Feel free to excoriate the GOP over this
I will.
but glossing over Clinton's cowardice isn't called for. He had the authority as president to lift the ban by executive order a la Truman and chose political expediency which wrote DADT into law. It also wasn't just Powell, you are forgetting about Majority Leader Sam Nunn (remember his visits to ships measuring how close bunks were?) and a majority of Dems in both Houses who voted for it. No, not many politicians escape blame for this assinine policy.
1) Blame over how they stood then or blame over where they stand now? I dare you to find more than 5 House Dems and 2 Senate Dems in the *CURRENT* congress that either voted for the policy back in '94 or so or supported it back then and
aren't in favor of repealing it
now. I hope you recall that back then, both houses were crawling with mostly Southern Dems in leadership positions, so invoking Sam Nunn, who is obviously no longer in the Congress, isn't exactly a big revelation. The funny thing is, now that homophobic idiots that would craft this policy of witchhunts and Chinese water torture are mostly gone, it has provided fodder for some idiotic pundits, as well as rank-and-file voters describe the Democratic Party as slaves to the 'far left'. I guess pro-gay means 'far left' to some total shmucks. I guess Dems doing their best to keep a total Bush butt-kisser like Lieberman around for another six years means being 'far left'. There are plenty of other DINOs like Landrieu, Feinstein, and Nelson, so I wish idiots would stop peddling the meme that. Only one party is controlled by 'extreme' anything, and that's the GOP. Guess which 'far' direction... hint, it's not 'far left'... and neither are the Dems.
2) If you want to call what Clinton did cowardice; at least it's far more accurate than seapuppy's description of DADT as "Clinton-initiated". Personally, if anything, I wish he had known enough to take on DADT in his second term, when he wasn't up for reelection, and could actually have been able to take things on without electoral consequences to himself; it's not as if Gore would have done everything he could to back away from anything Clinton did during his second term, as we saw, so I guess Gore figured that was the way to not take the rap for Clinton's actions, even if it was something good in the cause of human rights.
3) And IrishVA, if you want to have a conversation with anyone about carrying water for the Dems in the face of their cowardice, I recommend you have it with he who is mercifully apparently no longer posting in this particular forum on JUB, James1200, who lives in the liberal hotbed of Cambridge, Massachusetts of all places; he is not only glossing over Clinton's cowardice, he still uses something from 1993 (this particular issue, in fact) as an excuse for Dems to not do anything, even something that would pass with a slam dunk with no outrcy (which he clearly doesn't understand) like Hate Crimes and ENDA, unlike DADT (which I would even now support putting off trying to repeal until we get a Dem back in the White House) even now in 2007. I would say things have changed since then, wouldn't you?
In my thread, where I plotted the future of gay rights in the now Democratically controlled Congress, this is what he had to say --
Quote:
Originally Posted by
James
*sigh*...i guess we'll never learn. one of the reasons that clinton lost both chambers of congress for the dems for the first time in a generation back in the 90's was because of his support for gay rights...how about we wait a couple of years to consolidate power instead of giving the republicans ammo for '08....face it, any sort of support for a gay rights bill will destroy the dems elected in the mountain states and the mid-west, especially indiana, not to mention the south. i just read while the dems didn't lose one seat in this election, there were several dems in the south, especially georgia, re-elected by the skin of their teeth...i believe while the dems are ahead in those georgia seats, it's by several hundred votes only. why would they be insane enough to try and pass a gay rights bill with that kind of precarious majority? you stay away from controversial issues til you've proven you have a sustainable majority.
I hope you paid attention to word 'insane' in the above diatribe.
But that wasn't all he had to say on the topic
Quote:
considering the republican ability to spin any and all good things into dem "liberalism", a hate crimes legislation will be spun as "special rights" and doom the dems once again. they won't touch it with a ten foot pole and i don't blame them.
Much shorter; mainly I hope you paid attention to "won't touch it with a ten foot pole and I don't blame them". If many of us gay people themselves don't blame them, than you understand. There are those who truly carry water for the Dems on this board, and there are those who support them.
