Republicans debate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

In the Republicans' third presidential debate tonight they discussed DADT. It's fun to watch them debate it, especially since they don't seem to know what they're talking about.

For example, after stating that he's pro-DADT, Ron Paul said:

We don't get our rights because we're gays, or women, or minorities, we get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual, uh, sexual behavior that is disruptive it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality, it's the concept and understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

I don't see how that's a very good argument for DADT. But it is interesting that when he picked identities he believes shouldn't have rights, he picked gays, women, and minorities, not straights, men, and white folk. By "interesting" I mean "honest".

Huckabee said he thought this was all about conduct, not "attitude", and he supports existing policy. I didn't know that it was my "attitude" that makes me sleep with men, I thought it was my "bad-itude". But then again, I'm not the governor of Arkansas. He also said he'd rather debate immigration.

Rudy G., who was specifically asked about the 58 Arabic translators who were dismissed under DADT, said that it's not the right time to raise these issues, referring to the war in Iraq.

Romney, who was asked about his opposition to it in 1994, said he thought DADT was "silly" when he first heard it, but it seems to be "working" now. (Acknowledging the flip-flop doesn't make it go away, Mitt.) I do wonder what he means by "working".

John McCain loves the military, but thinks it's a mistake to even talk about DADT, and said "it's working" twice, rather forcefully, I guess because he had no evidence or explanation of what he meant by that. Seriously, someone give me a definition of "working" to work with.

Then they were asked as a group if any of them would get rid of DADT, and no one spoke up.

Video's at John's.

Zach Adamson | June 6, 2007 12:35 AM
Reply to this comment

Like every time McCain says my friends, you have to take a drink, or Rudy says terrorists. or anyone says National security, immigration, God, Our Creator, Faith based, conservative, flip flop, liberal, they hate us for our freedom, tax cuts, morals, abortion, pro life, Kennedy, Bush, etc...

If we played with all those words, I'd black out after the first two questions, and someone would have to call an ambulance after the third.

Oh, yeah, Ron Paul was in fact surprisingly not terrible. I think b/c he doesn't have anywhere near as much money as the others, he can just speak his mind and not worry about losing donors. I think that the anti-corporate right and left in this country have a lot more in common than they're willing to admit, as much as the business/centrist wings of each party control the agenda. In fact, he was the dude who started the last fight between Rosie and Elisabeth, since Joyce liked that he said we need to rethink fopo to avoid another attack, and Elisabeth said that was supporting the terrorists, and Rosie asked "who are the terrorists", and the rest was history.

Alex Blaze | June 6, 2007 12:45 AM
Reply to this comment

With regard to the candidates DADT responses I think they all sounded like a bunch of pandering MORONIC idiots. They may as well have a string attached to the back of their dummy heads making their mouth's move.I just want to puke!

I read this 3 times and still have no idea what he's freakin talking about:
"We don't get our rights because we're gays, or women, or minorities, we get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual, uh, sexual behavior that is disruptive it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality, it's the concept and understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
WHAT??!!!!

I served in the military for 11 years and the biggest reason I got out of the military was because of the DADT policy. It's OK for gays to die for our country as long as they supress who they are.

What seems to be "working" is not that the policy is worth a crap but that these bigots still have enough public and military leadership support to keep it going.

Argh!

Donna | June 6, 2007 9:03 AM
Reply to this comment

What an interesting juxtaposition though - all the Dems say it should go. All Pubs say it should stay.

It just goes to show you how out of touch with reality and the American public the Pubs are right now. With a vast majority supporting the repeal of DADT, the Pubs are clinging to the hope that the evangelical base will deliver them the vote again. It also shows that after so many linguists have been dismissed, that they are actually "soft on terror" or they'd want to have every possible defense - including some gay military members who can translate Arabic into English...

Bil Browning | June 6, 2007 9:25 AM
Reply to this comment

"Pubs", Bil? "Pubs"??? LOL

Yeah, this is such a slam dunk in terms of popularity right now that it almost makes me oppose it :). In fact I feel like, as I've felt for a long time, that our advocacy groups shouldn't be worried about DADT because there are a whole lot more important things out there that get no attention, and this is one of those things that goes mostly to benefit The Man at the expense of our people (yeah, those deathsquads the US gov't condones to round up the queers weren't there before). Considering it's HIS war, its success gives HIM power to war monger in the future (him = The Man in general, not just GWB).

So I have no clue where the "Pubs" are coming from on this. Except that the alliance of "Christianity" and big business has apparently gotten so confusing now they can't see up from down.

Alex Blaze | June 6, 2007 1:24 PM
Reply to this comment

I was disappointed with Ron Paul's answer, because it seemed to lead to the conclusion that it is definitely time to do away with DADT,... I'm confused.

But despite this, Ron Paul is hands down the most well informed, well read, and constitutionally sound candidate this country has seen in a long long time. And if nothing else, there are people out there finally doing their homework and starting to understand that a government that trys to take care of its people from cradle to grave is not only a really bad idea, and does not work, but is not what was intended by the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution.

And, Rudy, well, now is not the time- is a really awful answer when you consider that it may be awhile before America is done with regime changing and nation building... ha.

Kelly | June 6, 2007 1:35 PM
Reply to this comment

Calling them "assholes" just seemed vulgar.

Bil Browning | June 6, 2007 3:17 PM
Reply to this comment

Im with you guys on Ron Paul. I think he was pretty cool...
Oh and well said Bil... hehe.. come on guys.. we were all thinking it..