Posted on 03/02/2009 4:57:58 AM PST by shove_it
On Monday, buoyed by a stronger Democratic majority in Congress, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation to overturn the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the military, a Tauscher aide said.
Clinton’s handling of the issue was widely condemned, and the entire fiasco became a textbook example of the sort of avoid-at-all-cost political controversy that can seriously undermine a new president. For Clinton, it knocked him off message, sapped him of auathority, damaged his popularity ratings and left him with a reputation for being wishy-washy that stuck.
And it left the military with a policy that no one really likes — the “don’t ask, don’t tell” regulation that allows gays to serve in the military, as long as they don’t flout their homosexuality.
The issue is risky for Obama, too, political analysts said, threatening to galvanize social conservatives and other political opponents, strain the new president’s relations with the military, and force him to squander valuable political capital that is needed on more pressing matters, particularly his economic agenda.
“American voters may feel better about the idea of openly gay soldiers and sailors, but that doesn’t mean the process of trying to change the policy doesn’t have enormous political risks for Obama,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. He added that the president won’t be nearly as pleased about the issue coming up now as gay rights groups — or conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh — will be...
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“American voters may feel better about the idea of openly gay soldiers and sailors,”
Or not. Regardless, OUR MILITARY HATES THE IDEA! It’s a terrible idea. How exactly is this supposed to work? It makes exactly as much sense as letting men and women share the same sleeping and sanitary facilities, or actually perhaps even less. How many restrooms do we need now, “Men/Straight”, “Men/Gay”, “Women/Straight”, “Women/Gay”, “Men/Not Sure Yet/Transgender”, “Women/Not Sure Yet/Transgender”, and “Neutered/Hermaphrodite/Other”?
As a famous ex-President once said: “Doesn’t seem prudent.”
Hmmpfffh! As far as I can see, Obama's political opposition will be split on this. Social conservatives will (rightly) oppose this, and the GOP will be too afraid to do so and will support the president. I imagine John McCain will carry a fair bit of water for the president here.
What Obama wants, Obama gets.
If Rupaul is any indication of what gays in the military can do (google the massive beat down he gave some jerks in the bathroom for mocking him), maybe some gays might not be so bad.
I’m half kidding. About wanting gays in the military-kidding. About the ability for Rupaul to kick some ass, not kidding.
There is NO ban on gays entering the military. There IS a ban on publicizing the fact.
It’s been around since the Clinton years. Why can’t the media get it right in all that time?
Homosexuals are not "just like everybody else" and male homosexuals in particular have a unique obsession for multiple "partners" and bizarre behavior. The linkages among male homsexuals transcend unit, rank, service loyalties and undercut any order or discipline. I had an investigation once where we were trying to find out why a sailor was hospitalized and all of his records - in several separate locations - were removed to obstruct the investigation by his "partners" all over the Norfolk and Little Creek area.
If our leadership has any remaining guts, they need to oppose this move with all the strength they have.
The object of having our armed forces is to be able to effectively battle our enemies, not provide a dating pool for deviants.
Yep, go right on ahead and choose your battles reckelessly, Barry! First gun control and now gays in the military. I can’t wait until the 2010 elections to see the look on Rat faces after they get clobbered, just like in 1994...
Hey, we’ve got a “Don’t ask about my birth certificate and even when you do, I won’t tell” president.
The Obamaloon has demonstrated a remarkable ineptness in cabinet selection.
So, what’s the problem here?
As a retired military guy, I have no real problem with serving with gays (they were already there when I served).
However, the Obamaloon policy, coupled with normal liberal inability to ever make a decision, will lead to problems. This is the way of life when we are led by people who cannot lead.
Semper Fi,
Kellly
You got that right. Allowing Open homos would have our enemies dancing in the street as well. You can bet that open faggotry in the military would hurt recruitment from conservative areas of the country, which makes up most of the military. This STAB IN THE BACK (or shall I say rear) is the ultimate goal of the left.
Melting down our Military with Gays or Leftist conscientious objectors (Enlisted for free college or technical training) will only ruin the greatest fighting force in the history of the World.
“Homosexuals are not “just like everybody else” and male homosexuals in particular have a unique obsession for multiple “partners” and bizarre behavior.”
Yes, let’s return to one part of the discussion, the restrooms. I think it’s commonly accepted that one may visit the restroom without being the subject of sexual attention (or is this open to some kind of debate?). So, with openly gay men we have two choices. Either segregated restrooms, or not. If segregated, well we all know the “Larry Sinclair” reputation “gay” restrooms possess. If not segregated, well the issues are obvious.
As for sleeping quarters, well I think the issues there are obvious as well. “Bobby, isn’t it great that we’re both openly gay and in the same unit? Let’s cuddle!” Yeesh.
“You can’t handle the truth!” Hmmm, might have to catch that movie again.
We have enough problems recruiting patriotic young men and women with normal motivations. Imagine how difficult it will be when services become known as homosexual havens?
I sure as hell won't let my son join that kind of service. All I need is some homo "breaking him in".
I wish you were right, but these fudge packers will have an ACLU butt buddy with them at boot camp the minute there appears to be tough treatment. The fact that everybody has it tough doesn’t matter, these folks will be considered SPECIAL. Just like the economy, drag everyone down, don’t raise those down the chain. These Libs are so obvious on where they want the Country to go and now they have the Exec and Legislative to help them accomplish it. For those that wanted change, you got it.
WIN LOCAL ELECTIONS IN 2009 and set the stage for 2010.
Are you a Marine?
thats what I thought...
clinton had the mushy middle.
obama is going full on left and needs the homosexuals to keep giving him money.
Good grief! I've seen too many instances where the writer used "flaunt" when s/he meant "flout" ; this is the first time I've seen "flout" used when only "flaunt" make sense.Maybe both words should be banned from the language, as there does not seem to be enough people with the intelligence to comprehend the MEANING of both words, and hence when to use one or the other. :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.