMJ.

    I don’t think it makes our military stronger to exlude a whole class of people who are physically capable of doing the job from serving openly.

  3. With the war going on the gay groups will not fight against the DADT policy. Why? Because they are against the war and don’t want to appear to support the war or our soldiers. They’re too busy participating in antiwar activities.

  5. As a former member of the military and a gay man, it is unacceptable to me that DADT is still in place. Despite attempts to portray recruitment as adequate, the military (to include the Reserve and the National Guard) is currently over-extended and the problem is only going to get worse (unless the Afghan and Iraq engagements suddenly end). That qualified, motivated gay Americans (some with highly sought skills such as Arab linguists) are being discharged or discouraged from ever attempting to serve during these perilous times is a national disgrace. I wish the Administration would do whatever is necessary to bury this idiotic, unfair policy once and for all.

  6. #6 – Scott, I totally agree with your position on DADT and I salute your service on our behalf in keeping our nation safe.

    That being said, I think that in order for the military to reconsider the DADT debacle, they will have to confront it the same way they confronted the sexual integration of women into the armed forces.

    I know you may not agree with a civilian on this opinion, and you have every right to say “pffft” at it, but hear me out:

    1. For the minimization of any kind of sexual harrassment lawsuit or aggravated sexual assault charges that would just be waiting out there for some ACLU minion to sink their claws into, you would have to create an entire unit of gay soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines. You would keep that platoon separate from any other combat unit.

    2. Barring that tactic, you would put all gays and lesbians into any kind of non-combatant role in order to minimize any resistance from the rest of the troops (and I will go out on a limb here and say that the troops are overwhelmingly heterosexual).

    3. Bring in experts from some of the orientation-integrated militaries of other countries that are actually good at what they do (like Israel) and have them draft the requirements to integrate the armed forces.

    Sounds ridiculous? Of course. But barring an act of Congress or executive order (which actually may happen in January 2009 prior to a new president being sworn in – hey, GWB has nothing to lose), these would be the only options available.

    You cannot create utopias overnight. Nor can you change hearts and minds in the same way. It will take time, but it can be done.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  8. Any attempt to repeal DADT, and further integrate homosexuals into the fabric of America, will be met by ferocious opposition from the usual suspects.

    Does anybody here really think the Republican Party is ready to take on Concerned Women For America and Focus On The Family over a gay rights issue? I think i’d have a better chance of digging up a stegosaurus fossil in my back yard.

  10. #8 Peter Hughes — September 21, 2006 @ 11:05 pm – September 21, 2006

    And as far as how “horrible” our recruiting efforts are – here’s the latest good news from the AP (so it MUST be true, right?). The 2006 recruiting goal has been met…

    I suppose that that is relatively easy to do after the recruitment standards have been lowered.

    BTW, do you have any idea how many of these recruits who were allowed in under the lowered recruitment standards are actually permitted to remain with the military after training? It strikes me that the issue isn’t so much the recruitment, but those who remain after training.

  11. 2. Barring that tactic, you would put all gays and lesbians into any kind of non-combatant role in order to minimize any resistance from the rest of the troops (and I will go out on a limb here and say that the troops are overwhelmingly heterosexual).

    I don’t see this working, especially since the line between combat and non combat is blurring.

    I think the idea of an all gay unit is rediculous.

    Although I can maybe see, in the beginning at least, having all gay barracks/sleeping quarters, but I don’t even know that this is needed.

    I do think what would need to be made clear is what actions from both parties involved would be subject to discipline-and I do wonder what risk there would be with regard to the “he was looking at me funny in the shower” type scenarios as excuse to beat, maim or kill somebody. That kind of thing worries me, although not to the point that I think prohibiting gays from openly serving is justified on that basis.

    Also, one thing with this issue is that other countries have already made the move, we could learn much from them.

  12. From the post

    As we read of gay linguists, particularly those fluent in Arabic, being dismissed at a time when knowledge of that language is key to securing our nation, it becomes increasingly clear how damaging this policy is.

    Point of order, and a question to which I do not know the answer. Are private military contractors, such as Blackwater (and there are others), by their military contracts, also barred from hiring openly gay people? If the contractors are not so barred, it seems to me that out gay linguists could go to work for those contractors–probably at much higher salaries than they could get from the US military.

    On the general subject matter of the post, of course DADT should be repealed. Charles Moskos, professor of sociology(!) at Northwestern University, a consultant for the US military and the architect of DADT essentially admitted that DADT was based on a fraud. But that does not mean that getting rid of DADT should be the primary focus. Getting rid of DADT might advantage a few gay people–those who might want to volunteer for the US military–but achieving equal rights in general would advantage far more. Of course, there is nothing to suggest that both cannot be pursued at the same time.

  13. Ok… not really wanting to debate, because I don’t want to get too involved in the comment threads… I just have a few comments/clarifications/etc.:

    Someone mentioned we should be fighting this in Washington, DC. WE HAVE BEEN… for 13 years. Congress has done nothing but ignore us. It took 12 years to get a bill submitted to repeal the policy and even after that, the bill was stuck into a committee and has been forgotten for a year and a half. The courts have failed us too. The youth (who no political power in DC anyway) involved in this national campaign see no other choice but to go to their hometowns and their own communities and challenge the law where the law is doing the discrimination: Their city’s recruitment centers. These youth are changing people hearts and minds at home, and in turn, educating citizens and voters on the issues.