Then when I listed that I believed that the political climate had indeed shifted since the last time the Dems had the Congress, which was January of 1995, I listed many states that were finally able to move forward on gay rights initiatives that had stalled for decades. In response --
Quote:
all the states you listed, ALL of them, are blue, blue states, LOL. you just proved our point. i'm talking about what would happen to dems in the 40 states that are purple or red. can you name one gay rights legislation in those? you think we can be a majority power in this country with the support of only 10 states, LOL??
In this case, I hope you paid attention to the absurd notion that there are only '10 states' that are "blue", a notion this poster himself contradicted in other postings. In response to the fact that many, many of the "forty" 'purple or red' states had already passed hate crimes legislation and a list of those states which I assumed he was talking about as 'purple or red' (since I know far more than "10 states" are 'purple or red', I heard *NOTHING* back on how mostly Dems had managed to pass them and not only not lose their majority, but in fact
increased their majority. But of course.
Just to show you the extent of how crazed this person was, let me show you the full extent of how far he went to urge the Dems *NOT* to do anything about gay rights, and launched into a visceral personal attack on me while doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
james1200
homoaffectional is a one-note, one-issue voter if i ever saw one.
There's not much you see, it seems. Yes, I'm spending time on 'this issue'. That doesn't mean it's the only issue I care about. Just because I spend time belying the notion that a gay rights bill will trump up hysterical fears in the US, that is largely past this issue at this point. James is a guy who is still stuck in 1993 if I ever saw one.
Quote:
he's the flip side of those nutcakes
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Quote:
who only vote based on eradicating abortion rights.
Thanks so much. You don't know much about me, and you probably never will, because when people are nothing more than partisan shills for one party, regardless of which party it is, then they don't spend much time learning about anything. They're too busy carrying water for their party to engage in any of those activities.
Quote:
if the fucking state of massachussets isn't liberal enough for you
Yeah, Massachusetts, where everything is so liberal, there's not a SINGLE closeted person in the whole state. And since there aren't any, none of them come onto JUB preaching about how 'liberal' it is...
Give me a break. Massachusetts has never been the most liberal state in the nation, and it never will be. Even if it's a close second or third, that's hardly saying much, in any way. In fact, if it wasn't for one judge who made her way over here from South Africa, got a position heading up the top court there, and three other justices who agree, they wouldn't even have gay marriage there.
South Africa is again good to bring up. The people of South Africa are WAY more homophobic than the ones here, but they aren't having riots and rallies to try to overturn the marriage law, because they have more important things to worry about, like unemployment, poverty, crime, and the skyrocketing HIV/AIDS rate. And the same might apply in Massachusetts, because if it was as 'liberal' as you claim, the health care amendment would have made it to a vote on January 2nd, if not instead, at least in addition to
Quote:
you'd probably be happier in FantasyGayLiberalLand...let me know when you find it. i think it's somewhere near Never Neverland.
No -- 'it' is
near the United States. Right north of the border in fact. You might be interested in looking it up -- It's called Canada. Guess what? The gay marriage debate is OVER there! And last time I checked it existed, and wasn't a figment of some 'one-note, one-issue voter' 's imagination, either. And the same could follow suit here, if people weren't so timid.
Quote:
rather see a more liberal congress with a more liberal overall agenda
NO SHIT. I just don't...
Quote:
even if that means they don't necessairly pass any gay rights bills.
see it as a zero sum game like you do... and you can't ever address that fact. That's why it seems, you must make up your own facts.
Quote:
shoving some gay rights bill down people's throat who aren't ready for it.
