 by Dennis Ayers
  
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
 Who's onlineThere are currently 11 members and 648 guests online.
|
McCain and Other Republican Senators Try to Stink Up the Joint...
Just in case you missed it, yesterday's Senate hearing on Don't Ask Don't Tell was absolutely riveting. The highlight being Admiral Mike Mullen's impassioned statement as to why he personally believes DADT should be repealed...
Wow. That statement coming from our nation's highest military official is astounding. And it put Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss and John McCain in the unusual position of being at odds with the military. (And looking like total schmucks in the process.) Back in 2006 McCain said he'd be ready to revisit DADT if senior military officials came to him and told him it was time to repeal the policy. That is exactly what happened yesterday. But McCain seemed to forget his earlier statement and continued to argue that "now isn't the time to repeal DADT."
I find it so ironic that while McCain is defending DADT, his wife and daughter are lending their likenesses to the NOH8 campaign.
If Cindy McCain really wants to do something for gay rights, rather than posing for posters maybe she should just kick her husband out of bed until he stops being such a creepy, two-faced jerk. Courtesy of ABC, you can check out highlight video of yesterday's testimony after the break.
Submitted by on Wed, 2010-02-03 10:57. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
It's a pity
that one of his fellow senators didn't remark on Meghan & Cindy, & ask (on camera) why John was still a 2 faced bigot.
As for Chambliss, that idiot, someone should remind him how he got his seat in the first place, by defaming a war hero. Repigs need to go away!
john mccain is an idiot...
"My opinion is shaped by the view of the leaders of the military. The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position, just like when on other issues, that people are expert and knowledgeable of, I rely on their opinion."
^ first of all, ok, fine...Colin Powell recommends something, so...that makes it automatically 'right'?
second of all, any rachel maddow viewers in here? i know i'm not the only one. i remember colin powell being interviewed by rachel and him saying DADT needs to end. his exact words, maybe not. i do know it was something pretty damn similar. I'm pretty sure he said "we need to re-evaluate it" or something. basically, he has changed his mind somewhat. does John McCain not read/see the news? so his second argument = FAIL
oy
Powell on Maddow on DADT
April 1: 2009: "If Congress decided to get rid of the policy and if the military leaders of the armed forces are a part of that, of course I would. And if the president decided to do it, I would support the president.
"In 1993, when this became an issue when President Clinton came in, I was never given, nor was Secretary Aspin at that time ever given, an instruction by President Clinton to get rid of the policy. We studied it and came to a conclusion that, at that time, in 1993, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a pretty good solution for the moment. I didn't want it to happen but the Congress made it a law. So it is not policy anymore, it is a law, and only the Congress can change it as Secretary Gates mentioned last week.
"But it's 15 [sic] years later. A lot has changed. Attitudes have changed. And so I think this is a time to review that policy and review it before congressional committees to see if a change of law is now appropriate. I am withholding judgment because I am not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff anymore. And I think we have to hear from our senior military leaders about the effect of a change in the law would have on the force. And if they came forward and said, 'Let's do away with it,' or, 'Let's modify it or change it,' that would mean a lot to me in terms of my point of view.
"But ultimately it's going to have to go before the Congress as a law to be changed, not a policy to be changed."
thanks fakename...
wow, you must google fast! ;-)
But it's 15 [sic] years later. A lot has changed. Attitudes have changed. And so I think this is a time to review that policy and review it before congressional committees to see if a change of law is now appropriate.
^ maybe he didn't say it outright, but i believe by him saying "attitudes have changed, yadda yadda..." i think that is his way of secretly saying "it's pointless. people dont care. let's get rid of this"
that's my story and i'm sticking to it. ;-)
wow, speak of the devil.....
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/powell-favors-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/?src=twt&twt=thecaucus
Gen. Colin L. Powell, who as the nation’s top military officer in the 1990s opposed allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, switched gears today and threw his support behind efforts to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law he helped shepherd in.
“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”
Very telling quote
Thank you for the quote.
It amazes me that after DOMA, DADT, & now this revelation that there are members of our community who STILL think Clinton was great on our issues.
Edit: I am by no means happy with what Obama has done (or rather hasn't done) either.