    Also… someone mentioned something about “an act of Congress or executive order…” Only an act of Congress could repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The President isn’t allowed to change federal law at a whim; Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell isn’t just a policy, it is a part of United States statutory code.

    Also… someone mentioned that politicians aren’t willing to take this on because of the opposition they’ll face from the anti-gay Right (as opposed to the conservatives who aren’t anti-gay). The overwhelming majority of Americans believe Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. No action is being taken on it because it hasn’t been a national issue in recent years. If you’ve noticed however, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is becoming a bigger and bigger national issue (since about this past summer). I bet you anything, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will be at least one of the issues considered (in a major, public way) during the 2008 elections.

  14. #8: Your link suggests at least some of the reasons the goal is being met:

    “The Army also has accepted a larger number of recruits whose score on a standardized aptitude test is at the lower end of the acceptable range, and it has granted waivers to permit the enlistment of people with criminal records that otherwise would disqualify them.”

    More here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091406E.shtml

    #9: Sadly, you’re probably right. And as long as the Pentagon is under the current leadership that can fulfill its recruitment goals by enlisting dimwits, gang-bangers, and assorted criminals, I don’t see a GOP-controlled Congress doing anything about DADT. There’d be a better chance of getting rid of DADT with a Dem-controlled Congress but I have a feeling that for most commenters here, they’d rather have DADT than give up GOP control of Congress.

  15. You know what? I think the opportunity to stop DADTDHDP as a policy was tossed on the dung heap by SlickWilly –despite his umpteenth promise to push for meaningful reform– when he willingly signed the bill. Remember George Stephanopoulos saying “We kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep”? I think our counterparts on the GayLeft sold us down the river when they did NOT hold SlickWilly accountable for that huge betrayal.

    Should the repeal of DADTDHDP be the #1 gay agenda item? No.

    The #1 Gay Agenda Item ought to be working on building coalitions in each state to enact fair domestic partner provisions. In order to succeed, our community has to ditch our GayLeft leadership and renounce our allegiance to the HRC bandwagon. We need to strike out on a PR campaign to correct years of negative images that have flooded the MSM about what it means to be gay… and highlight the stable, solid, patriotic and employed gays in our community.

    We need to ditch Pride Parades… we need to clean up our act… we need to find a political center in our community who can speak effectively for us without lisps, snaps, or big hair. And we need to protest gay stereotypes on TV when shows like QueerEye and Will&Grace do more to ruin our PR image than help us secure favorable perceptions in main stream America. We need to wrestle control of the gay community away from the GayLeft and curb our own dogs.

    MattHill above notes that gays have been working on this issue for 13 years… I say: Big Whoop. It’s the wrong group of gays… it’s the wrong voice and face to secure progress on the issue… and the effort seems to be more about slamming the GOP and advancing an anti-war sentiment (read pro-Democrats) than securing change.

    The GOP leadership in Congress has no political interest in moving this issue forward when the very groups asking for repeal are violently, venomously opposed to everything GOP. How do we compel repeal when our movement is viewed as a monolith of radical DemocratLeftists who are the “enemies” in the culture war and aid our enemies in the WOT? Oh, but wait, the GayLeft is reasonable on this issue… right.

    The GayLeft here can moan about the GOP Congress and blame them for not repealing DADTDHDP… but the real question is why has the gay community been powerless to effect change on that issue? Failed leadership within the gay community is my answer. No coalitions with the right groups.

    We’ll have greater success and more lasting impact for more gays if we move off the DADTDHDP repeal and get focused on enacting domestic partner provisions at the state level.

  16. Ahhh, could we be so lucky? The sockpuppets of raj/Ian are back in force!

    Ian sneeringly writes: “Sadly, you’re probably right. And as long as the Pentagon is under the current leadership that can fulfill its recruitment goals by enlisting dimwits, gang-bangers, and assorted criminals, I don’t see a GOP-controlled Congress doing anything about DADT. ”

    Ian, the problem isn’t within the Pentagon. It’s within you and your radical GayLeft political allies here. When you demean the military enlistees by calling them “dimwits, gang-bangers, and assorted criminals” you showed your true colors …. unpatriotic, uncivil, and unAmerican.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    But for that to occur, you’d need a conscience and we know that’s missing in action.

    A request, given that you have a penchant for giving gays a bad name with your shameful conduct, could you just quit referring to yourself as “gay”… I have no problem with you calling yourself a Democrat –that fits. But drop the identification as gay –you’re hurting us all by association.

  17. #17 Michigan-Matt — September 22, 2006 @ 9:53 am – September 22, 2006

    Ian, the problem isn’t within the Pentagon….

    This is funny as heck. Gay lefties aren’t keeping DA/DT/DDT/Dwhatever in place–the Pentagon and the Shrub malAdministration are.

    It also isn’t gay lefties’ fault that the Pentagon has lowered its recruitment standards so that they could accept virtually anyone (below the age of 42–age raised twice in six months–of course) that the recruiters could sign on the dotted line (regardless of whether they could understand what they were signing), is it?

  18. #17: Oh spare us the hyperventilating. The facts are plain: the army has reduced its standards to meet its recruitment goals. It’s now letting in people that it wouldn’t have considered before. You seem content with that. I’m not.

