An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
A Teenie Weenie Problem With John McCain’s Letter Supporting Gay Military Ban
There’s apparently a teenie weenie problem with Arizona Senator John McCain’s letter supporting the gays in the military Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy: according to a report, it’s signed by some dead people.
QUESTION: Whatever happened to the John McCain that I so proudly supported in 2000 and so proudly voted for in the 2000 California Republican primary?
THE ANSWER: That John McCain is in the same category as the questionable letter signers noted above. (The second rate clone running around Arizona angry all the time seemingly doing a Sean Hannity imitation can’t be him…)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “A Teenie Weenie Problem With John McCain’s Letter Supporting Gay Military Ban”
Thanks for bringing this up, Joe. I saw this in a report last night.
Heh, next thing you know, they will be voting.
The GOP has been blatantly imitating the worst of the Dems this campaign year. We already know about the “census” mailings.
The report I saw went on to point out that the vast majority of signers hadn't even served in the DADT period. Bringing in to question their knowledge of the people in the current forces.
I also voted for McCain in 2000. I suppose out of Naval loyalties. I shook his hand when he was introduced as the incoming replacement commander of the squadron I was in. I never served under him as I left the squadron before he took over.
Hmm , an older congressman drew signature support from people of his generation that are now dead. This is the age group Tom Brokow wrote about in “The Greatest Generation”, and while its valid to point to the fact that a lot of the folks are older and times have changed, its a bit far fetched to stretch the attack beyond that.
Yep, I think that every single value the previous generation held by hard-won experience should be scrapped. The young always know better. This last couple of generations has done so well. The world is so much better off now than then..
And as for the military, I think transvestites have a place there too. Transvestites have a “DNA inability” to be the gender they were born in. They should get to use the women's facilities and soldier up with the women so they can feel more “at home” and not be descriminated against. This generation KNOWS how to function just fine thank you..
Signed, “we don't know where to stop”.
[thankfully the military does with DADT.]
Leonidas, the point is that McCain has stated that he would withdraw his support of the DADT program when the country's military leaders did. They have done so, and something tells me it wasn't just to call his bluff. In an attempt to show that McCain is not going back on his word, he trots out a bunch of military leaders from generations ago, some of whom are dead. Why does that not strike you as intellectually dishonest?
I'm sure if we had polled Civil War or WWI military heroes, they also would have been against gays in uniform. It is in no way a “stretch” to say that McCain's argument rests on the idea that long-retired and dead military leaders' opinions on the subject matter more than current military leaders. I think that's bull.
And let's please keep in context who is actually being “attacked” by this policy, eh? (Note: it's not McCain or the dead military dudes.)
Not actually true. McCain said he would give it a hard look when that happened.
The exact quote:
“The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”
And while some members of the leadership have indeed expressed support for repealing DADT (Something I fully agree with them on), I believe the matter is still under study officially, and no official recomendation has been made as yet, just testimony of individual opinions. Not quite the same thing, although it certainly seems to be moving that way.
So this:
is equivalent to “seriously considering changing it”? Because it doesn't look that way to me.
“…how about some praise for McCain's friend…”
Not that it is on topic, but in the thread where Lieberman was being discussed in this context was littered with praise from the liberal contingent of the TMV regular commenters, including myself. That is not, in fact, this thread. Those of us who care about gay rights tend to, um, actually care about gay rights, as much as you seem to want to think of us as pure partisan liberal knee-jerks.
So will the transvestites house with the male or female enlisted?
*waits for answer*
I'll assume that you don't understand that most transvestites prefer the opposite sex. If you did know this, the answer would be obvious.
I'll also assume that perhaps you were talking about transgender people, and not transvestites? In which case, it should also be obvious that whether the transgendered person bunks with men or women will depend on (wait for it) whether that individual is a man or a woman.
This isn't rocket science, Sil.
The man needs therapy. He won't be normal for another 2 or 3 years. That is the price of losing.
I have to go with Leonidas on this point. The signatures aren't fake–they aren't invalid.
On the larger point, though, I believe McCain faces a primary before he can run for re-election. So has to pander to the Republican base.
That's what happened to him.
Don't be silly, Sil. Transvestites have penises. Remember? Was that supposed to be a tough question?
Re: Transsexuals and the military:
In Canada and the UK, they transition in place.
In Australia, they have to resign, transition, then re-join with no loss of seniority.
In the USA, everyone engages in hysterical posturing over the subject. I genuinely think that some are convinced that de-segregation should be rolled-back.
“The Army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success. Experiments to meet the wishes and demands of the champions of every race and creed for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.” – Col Householder, December 8, 1941 on why desegregation was a Bad Idea.
We've heard this all before.