Ready for hate crimes bills? I think a hate crime bill would have passed right after Matthew Shepard if the Republicans had let it, and I doubt there would have been any backlash then. The tone shifted to the right for a while after 9/11, when Bush's conservative ideologues started exploiting the post-9/11 'trust', but it has shifed back our way long since then. I'm sorry you're willing to give Americans so little credit that they are maybe more occupied with things more germane to their lives than an outrcy over having things 'shoved down' their throat, like maybe laws that are meant to go after violent criminals, something I'm sure they'll rush to make an issue out of, instead of
IRAQ, the SKYROCKETING COSTS OF HEALTH CARE, CURES TO DISEASES/STEM CELL RESEARCH, UNEMPLOYMENT/OUTSOURCING, and CORRUPTION (ooops, sorry if I was shouting). As long as the Dems are doing these other things, not even more than 0.05% of the voters that have been supporting them, core and independents alike, will leave them for passing a *SIMPLE HATE CRIMES BILL that covers just about EVERY CONCEIVABLE GROUP and maybe throws a small bone to the gays and transgenders, while we'rea it*, and they will MORE than make up for that by getting gay and pro-gay voters that either don't bother to vote or vote third party. For example the religious, black community is one of the most homophobic in the nation. There was even one preacher in who made the most outrageous comment in the world, that he would like to march with the KKK if they could oppose gay marriage together. What does rhetoric like that usually do? Does it make black people want to support the guy? No, it COSTS the homophobic bigoted hypocrites support of their own. And the whole time, blacks have continued to vote overwhelmingly Democratic... WHY IS THAT, I wonder?
Oh, and IrishVA pay special attention to the phrase "
Shoving some gay rights bill down people's throat". It tends to tell you a lot about a person who is gay and says that kind of thing, does it not?
Quote:
democrats would be insane
That's your OPINION. It's
NOT A FACT. Just like it was your prediction and opinion that Mass was going to kill the marriage amendment, because I 'didn't know MASS if I disagreed with you' (something you continue to fail to respond to, maybe because you *WEREN'T RIGHT*) and I was the one who said it might just happen. Guess who was wrong about that, as well, and who was right? You just never seem to want to admit when you're wrong, and you keep fighting to declare your opinions as facts, and then you call me 'insane'.
Quote:
to try and pass anything controversial in the next two years
Cutting off funding to our troops? Controversial? A hate crimes bill? *NOT* controversial. It's about as likely to cost the Dems any seats now that they've finally got Congress back as you and others claimed the NJ marriage decision cost the Dems from getting Congress to begin with (something you continue to fail to respond to when I bring it up, because you know it weakens your point).
Quote:
sorry if the facts are not pleasing to you...get over it.
Now you sound like a Republican, complete with the making up your own "FACTS". I'm sorry if your personal situation is not the most accepting for your sexuality and you feel the need to project your personal environment on everyone else. Most Americans, believe it or not are more live and let live than that, and are largely tired of the antics of the right-wing. This last election pretty much showed that. The Terry Schiavo antics have jumped the shark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
james1200 
new jersey.
Yes, *NEW JERSEY* where
*A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION*, they issued a pro-gay ruling, which was supposed to make it so the GOP would be able to squirm their way into keeping power. Still waiting for you to actually acknowledge that you were
*WRONG* about that one. Maybe if you'll listen to me on that, I'll listen to you about the fonts.
Quote:
much as i know it's effective
Maybe because you believe it yourself
Quote:
do you guys live on the same planet as me???
No, we don't live in "I live in the most liberal state in the country where it's SO liberal, but I *STILL* need to be closeted, but even though that kind takes the ooomph out of my argument all together, it's *STILL* so damn liberal, no one should complain and ask for more" land. No, we don't live on that 'planet'. Also, maybe people are getting a bit turned off by how much energy you seem to put into *OPPOSING A FUCKING GAY RIGHTS BILL*. If you're so convinced you're right, and the Dems won't do it, why not just be silent until this summer, and if nothing happens, you're right, and you can pat yourself on the back? I'm not sure who you're trying to convince - us or yourself.
With someone like that being so vocal coming straight from their party, it's no wonder that the Dems feel that it's OK to pass the buck on gay rights. But this person was far from the only person who gave the Dems a pass.
Now, hopefully, you should understand that, if anyone you should read the riot act too, IrishVA, it should be the two above, and this one, not me. I just wonder where you were when these people. How convenient that you seemed to be so absent when you should have been around to set people like this 'straight'.
BTW, please check your private messages, IrishVA. And I recommend you read the
thread where I tallied my vote prediction for the hate crimes bill that would include GLBTs, among others. I would have done one for ENDA, but I didn't care for the nasty, ill-informed responses I got from that thread. You will see how the Dems have changed on gay rights, over the objections of some, who continue to drag us back into their closets. And to that I say, "No thanks. I really don't want to join you."