  19. #19 Ian — September 22, 2006 @ 10:25 am – September 22, 2006

    Oh spare us the hyperventilating.

    Matty’s blo(g)viating does get to be a bit tiresome after a while.

    The facts are plain: the army has reduced its standards to meet its recruitment goals. It’s now letting in people that it wouldn’t have considered before. You seem content with that. I’m not.

    As far as I’m concerned, the Shrub malAdministration is reaping what it sowed. Unfortunately, it is reaping it with dead and mangled bodies of people–both Americans (and their allies and their mercenaries) and Iraqis who should be neither dead nor mangled. I guess that that is to be expected by Republicans, though.

  20. And the raj/Ian sockpuppets are out in force… why don’t you guys give up the pretext of being two posters and just admit you’ve be punked.

    But before that happens, the raj has some overdue atoning to complete. Get focused, raj; you can do it.

  21. Repeating for your Ian:

    “Ian, the problem isn’t within the Pentagon. It’s within you and your radical GayLeft political allies here. When you demean the military enlistees by calling them “dimwits, gang-bangers, and assorted criminals” you showed your true colors …. unpatriotic, uncivil, and unAmerican. You should be ashamed of yourself. But for that to occur, you’d need a conscience and we know that’s missing in action.”

  22. #20: “the Shrub malAdministration is reaping what it sowed”

    They don’t care as long as they can maintain power. And they are scared stiff of losing control of Congress. Here in Arizona, we are doing our part: the GOP has apparently written off Jim Kolbe’s seat to the Dems according to news reports http://tinyurl.com/gdwvr and Pederson is gaining on Kyl for the Senate http://tinyurl.com/kccrg . Just wait until a new hard-hitting ad comes out showing how Kyl opposed funding for modern body armor for the troops!

  23. I wouldn’t trust anything on truthout, given that web-page’s reputation for twisting the news. And the attempts to smear Republicans for blocking funding for modern body armor is just that a smear — as was shown with the ad attacking George Allen in Virginia. It’s simply not true.

  24. Apologies to other readers for leaving the main topic, but the GayLeft canard from BlogActive and the MyDD or the DemocratsUnderground that the military has “lowered” standards to meet recruiting targets and that’s an indictment of military effectiveness or failure.

    My nephew wasn’t able to re-join the Marines because in the ensuing 6 years off, he’d had a DUI conviction. He was a great soldier, a great patriot, an excellent military policeman and –gay. That terrible misdemeanor kept him from re-enlisting. He would have been eligible for a waiver now if he had waited.

    Instead, he was hired by an independent contractor and is providing security in Iraq to a set of 4 Parlimentary women who also run a nonprofit housing for the poor agency. His salary: $215,000, plus 3 RT tickets to America each year, 12 weeks of paid vacation, full coverage of living expenses in-country, 1st rate equipment, full intelligence briefings and unlimited phones, internet, etc access. He works three 12 hr days on, 4 days off.

    So much for the nonsense about lowered standards affecting our military as some kind of indictment of the Administration, the Pentagon, or others. he would have been a great soldier again if not for that “terrible” criminal record the raj/Ian sockpuppets spew about.

    Those sockpuppets need to get some serious back… their ass is just whistling in the wind again. Oh wait, that’s not a whistle is it? It’s gas.

  27. It’s a sad and cheap tactic of the left to use Senator Allen’s middle name as Ian has above. I see no purpose of doing this except to remind people of the Virginia Senator’s Jewish heritage–and not in a positive way. Perhaps because those who first brought it up believe the Senator’s base in rural Virginia is anti-Semitic and would vote against him if they knew of his background. (Just as John Edwards and John Kerry assumed social conservatives would not vote for President Bush when they learned his Vice President’s daughter was a lesbian.)

    It’s sad that those on the left continue to do this, especially after his mother has come forward to tell the truth of his background. Given what her family went through, her reticence is understandable.

    The use of Senator Allen’s middle name is thus obvisously a mean-spirited tactic. Ian, I expected better from you.

  28. Ian, all you need to do is be ashamed of your earlier statements. They were offensive and incorrect. I think if you check your DeomcratsUnderground handbook, you’ll see that the rank & file like you aren’t allowed to lie… that right is reserved for your leaders.

    You ought to be ashamed. If you aren’t, your as immoral as some of the other GayLeft tools that posit here.

  30. Didn’t think so, Ian. More spin and misinformation from the better looking of the two sockpuppets.

    The vote wasn’t as you portray it… to stop military personnel from having body armor. The vote was on a program to reimburse civilians up to $1100 for body armor purchased between 2002-2004 for use by soldiers in the field.

    The Pentagon was almost ready to launch the plan of repayment just as Dodd went to grandstand on the issue. Congress had authorized the Pentagon to reimburse those who purchased body armor for troops without military authorization. The Pentagon had prepped the regs and was ready to roll when Dodd did his grandstanding.

    If you would read something other than the DemocratUnderground for your “news”, you’d have known it.

    This is typical of the deception practiced daily by the Left here… and it’s why they are losing ground everywhere.

    Nice try at spin, Ian. Even with your alterego sockpuppet posting, it still doesn’t wash.