While I'm no Clinton fan
...I read Powell's statement not as "Clinton wanted to keep gays excluded" but as "Clinton didn't remove options from the table". Clinton learned very quickly upon broaching the issue that he had neither the political clout nor the votes to stop the existing ban--which at that time was a DoD reg only and not an actual law--from being passed, possibly even over a veto.
I voted for Clinton in '92 (what, I was gonna vote for Bush I or "I'm in, I quit, just funnin' I'm back" Perot?) and I was willing to cut him some slack on DADT because while it is a deeply disappointing outcome it probably was the best of several bad but politically viable options. Clinton lost my support completely in '96 with his "I don't like it but I'ma sign it anyway" nonsense on DOMA. He could have simply refused to sign it with no statement or he could have refused to sign it with a statement along the lines of "this bill is designed to raise animus against gay people and it will become law, but it will do so without my signature." Instead he said months before it was even passed that he'd sign it as written and his Justice Department declared it constitutional, then he signed it literally in the dead of night. There is nothing he can ever do in his life to regain my respect or trust, his recent flip-flop on same-sex marriage notwithstanding.
In McCain's mind
...McCain's comments are not in conflict. He said he would "revisit" DADT if big brass came to him about it. In other words, he'd think about it. His comment yesterday indicates that he believes he's thought about it and come to the same conclusion. It's exactly the sort of political "logic" that politicians use to get through every day in office.
Of course his 2006 comment was an obvious attempt to put himself in a "moderate" position on some social issue in the run-up to his 2008 presidential campaign. Repeal of DADT, something supported by some 70% of Americans, was the safest way to do so. He knew there was no chance that his military supporters, blinded by his 40 year-old "war hero" veneer, would abandon him.
The national media had
Despite McCain's statements
Despite McCain's statements I thought it was a breakthrough hearing. Admiral Mullen's statement was beautiful, compassionate and to the point. Very special to hear these words from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Now, now, you cannot blame
PLEASE let me keep my job, Arizona!
Sadly, McCain's comments are exactly the sort of thing he has to say to keep his job and prove his conservative credentials and thus win his state's party primary. Fortunately, for him, I think he really believes what he said during Tuesday's discussion, so it's not like he's having a personal crisis.
Fehrenbach
Actually, I'd like him to go face-to-face with
me.
Aime-mois moins, mais aime-moi longtemps
Political Manuever
Cindy McCain and her daughter are just political tools for McCain. McCain is trying to tailor his public image. He's "trying" to have it both ways (in his mind).
It doesn't really work because clearly he's in favor of DADT and as this article demonstrates he's being a real jerk about it.
Cindy's NOH8 campaign may help in the general election...
In regards to Civil Rights in this country...
what the late great Bayard Rustin stated in the 80's is still true today.
"Today, blacks are no longer the litmus paper or the barometer of social change. Blacks are in every segment of society and there are laws that help to protect them from racial discrimination. The new "niggers" are gays. . . . It is in this sense that gay people are the new barometer for social change. . . . The question of social change should be framed with the most vulnerable group in mind: gay people."
A very valid point
Being black in America still adds some extra difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. The most obvious example having been Barack Obama's ability to win both the Democratic nomination and then the actual presidential election.
Could a gay man win a presidential election? Nope! Indeed, there are no openly-gay Senators. Only three openly-gay members of the House. No gays in the Cabinet. None on the Supreme Court. No state governors. Only a smattering of state representatives or city mayors.
This is the true evidence of the fact that anti-gay discrimination is alive and well-established in America 2010. The mere fact that something as blatantly designed to pander to bigots as DADT is a matter for debate is proof of this point!
For all our boasting America has an ugly history in regards to civil rights, and even today we're not as far along as we like to pretend we are.
I love being part of a site where people quote Bayard Rustin
The level of the discussion here often astounds me. This is a site that focuses on entertainment, but the comments are as informed and well reasoned as anywhere on the internet.
Thank you for reminding us of Rustin. We could not have a better example of courage and skill in pursuit of civil rights. Most of all, we could not have a better example of how to oppose oppression without resorting to the tactics of your oppressor.
I would like to think that Rustin would consider me an "angelic troublemaker."
Seconded