Had Bush pressed for repeal of DADT, they would have at least voted for the repeal. But to answer your question, the answer is, not enough.

There are those on both sides who vote pure party line or vote one issue,

Actually, saw something the other day that liberals vote straight ticket like 20-30% more often than Republicans. Wish I could remember where I saw it.

Of course, you have interviewed all gays who vote for candidates other than those you support so you know for sure that we vote gay-interest only. That line is just pure right wing arrogance at it’s best. You simply cannot back up that claim with any real evidence (and I mean real not NDT or WorldNetDaily vomit). The sad fact (for you) is that we are not all going to vote for the candidates you think are best and we do so for as many different reasons as there are voters. If that offends you I’m sure you can find a country where there is no choice. There are those on both sides who vote pure party line or vote one issue, to claim one side is worse than the other is just ignorant.

Since I see no action to ‘punish’ democrats, I assume you have no credibility for criticizing Republicans.

By the way, those of you that will actually punish the Republicans for being anti-Gay have credibility when you criticize some Democrats for being anti-Gay (and there are some).

However, the Republicans, while in power, made zero effort to repeal DADT,

And the liberals did what?

When they gained control of congress they floated bill after bill after bill to declare defeat in Iraq. If they actually gave a crap about DADT, why didn’t they put forth any bills to do away with it? Why didn’t they campaign on it? Last time I heard it mentioned was in the Logo deba….I mean info-mercial.

Isn’t it nice to have a president who treats you like an adult you’re too stupid to know what’s going on?

Fixed it for ya. And no, I don’t.

If he truly wanted to treat us like adults, he wouldn’t have hid his background and carried out his slash and burn campaign against anyone who dared ask questions or opposed him, namely Palin and Joe the Plumber.

You have to act like an adult yourself before you can treat others like adults.

I’d point out Phillip of Macedon did the segrigation with the ‘t-h-e-b-i-a-n speckled band’

More relevantly it still can be presecuted by the UCMJ, and internally, by peer pressure. i/e. if a drill sergeant takes advantage of a strapping young man, his fellow instructors can educate him to the error of his ways. Preferrably by using large bars of soap in socks. Best of all, it’s non0discriminatoiry.

But, ILC, the difference is that the armed forces not only use the UCMJ, but take proactive steps to separate the genders except under the most extreme conditions.

If you separate on the basis of gender, you should also separate on the basis of orientation. However, it is impossible to separate on the basis of both gender and orientation simultaneously; therefore, given that gay people are such a tiny fraction of the population and are not absolutely necessary to the war effort (as is the case in Israel), there is no compelling argument for gays serving in the military.

As you point out, those things happen anyway in a mixed-gender service and can/should be dealt with under UCMJ / codes of conduct in a gender-neutral, orientation-neutral way.

just curious about DADT. What was the original reason for banning gays in the military? I find reference to security risks, i.e. blackmail concerns stemming from the 40′s and 50′s. but I assume it’s older than that. At least now the blackmail fear is removed. Heck, now-a-days, you’d get a reality TV show.

Buggery in the Barracks (Baraks?) would be punsihable under the military code of conduct IIRC, regardless of gender.

So the Bottom Line is this. Clinton and Bush both dropped the ball. As well as any members of Congress, then and now, that still support DADT.

Between now and 2010, the Democrats have a lot on their plate. They have to sell their tax and spend fix for the recession. They have to show that they are “smarter” on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, the Mexican border, the global economy, US unemployment, growing the economy, and installing the Socialist States of America.

If their approval ratings hold up, they might well calculate the odds for them if they take on gay marriage.

So far as Republicans are concerned, of all the issues they need to focus on for rebuilding the party, gillie and his merry band of littleletterpeople are not anywhere on the radar screen.

This past week, a friend of mine who happens to be gay and I were discussing various issues and support of political parties. My friend said that he, too, is fiscally prudent, and doesn’t seem too enthralled with at least……

For you, especially Dan, I’d reference a former pol you liked in the prez primary: Rudy Giuliani.

Remember his speech before the Values Voters Summit in back in October 07?

He said “Isn’t it better that I tell you what I really believe, instead of pretending to change all of my positions to fit the prevailing winds?”

He then cited his — and the audience’s — hero Ronald Reagan for the proposition that “my 80% friend is not my 100% enemy.”

For years the GOP has struggled with appeasing the single issue voters… whether it was abortion in the 70s, war hawks and supply-siders in the 80s, SSM opponents in the 90s or illegal immigration condors in the 00s.

The Reagan-Giuliani Rule of 80/20 ought to be a signpost for the GOP. It ought to answer your questioning of Steele on SS unions… but more importantly, you ought to be engaging Steele directly on the issue. Take a team of representative conservative GOPers to DC and meet with him. He’s very approachable, more accessible than Haley used to be and you know he’ll listen thoughtfully… your time won’t be wasted.

Dick Cheney was right: “Freedom means freedom for everyone”.

:

ILC, do you believe that if Sam Nunn was the only senator who supported the current DADT, while all Republican senators supported allowing openly gay persons serving, that Clinton still would have caved in and supported DADT as it is now?

Pat, of course Republicans also supported DADT. And you’ve made other fair points. Bottom line, though, is still the following:

- David Mixner promised us that Clinton would end the ban on gays in the military “with the stroke of a pen”, i.e., a simple, decisive Executive order, a la Truman 1948. Clinton strongly encouraged him (and us, in believing it).

- At that point (1993), an Executive order is all it would have taken.

- When the time came, Clinton muffed it. Then a Democrat came up with DADT. Clinton signed it.

- As a result, it now takes a positive act of Congress to end the ban on (open) gays in the military. Tahnks, Democrats! (not)

- Clinton could have, alternatively, vetoed the bill and rallied people of good will (Republican ex-Senator Barry Goldwater comes to mind) to gather the minority 1/3 Congressional vote needed to sustain such a veto. He didn’t. Then, as now, there were/are as many anti-gay Democrats as anti-gay Republicans.

Hell, I think I even voted Repub when Clinton ran for re-election.

No, this doesn’t excuse what Clinton did, but there is plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t end at Clinton and Nunn. Let’s not excuse the Republicans who voted for DMA. And let’s not excuse the previous administration, when for six years, also had control of Congress, who did not repeal DADT to allow openly gay persons to serve in the military.

Gillie, it’s nice that supposedly, everything is out on the budget, no hiding schemes. I’ll be waiting to see if he gets the deficit down to at least the level that it was last year. Oh, and I’ll also see what effort he makes in repealing DADT and DOMA (or at least push for federally recognized civil unions as he promised). I’m not afraid to push the Republican lever. I’ve done so many times before, including when Clinton ran for re-election.