  31. Well done, M-Matt and GPW. The libtard left is typical of the RATS – they can only condemn and whine, but they cannot offer concrete or rational solutions. Your posts have brilliantly illustrated this fact.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  32. For those speaking about Allen’s race and the impact of the “body armor” issue, it hasn’t done much here except give the Allen people and surrogates the chance to underscore how deceptive Democrats have become in the race.

    Ian, take a look here and scroll down to the part headlined with “Notes of a liberal media hack”. It could be you from what I’ve read.

    http://www.allens-a-team.com/

    Michigan-Mat, you rock dude! Keep telling them the truth.

  33. And, as far as the Graf campaign goes, they need only sit back and wait; Giffords will destroy herself on the subject of immigration.

    Why? Because she is foolish enough to believe that voters won’t notice that she talks out of both sides of her mouth on the issue — supporting amnesty and legalization when talking to Democrat power and special-interest groups, then claiming to be tough when she talks to normal constituents.

    Graf won because the 8th District was 1) pissed at the NRCC for interfering and 2) even more pissed that immigration reform hasn’t come down the pike. Puppet Patricia has already demonstrated that she will screw over her state district to please the Democrat powers-that-be; all the Graf campaign has to do is to point out that the next persons pulling her strings will be the amnesty-pushing, anti-fence and border controls Democratic leadership.

  34. In #14, Matt Hill Comer said “The overwhelming majority of Americans believe Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed.”

    That is probabaly true. However, we all know who the holdouts would be, the social conservatives, and they will not go quietly into the night.

    There is also the pesky problem that the social conservatives remain an important part of the Republican Party base. If even a small percentage of them stayed at home on election day in protest, that could spell disaster.

    Bottom line: The GOP won’t risk their majority in order to help the queers.

  35. This is funny as heck…

    #25 Michigan-Matt — September 22, 2006 @ 11:03 am – September 22, 2006

    My nephew wasn’t able to re-join the Marines because in the ensuing 6 years off, he’d had a DUI conviction. He was a great soldier, a great patriot, an excellent military policeman and –gay. That terrible misdemeanor kept him from re-enlisting. He would have been eligible for a waiver now if he had waited.

    I do hope that you realize that you have just admitted that the US military has lowered its standards for enlistment. If you don’t realize that, you have a serious problem with analysis.

  36. Chase: you overlook the fact that the soc-cons have a ready-made solution to the “problem” of gays in the military — if everyone in America would just click their heels together three times while chanting “there’s no place for homos,” all the gay will magically melt away.

    No gays = none of those messy gay discharges. Brilliant!

  37. Raj #13 — in answer to your question, some ex-military members are hired as contractors, but not all (probably not even half of those who are kicked out under DADT). And yes, contracting companies can/do hire openly gay people. They’re not under arcane, bassackward regulations like DADT, and many of them have non-discrimination policies which include sexual orientation. Some have to find new careers in the civilian sector. And yes, as contractors, they’re paid much higher salaries than their military salaries (enslisted member salaries are shit wages — they really are). But many of these contractors are paid an hourly wage, and hired temporarily, especially linguists. As soon there is lull in a project, they are laid off. Also, while they’re employed with these contractors, many of them receive no benefits, nor do they get the satisfaction of valor and prestige in serving their country as a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. So, after being humiliated and degraded going through their ordeals being kicked out of military, they then face a working life of instability, and a mundane/obscure existance with soemtimes little or no respect (unless they switch careers to more stable professtions). It’s not all roses and tea for everyone, as MM seems to think it is. Not all contractors get those kinds of jobs w/all those wonderful perks.

  38. Ian, #15 above — AbsofREAkinlutely. Good comment. The navy did it when I was in back in the day. There was a recruiting shortfall one year, so they lowered the standards to let people with criminal records serve– and some of them commited crimes a helluva lot worse than petty misdemeanors (and NO, I wasn’t one of them). This occured at about my 2 year mark).

  39. #28: “Senator Allen’s middle name is thus obvisously a mean-spirited tactic. Ian, I expected better from you.”

    I was not aware that Felix was solely a Jewish name. In any event, the use of Allen’s middle name by his opponents has been known to rankle him for some time – longer in fact than it was even known to Allen himself that he was part Jewish. So I fail to see how it can have had any anti-Semitic intent; certainly not on my part. But in deference to you, Dan, I won’t use it anymore.

    Allen certainly seems to be determined to wreck his own campaign. First macaca-gate and now somehow asking questions about his Jewish heritage is “casting aspersions.” According to this article http://tinyurl.com/effya, his elderly mother seemed afraid he wouldn’t love her anymore once she told him about her being Jewish.

    There’s a growing pattern here and conservatives should be thanking their lucky stars that Allen’s problems are airing now rather than in 2008.

  40. ndtovent, of course not all contractors get those jobs… you twit. Only the ones who merit the high pay because of experience and ability deserve the grade.

    That’s the point: while Ian/raj soxpuppet tries to say standards have been lowered and the DOD is admiting “defeat” by operating under “lowered” standards and that’s cause to just malign the troops… the GayLeft soxpuppet critics miss the point (just like you did) that the “lowering” of those standards was to correct and reform stupid standards in the first place.

    And my nephew is an example of what happens when DOD didn’t lower the standards in time… a misdemeanor offense for driving a car at 4PM in the afternoon after a winning NotreDame football game while having had 7 beers over 5.5 hours? Come on. Why was he pulled over? Speed. The DUI came as a result of that infraction.

