Comments on: Withers: The day when DADT fell

By: Ken Cage

Ken Cage — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:32:57 +0000

I just don’t get it. So many other countries have integrated gays in the military and I am unaware of any negative results of this. But in the USA we don’t want to rush it because it “affects morale”, makes “soldiers uneasy” and all manner of lame excuses. Seems to me that American soldiers are a bunch of pussies who are paranoid about their own masculinity threatened by the prescence of gays. What a bunch of wimps.

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:03:27 +0000

>what bothers me about Obama is the discrepancy between his effectiveness as a campaigner and his lack of effectiveness as President. Quite apart from our issues, he completely bungled the health care bill despite having large majorities in both houses

Historically, health-care reform has been a nightmare to pass. Teddy Roosevelt first proposed nationalized health care almost a hundred years ago. The forces that lined up against health-care had enormously deep pockets and tons of talent in lobbying and PR generation. You *know* their good when they outwitted the AARP and won over their members to tanking health-care reform, when the AARP has long been a supporter of nationalized health care.

Any form of nationalized health-care was/is very difficult to pass.

As James said…not blind fawning or agreement, but “perspective.” The biggest DING I give to Obama over health care was his cool, distant disregard for the hell that was breaking loose at the town halls in August, which gave the Republicans HUGE momentum and allowed them to set the phrases/tone of the debate. He needed a better PR campaign than sending out wooden Kathleen Sebaleus to scowl at protesters. His assumption that “everyone’s on vacation, and we’ll get serious about this in September” was his single greatest mistake. That, and not defining “the plan” in clear enough language for the more intellectually challenged of our citizens to grasp quickly and to believe.

By: James Withers

James Withers — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:20:32 +0000

Jay,

I would disagree only slightly. I think there is a difference between campaigning and governing. There is nothing poetic about passing laws. It’s messy, crazy, and nerve wracking. Here is a link you might like ( not….grin).

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/a-question-of-integrity-ctd.html

In no way am I saying Obama is beyond critique, but I think we need to keep some perspective. As for his first year record, I think it’s better than you claim, but I think we only disagree in degrees.

Enjoy your night.

James

By: randy

randy — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:13:34 +0000

You are right. It is worth celebrating. Up to a point. But other countries were able to change this policy in days. Why does it take the US over a year (to buy time until Republicans regain the House)? What is so feeble about this military?

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:08:59 +0000

James, I enjoy joshing with you too. You’re right, of course, that we don’t know whether Hillary would be any more effective on our issues than President Obama has been. Had she been elected, I might indeed be writing the same thing about her that I am now writing about Obama. But what bothers me about Obama is the discrepancy between his effectiveness as a campaigner and his lack of effectiveness as President. Quite apart from our issues, he completely bungled the health care bill despite having large majorities in both houses. He also seems stymied on a number of other fronts, including security issues and reforming the financial system. The only thing that keeps him afloat is the disarray and craziness of the Republicans, but he doesn’t seem to know how to parlay that into legislative successes. My point is that despite his inspiring rhetoric, his record as President in his first year (usually the time that Presidents score their most sweeping victories) has not been impressive, and it is terribly premature to assume that DADT will be repealed since he has so often been outmaneuvered by the Republicans and bluedog Democrats.

By: Cliff Turpin

Cliff Turpin — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:30:56 +0000

I wonder if I should tell them now some 46 years later that I was gay when in the Army if they would change my discharge? What I did off base was my business and none of theirs. When I was on base I did my job as any soldier does. Now that’s not to say that I didn’t look and wish alot. When I was off base I dated an Air Force Captain, we did this for 3 years. So if any of you were at Sullivan Barracks, Mannheim Germany after 1963 maybe we were stationed together.

By: James Withers

James Withers — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:30:07 +0000

Jay,
“Hillary would certainly have been a better and stronger leader than Obama.” Sure and year into a Clintion White House, with DADT where it is now, you would have said Obama would have been a stronger leader. Some goodly joshing with you.

Thanks for the conversation.

James

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:22:47 +0000

PS: I do not doubt that Obama’s heart is in the right place. I voted for him, I volunteered for him, I donated and donated and donated money to his campaign. In retrospect, I now see that it was a mistake to elect someone with so little experience and no real record of accomplishment. Hillary would certainly have been a better and stronger leader than Obama.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:18:34 +0000

James: No, I do not mean that Johnson did not build on the hard work of years and years of struggle. I do mean that he was decisive and understood how the legislature works. He knew how to make people know that if they opposed him, there would be consequences. (Obama rewards Lieberman for campaigning against him.) He knew how to reward his supporters. Hell, even W. knew how to reward his base. Obama seems to think giving speeches is the same thing as changing policy. It is not. He refuses to use the power he has under the current law. I suspect that because they need cannon fodder they will be discharging fewer soldiers under DADT, but the policy is not likely to be changed.

By: Berdache Bear

Berdache Bear — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:55:02 +0000

Sorry, but the Headline: “The Day When DADT Fell,” is tantamount to Bush’s “Mission Accomplished.” It is overstating, aggrandizing, at best. Outright misleading at worst. DADT did NOT fall yesterday. And the “beginning” of its eventual total falling has a long, hard road to haul, with McCain-like homophobes fighting all the way. Admire and appreciate Adm. Mullen — most definitely; start yelling “Victory” — not when considering the way these types of things have gone in the past. I would love to be jubilant about Mullen’s testimony yesterday — but McCain’s flip-flopping, to now claim Mullen’s opinion isn’t valid because it is biased and because it didn’t take Congress’ opinion into account, only shows how low these homophobes truly will go: McCain claimed several years ago he’d listen to the experts (at a time when I’m sure he thought no expert would utter the words which came out of Mullen’s mouth yesterday); when he gets an expert’s opinion that is other than he felt sure he would get, he then loses his temper (and his memory) and claims that the opinion didn’t include a consideration of Congress’ feelings, and thus is biased. So, now the expert’s opinion has to be tempered by what Congress thinks? How is that an “expert’s” opinion? Congress isn’t “in the field” – a major consideration in McCain’s statement several years ago. No. Sorry. It is way to early to get overly joyous about yesterday’s comments. I’m hopeful, but it goes no further than that.