Let me just start by saying that I am sure that what I am going to say about this will make some people mad. That being said, if you don’t like my opinion, realize that it is just my opinion, and then get over it.
I read an article today talking about how Obama would do what he could to get don’t ask don’t tell repealed if he were elected president. I ask myself, seriously, why this is an issue that he would be concerned with, and perhaps more importantly, why this is being used as a method of placating the gay community for their vote? I mean, repealing this archaic policy is not going to end homophobia and the dangers associated with the anti-gay sentiments running very lively through the current military, so I don’t see a need in getting rid of it. The only important point made in the article is the only thing that Obama should be touting, and reinforcing that he is really for:
He said he’s frequently spoken out against homophobia and in support of gay rights.
My point: does the policy keeps out gays? No. There are gay people in the military. Does it protect gay people? No. Two words: Barry Winchell. He wasn’t even gay, but was beaten to death by a fellow soldier because he thought that he was. Don’t ask don’t tell is a stupid policy that was created by straight men in an effort to use that whole “it’s okay to be gay as long as you don’t act on it” argument in order to “allow” gay people to be in the military. Yes, there are gay people that have been kicked out of the military when it was “found out” that they were gay, but honestly, if an institution such as the military is SOOOOOO threatened by the mere presence of gay people, then I have a very hard time believing that it is JUST the DADT rule that this strong ideal comes from.
I say, that if you want to be in the military, and if you are gay, then you clearly know what you are getting into. It is a gay-fearing institution, that is chock full of overly aggressive, and in some cases, clearly unstable, men and women. Does that describe everyone in the military? NO! But you have to be aware that there may be one crazy that will be in your platoon (or whatever they call the groups you are assigned to) that would just as soon kill you just because he might think that you are gay; whether you are gay or not. My point is, that if you want to truly do something positive for gay people with regards to the military, enforce a strict anti-homophobia policy, and enact strict punishments for those that violate them.
While I think that don’t ask don’t tell is a crock of horseshit, I do have to say that I like it for one reason: it means that I will never, ever have to serve in the military. I have gay friends in the military, and I fully appreciate everything that they have given for this country, but I can’t say that I would do the same. This season on the L Word, they had this scenario were one of the characters was in the military, and was being investigated for being gay. In the end, she was put on trial, and they made her lover testify against her. Her lover refused, and turned the tables on the prosecutor; but the most important part of the whole trial happened when the accused soldier refused to just let it go. She said it plainly and simply; she was tired of having someone treat her, or someone that she loved like a criminal because of who they were, and that if this was going to be the way that the military treated them, that she didn’t feel like that was where she belonged.
While there are many that will disagree with her, I don’t. I cannot see myself supporting an organization that is so afraid of my sexuality, that they would harm me or treat my loved ones like criminals if they suspected I might be gay. Additionally, I wouldn’t want to support a system that is dead set on keeping me in second class citizen status.
There are so many issues here that need to be addressed, and I don’t think that simply repealing don’t ask don’t tell is the answer. I think that by oversimplifying this problem, Obama, and those like him, are politicking in the worst way, and are trying to wave “goodies” in the face of gay voters, hoping to earn their support.
Listen, Obama, we got you. We are going to vote for you (for the most part… Log Cabin Republicans most likely won’t). However, get it through your thick skull that trying to overturn a simple, archaic rule isn’t going to change the state of homophobia in the military, and as such, is not offering any gay person that participates in the military any more REAL protection. Until you want to put your head on the chopping block and go balls to the wall saying that you want to do everything in your power to make sure that everyone in this country is treated fairly and equally, as it says in the constitution, then please, quit the politicking, and just stick to letting us know that you have our backs.
Anything less is just annoying, and frankly, insulting to my intelligence. I don’t think that that repealing don’t ask don’t tell will really have the ramifications that you imply; and I don’t think that I am alone in that sentiment.
Obama is an empty suit, all rhetoric and no brains. He frequently speaks without thinking about the ramifications and is too inexperienced to be POTUS.
As for dadt, at least it lets gays in. I think of it as a first step that is also a mild slap in the face. But you are correct in that it is not equality by any means. And the joke about the whole thing is they can tell who is gay anyway, but are comforted by it not being confirmed.
Repealing DADT is an (actually, THE) first step towards dealing with the homophobia /anti-gay violence in the ranks. The military is big on discipline, and even bigger on unit cohesion/morale, and as soon as someone does something undermining either of those things (i.e., gay-bashing a cohort), they are usually pretty short for the world. They get away with it now because being gay is, officially, against discipline.
The military is one place where simply changing the rules can make that big a difference. When you get down to it, most of the Brass, because they are dedicated so fully to the cause, don’t actually care if you’re gay or not, just like they didn’t really care if you were black or not in the ’40s, as long as you do what you’re there to do.
And Bugboy: the whole Obama-as-empty-suit meme is utter crap, and anyone who reads the papers knows it. Empty-suits don’t sit on the Harvard Law Review, for starters. Yes, his published books are mainly campaign tools and thus devoid of actual content, but sadly that’s what political rhetoric means in the US today.
George W. Bush went to Harvard and Yale, not that either of those, or law review, are legitimate credentials for the presidency.
Anyone who reads the papers knows Obama has made only vague promises with no substance and has made some of the most ridiculous foreign policy gaffes ever.
I find it funny you are citing the Law Review as proof of his intellect, because on 60 Minutes he was asked to defend the accusation against him that the only thing he has ever run in his life was the law review. His response was “That’s not true. I’ve also run my Senate office and this campaign.” Yeah, he’s really prepared for the presidency.
But he has run his Senate office (and his State Senate office before that). He’s also done so successfully, which is more than one can say for any of dubya’s managerial efforts (a group in which his technically-successful presidential campaigns are not inclusible - Rummy ran those).
Also, you may have noticed, this is America in 2008. Boring details like actual policy, not to mention uncomfortable facts, do not get you elected in most of this great nation. Vague platitudes and easily-remembered sound bytes get you elected. And frankly, I like Obama’s infinitely better than McCain’s, and at this point better than Clinton’s. Most importantly, I trust him (based on his record, primarily, but also on his rhetoric) more than I do Clinton let alone McCain to actually work with people at home and abroad to address the issues I care about - health care, national security, and economic policy (I shan’t cite references…we can all read the Register and CQ).
Running a Senate office is child’s play. Any secretary can do that. What a silly qualification to have. He looked like a foole citing that as an accomplishment.
As for Obama’s “record”…his record is one of voting “Present” on major issues. He has done that even recently in the Senate on a surveillance bill (Hillary too. Only McCain voted). So Obama is obviously playing games with his past by hiding how he stands on very important issues.
As for Obama “workng with people”, if you take a look at what little track record he leaves, his Senate voting record is heavily partisan. Not exactly “uniting” material.
If Obama’s poor judgment and dishonesty don’t have you at least a little concerned at this point (assuming you do read the papers as you have said) then I would say you are a reckless voter.