    That’s a DOD enlistment standard that needed to be reformed in the time of war when our Nat Reserves are in play. You twit.

    I know logic and sequential thinking is beyond raj’s province… I didn’t know you were in that boat.

    By the way, raj… what part of “You’re not worthy of debate” have you forgotten?

  41. #31: I have no idea what your source of information on the amendment is but here’s Dodd’s actual floor statement: http://tinyurl.com/gnwtj

    Excerpt:
    “the supplemental bill before the Senate only covers expenses for soldiers’ personal equipment up to the first 3 months of 2004 and does not take into account very soon a considerable number of men and women who will be entering the theater to relieve soldiers who are there now”

    Sounds to me like the amendment funds armor for soon to be rotated-in troops.

  43. #41: “the “lowering” of those standards was to correct and reform stupid standards in the first place.”

    So, are you saying that keeping criminals, gang-bangers and those of marginal apptitude out of the military is “stupid?” You also seem awfully accepting of driving under the influence. Except I don’t recall you being quite so forgiving of Rep. Patrick Kennedy a few months back. Perhaps you could refresh my memory on that latter point.

  44. #43 – It is a dirty trick.

    They’re attacking Allen’s mother, in effect. They’re making Allen’s family – his mother’s parentage – a campaign issue. Repulsive.

    And, they’re assuming that the people of Virginia (who BTW have no problem electing Jewish Republicans) would somehow have a problem with perceived Jews. And adding “Felix” where Allen doesn’t normally use it is how they (the Webb supporters / Kos people) believe they are signaling to these imagined Virginia bigots.

    Yes, it is Mary Cheney all over again.

    rajIan, something you are so characteristically bad at is: playing innocent. No one ever buys it. You’re so easy to see through.

  45. Ian, another nice try at spin but the majority of the funds are for repayment to individuals who purchased armor for soldiers serving in the WOT up to August 2004… Dodd, like you, was grandstanding. The DOD was ready to move on the program orginally authorized by the GOP-led Congress and pushed by the White House.

    I know you’re one of the “my hand is always out for another govt freebie program” but even you’d admit that a $360+m program ought to have some guidelines and regulations as to who gets how much and how and when and what level of proof is needed to prove repayment is appropriate… etc.

    The point is: you present just about anything you can as an indictment of the military or as proof the WOT is floundering or the anti-war Democrats are right… anything.

    And this from a soxpuppet who writes our enlistees are “dimwits, gang-bangers, and assorted criminals”.

    You are shameful in your ignorance and your anti-America ‘tude is criminal… congrats, you are officially a GayLeft Democrat now. You can start weeping in 30 seconds… 29, 28, 27…

  47. #43: “If a Republican had asked a similar question of a Democrat, it would be considered a dirty trick.”

    I don’t know that it was by a Republican but Wes Clark was asked about his Jewish heritage in 2004. Unlike Allen, Clark made it clear he was proud of his heritage and there was never an issue about it. Indeed, I suspect that if the reporter had asked Allen about his Christian heritage, he’d have gladly expounded at length. But asking about his Jewish background is casting aspersions. C’mon, it’s not hard to see what the deal is here. [You still haven’t addressed the issue of why this was even brought up. Just because someone asked Wes Clark doesn’t make it right. And given Allen’s pro-Israel stance, I don’t think there’s any question of his attitude toward Jews. –Ed]

  49. #48 – Yes rajIan, indeed, it is not hard to see what the deal is here.

    You Webb supporters / Kos people are anti-Semites and racists, and therefore, you project / assume that everyone else is as well. And that you can win a campaign, supposedly, by playing on that.

    As I said: You’re so bad at playing innocent. Everyone always sees through you.

    For the record: Allen’s mother made her own, personal and painful decision to hide her Jewish heritage from her children. Allen only learned recently – because the Webb supporters figured a guy’s mother is fair game and invaded her (not Allen’s) privacy.

    Disgusting.

  50. #45: “they’re assuming that the people of Virginia (who BTW have no problem electing Jewish Republicans) would somehow have a problem with perceived Jews.”

    Rubbish. It’s Allen’s responses that are leading many to put the Allen jig-saw puzzle together. And the picture revealed is not pretty. Good grief, Allen’s own mother thought he would love her less if she revealed she was Jewish. Now why on earth would she think such a thing? Hmmm?

  51. To the editor: I don’t know why the question was asked but the fact remains it was asked. Even assuming that the question was inappropriate – and I think it was – it doesn’t take away from the fact that Allen’s responses have been troubling to say the least. Especially when combined with the macaca incident and Allen’s hobnobbing with racists from the Council of Conservative Citizens when he was Governor. Frankly, if conservatives and the GOP want to defend Allen and make him their 2008 nominee for President, I say go for it. Allen’s someone even Hillary could beat. 😉

  53. Washington Post explaining how Allen’s mother made a deeply personal, painful decision to hide who she had been before her conversion to Christianity: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001965.html

    Allen flaunting his Jewish roots on his campaign site; includes video where he recounts his newfound Jewish heritage: http://www.georgeallen.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hgITL5PKJtH&b=1755481&ct=2948975

    Blogger Jon Henke documenting the Webb campaign’s efforts to fan the flames of this non-“issue” (while, of course, playing innocent or denying it awkwardly): http://www.allenhq.com/category/webbs-dirty-tricksters/

    An earlier Webb campaign flyer, that had tried to use a “hook-nosed businessman” stereotype: http://www.allenhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/webbcampflier.jpg

    Henke documenting the Kos Kidz’ efforts to excuse the Webb campaign’s misconduct, often with hateful language: http://www.allenhq.com/2006/09/20/jewish-leaders-blast-anti-semitic-webb-campaign-tactics/

    Notably absent, or impossible to find: Any denunciation from the Webb campaign of trying to make a campaign issue of somebody’s religious or ethnic background, or somebody’s mother.

  57. I won’t defend Sen. Allen for the macaca comment.

    But, as a Jew, I find nothing troubling in Allen’s reaction. This is a private family matter. Anyone with any experience of Jewish mothers, particularly of ETA Allen’s generation, can easily understand her reticence to talk about her heritage with her son. If you want to suggest that this indicates that Senator Allen is anti-Semitic, then provide some evidence to buttress your claim. This alone won’t do it.

    As to his presidential prospects for ’08, well, suffice it to say that he all but eliminated them by using the word, “macaca” to describe a political operative

  58. Calarato, you’re right on the money with the usual tactics of the raj/Ian soxpuppets.

    I’ve placed Ian in the same category as raj –neither are worthy of debate and their taunts are childish and insufficient.

    They’ll cry “A” to get attention, then one responds intelligently and directly, they ignore and state “B” –which is normally the exact opposite of what you said or an absurd reduction, then ignore one’s further response by reclaiming “A”.

    It’s tideoous nonsense at this point. I give them both the “You are not worthy of debate”.

  59. M-Matt, that’s because they’re all acting like a bunch of macacas.

    There, soxpuppets, I said it. Now start telling me how hurtful that statement made you feel. And see if I care.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  60. Can I just say, I always thought Felix was a Mexican name! It comes as news to me that it is supposed to be a Jewish name.

    But you know, living in the Washington, DC area and getting considerable coverage of the Allen-Webb Senate race on TV and in the papers, it has been very funny. Who would have thought the man responsible for creating Lee-Jackson-King Day was a Jew?

    Apparently, when Etta Allen told George that he was a Jew, she said “now you won’t love me”. LOL

    WHAT?!

    I mean, you couldn’t make this s**t up.

  61. If you think about why the poor old woman decided to hide her heritage in the first place – well, she is obviously carrying some shame and fear.

    To top that off: She had just been caught lying to her children their whole lives. Good for George, that he set her straight (that he loves and respects her).

    As for Felix: I believe it is indeed a Latin name, fitting with her French / Italian / Spanish heritage.

    As for whether George is “a Jew”, Chase: Umm, only if you go by German Nazi racial theories that Jewishness is inherited blood. – But I know you just meant, OK, he has some Jewish heritage to him 😉

  62. Actually, Calarato, Jews believe that Jewish heritage is passed through the mother. That’s Orthodox Judiaism, apparently. I just read it in the paper today. They quoted an Orthodox rabbi as saying that, technically, George Allen is as much a jew as himself. With a Jewish mother, Allen would be eligible for Israeli citizenship. And that’s Israeli law, not mine!

    I couldn’t believe it when I read it, but that’s what it said. George Allen could be an Israeli! Who knew?

  63. They said it touches on the fact that Judiaism, even by its own beliefs, has long walked a line between religion and ethnicity.

    Cause as I learned on Sex And The City, Elizabeth Taylor converted to judiaism for Eddie Fisher (right?), but I don’t think most people consider Elizabeth Taylor a jew.

  65. #43 Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — September 22, 2006 @ 6:47 pm – September 22, 2006

    The question, Ian in #40, is why someone would even ask about Senator Allen’s Jewish heritage. It’s not relevant to his candidacy or the campaign.

    Oh, Danny, this is a joke, right? Of course it was relevant to his candidacy and to his campaign, after he had mocked that macaca (=macaque=monkey) at one of his campaign rallies.

    I’ll just presume that you have not heard the audio of his response to the question. He could have calmly said something to the effect that he did not believe that the question was relevant to the issues in the campaign (and perhaps left it at that), and that (if he wanted to go further) yes one of his grandfathers was a Jew who had been incarcerated in one of Hitler’s concentration camps. That’s not so difficult, now, is it? Instead, he ranted on and on. In public.

    Why was the question relevant? Because the response was instructive as to his temperament, in public.

  66. #38 ndtovent — September 22, 2006 @ 6:19 pm – September 22, 2006

    Thanks for the information. That is along the lines that I had suspected.

    What you seem to be saying is that the government contractors, the Blackwaters, etc., do not really hire employees, they make use of people who are, in essence, independent contractors, on whom they can call when they have a need. Interesting.

    BTW, when the contractors (the “employees”) are “laid off,” are they entitled to unemployment compensation? If they are not, then they are truly independent contractors.

  67. #41 Michigan-Matt — September 22, 2006 @ 6:31 pm – September 22, 2006

    And my nephew is an example of what happens when DOD didn’t lower the standards in time…

    Oh, Matty, you are so hillarious. Why do you continue to dig yourself into a hole? You had previously admitted that the DoD has lowered its recruitment standards. You don’t have to admit it again. You might answer why your nephew doesn’t try to re-enlist under the more recently lowered enlistment standards, but I doubt that you would respond. Since he presumably could–as you have admitted, the recruiting standards have been lowered–I really do wonder whether your story about your nephew has anything to do with reality.

    Oh, and BTW,

    That’s the point: while Ian/raj soxpuppet tries to say standards have been lowered and the DOD is admiting “defeat” by operating under “lowered” standards

    You might be well advised not to take on the tactics of NDXXX (who is now ignominiously posting under another handle over at PamSpalding.com) by putting words into my (raj’s) mouth. “Admiting [sic] defeat”? Defeat as to what? Iraq? Or the DoD’s inability to get people to sign on the dotted line on the recruitment forms after how they’ve seen the DoD under Shrub and Dummy Rumsfeld has handled Iraq?

  68. #50 Calarato — September 22, 2006 @ 7:11 pm – September 22, 2006

    You Webb supporters / Kos people are anti-Semites and racists, and therefore, you project / assume that everyone else is as well. And that you can win a campaign, supposedly, by playing on that.

    Stop flailing. It is umbecoming of a Republican Shrub malAdministration sycophant.

    Well….not really.

  69. #54 Calarato — September 22, 2006 @ 8:07 pm – September 22, 2006

    Oh, so let me guess. The fact that Allen was part Jewish was something of a secret when he was asked the question at the debate. If it was such a deep, dark secret, then how would you explain the fact that the (American) Jewish newspaper The Forward was able to publish an article about it several weeks before the Allen/Web debate at which the question was asked?

    I’m sorry, but your post and the excuses that I have read for Allen’s actions make no sense whatsoever.

    Try again.

  70. I was just at IHOP this morning (yeah, living in a Red State, I’m a backwards redneck according to the NYT, so I have to embrace that stereotype).

    Lo and behold, they had a breakfast item called a “Machaca.” Funny thing is that a lot of black and Hispanics were ordering breakfast there.

    Wonder if they felt demeaned for doing so, Eva Braun sockpuppet?

    Try again.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  71. #71: Surely you are not serious. Have you never been to a Mexican restaurant? Did you even notice the difference in spelling? The word is not even pronounced the same as Allen’s – and your – racial epithet. Sheesh!

  72. It’s always interesting to someone as fundamentally anti-American as the raj/Ian sockpuppet try to play out silly tired playground games of “if you don’t respond to me, I’m going to say you agree” or “before I answer your question, you must answer my -when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question first” or “I can scream louder if your won’t pay attention to me”.

    the raj/Ian have now been thrown off or banned at 7 sites which could be described as non-partisan blogs focused on other issues, but these two bullyboi soxpuppets harass, demean, incite and inflame commentators at those sites to the point that other commenters beg –BEG– the blogmasters to end the tedious nonsense and block them.

    That’s why raj/Ian have become so adept at twarting blocking mechanisms at other sites and defeat any attempt here to stop them from posting their spew and tripe.

    It’s ok raj/Ian soxpuppet… you only prove how desperate your mutual life is when you keep weaseling in here. Injecting your silly taunts, the meaningless banter… you truly are pathetic men with little minds.

  73. I thought this question was interesting:

    What about transgender soldiers? Now that the gay groups have accepted transgenders as being in our club, will they insist on the military accepting them.

    I think this would be a hard case to make, given that transgendered people usually have various medical needs that would exclude them from serving.

    I figure the military can argue and support this exclusion on medical grounds.

    I can’t think of anything that would or should preclude a healthy and qualified gay person from serving.

  74. #71 Peter Hughes — September 23, 2006 @ 1:43 pm – September 23, 2006

    I was just at IHOP this morning (yeah, living in a Red State, I’m a backwards redneck according to the NYT, so I have to embrace that stereotype).

    Lo and behold, they had a breakfast item called a “Machaca.” Funny thing is that a lot of black and Hispanics were ordering breakfast there.

    I suppose that, if George Allen was using “macaca” to refer to a breakfast, instead of to the dark skinned fellow from the Webb campaign, you might have a point. But since he wasn’t, you don’t.

    BTW, if you’re curious–which I doubt–you might take a look at the Wikipedia entry for “Machaca”. They even have a link to a recipe for Machaca con Huevos, “Machaca with Eggs.”

    Also, according to the Wiki entry, “Machaca” is used in south Mexico, whereas another word is used in north Mexico. If your IHOP used “Machaca” on its menu, you must have a lot of southern Mexicans in your area.

  75. #72 Ian — September 23, 2006 @ 4:01 pm – September 23, 2006

    #71: Surely you are not serious. Have you never been to a Mexican restaurant? Did you even notice the difference in spelling? The word is not even pronounced the same as Allen’s – and your – racial epithet. Sheesh!

    The Republican apologists around here would stoop to nothing to defend their Republicans. I’ve never seen “Machaca” on the menu of a Mexican restaurant (it doesn’t mean anything, since I didn’t go looking for it), but, from my high school Spanish, you’re quite correct regarding the pronunciation. The “ch” would be a gutteral “h”.

  76. #73 Michigan-Matt — September 23, 2006 @ 4:15 pm – September 23, 2006

    I’ll take this as your admission that the US military has, in fact lowered its recruiting standards to achieve its recruiting goals.

    As an aside, all you would have needed to do was to admit it, and then provide an explanation as to why the earlier standards were too restrictive. Quite frankly, regarding your nephew, if the military had placed a time limitation on the DUI conviction (re-enlistment possible if the most recent DUI conviction was more than “x” numbers of years prior to the time of re-enlistment) that would have been reasonable. Why didn’t the DoD (and you) argue it that way?

  77. #73 Michigan-Matt — September 23, 2006 @ 4:15 pm – September 23, 2006

    Um, shorter Michigan-Matt: “I don’t like having my own contradictory words thrown back at me, so I’m taking my ball and go home.”

    Let’s see. In #25 you effectively denied that the US military lowered its recruitment standards to meet recruiting targets (1st paragraph). In addition, in #25, you effectively admitted admitted that it had. Further, in #25, you admitted that, if he had waited, he could have gotten a waiver to permit him to re-enlist. Further, in #41 you admitted that the DoD had lowered its standards.

    I sincerely don’t know how much plainer to make it. You contradicted yourself, when, in # 25, you denied that the US military lowered its recruitment standards to meet recruiting targets, and then later, in #25 and #41, you admitted that it lowered its recruitment standards. If the US military’s lowering of the recruitment standards was not for the purpose of increasing the likelihood that it would meet its recruiting targets, what was the purpose? To hand out signing bonuses to people who are more likely to wash out of training anyway?

  78. #76: “I’ve never seen “Machaca” on the menu of a Mexican restaurant”

    I usually see it as an option for the beef in a burrito or chimichanga filling as in “machaca beef.” It’s shredded in form and presumably spiced a certain way.

    The continued defense of the racist Allen by some here is depressing.

  80. raj, tries with “Um, shorter Michigan-Matt: “I don’t like having my own contradictory words thrown back at me, so I’m taking my ball and go home.”

    And did you miss for the millionth time… you aren’t worthy of debate? There’s nothing attractive when a greying, old, fat man turns childish raj and you are way beyond that now.

    Go spend some time getting thrown off some other sites that care to track you down and block you. You are a tedious bore, at best.

  81. It’s always funny to see two sockpuppets go at each other!

    Let’s face it – “machaca” is a made-up derogatory slur. If you’d asked anyone, ANYONE about the definition of the word had Allen not used it, you’d be greeted with the typical libtard reaction to the truth.

    Which is to say, a slack-jawed slobbery drooling look as if to say “DUH?”

    It only goes to show that certain words with ambiguous meanings (including “niggardly,” “slavish,” et al), when possessed by libtards, can take on dynamically new meanings.

    Welcome to Orwell’s version of “doublespeak” and “thinkspeak,” circa 2006.

    Allen should not have apologized – he had nothing to apologize FOR.

    So go stick that in your macacas.

    BUH-BYE.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  85. I’ll take this as your admission that the US military has, in fact lowered its recruiting standards to achieve its recruiting goals.

    Of course you would, because you’re a puppet.

    But, as Matt made abundantly clear, what the military did was remove unnecessary barriers to admission that had little to no relevance to how good of a soldier one would become.

    By your definition, removing DADT would be “lowering the military’s standards”.

    That’s why puppets like you, RajIan, are quite worthless to our gay causes — and quite useful to those who oppose us who use you as examples of how gays are hate-filled, irrational, hypocritical bigots who demand of others what they themselves won’t do.

  88. My comment is non-expert, but citizen sanity in support of your anti-war positions generally, and emphasis on the illegality of Bush’s War declaration as properly viewed as NOT representing America, and NOT the duty of the authority bestowed to the President who is to adhere to Congress as the true body representing the people in times of war.

    Unprovoked war is certainly not wanted by a majority of Americans.

    I have written in 1985 for the FREEZE as a volunteer, and had the opportunity to interview what was then named “Beyond War Movement” out of California, locally represented by a Hartford Physician who was a member of the Beyond War movement, and noted the theme “War is Obsolete” due to the technology as being entirely out of proportion and not a proper conflict resolution. At that time, in 1985, “new modes of thinking” was what they claimed was needed.

    My layman’s non-expert view, with a pre-eminent attorney, Ralph Nader as a Proper Presidential candidate offering anti-war DIPLOMACY and withdrawal of the troops and humanitarian aid as the immediate need in Iraq–is that sanity (The Freeze in 1985, soon thereafter changed their name to SANE/FREEZE and is now PEACEACTION, and likewise, the Beyond War Movement has changed to Global Community-at my last check, which is not current…the themes are solid…stop the production of nuclear weapons applied to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and still DOES! and the theme of the Beyond War movement that WAR IS OBSOLETE, is actually not only long overdue in 1985, but a proper view of human civilization. Civilized people should not expect to declare war, but instead seek diplomacy as the proper view of international policy as a FACT and CONSTANT.

    The U.S. is not supposed to be a “warmonger.” We are supposed to be a self-sufficient, self-governing country properly attending to our own affairs.

    Iran should be dealt with at the international level, and that is a proper place for attorneys to tender legal diplomacy. The U.N. is a great forum for proper intelligent, civilized, and self-respecting conversations about each country’s proper position in this field of “nuclear weapons” which are supposed to be STOPPED.