I'm surprised Obama or the dems didn't make more of an effort on this. Talk about rolling over. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39286687/ns/politics-capitol_hill?GT1=43001
A pox on both their houses. The Democrats designed this to fail via the process they pursued. The Republicans voted against a pentagon spending bill - that must be a first in recent memory anyhow.
You support the ban? You likely served with plenty of gay soldiers and because you didn't know they were gay, it didn't affect you. Why would knowing change anything?
Actually, I know a lot about the situation but have, and will, sit on the sidelines over this debate. I sat in on a panel determining what type of path punishment will take and I've seen a lot of cases. To me, the ban on 'don't ask...' is a bad idea.
didn't they also put the "DREAM" act for amnesty for illegals into this package? there's your answer.
A damn shame. Both sides played politics and bigotry won the day. BTW, gay people should think twice about supporting Obama and the Democrats; they're being used.
Yes, that's why all the Ds except for those from Arkansas voted for the bill, and why all the Rs voted against. A few fewer Republicans in the Senate, and DADT would have been repealed. But yes, it's the Democrats that are holding back gay rights. Sure. barfo
Go back and educate yourself on how this bill was structured. It doesn't matter that more pro gay politicians appear to be Democratic than Republican. What matters is what those people do for that constituency when they're in power. You're telling me Nancy Pelosi couldn't have put together some REAL legislation regarding gay rights? I'm not sure, but she may have some gay people in her district. Why didn't she use her power? Instead, the Democrats take their gay constituency for granted. Please refer to the 2006 and 2008 elections after the Republicans took the small government faction of their base for granted. And for the record, one of the largest constituencies in the Republican Party is the quasi-Libertarian. Those people aren't anti-gay; they couldn't care less.
Maybe because she's not in the Senate, and the Senate killed this bill? I'd require some statistical convincing that you represent one of the largest constituencies in the Republican party. Honestly, I'd think so much better of the R's if that were true. barfo
But legislation starts in the House. She couldn't propose and push through legislation for a filibuster-proof Senate? I think she could. I don't represent any constituency for the Republican Party because I'm not a member. I'm just saying that social conservatives are a recent addition to the Republican base. Small government, pro business used to be the calling card of the Party and that group has regathered strength since President Bush left office and the huge losses of the 06 and 08 elections.
I think they really took over in 2000 with Rove's strategy of courting evangelicals. The Republican Revolution of 1994 was more about limited government.
I don't know if I agree with that. There was a lot of moralistic stuff in the Contract on America. Cut welfare, tax credits for having kids, kill the criminals... I do agree it got much worse in 2000. barfo
It's bad if I think we should cut welfare, I don't mind tax credits for kids, and don't mind criminals getting what the law says to give them?
Is it bad? That's obviously a matter of opinion. My point was just that those sorts of things are appealing to social conservatives such as, well, you. barfo
aren't many of those things "small-government" conservative ideals? I'm kind of waiting on which view I have on a topic gets me put into that particular corner. Edit: I guess I'm just wondering why cutting welfare, punishing criminals and tax credit for kids falls under the "evangelical" push by Rove, or why those are "moralistic". I mean, if you would've said "repeal abortion, restrict gay rights, don't let people get divorces, preach abstinence-only sex ed" I'd agree with you that they were Moralistic and a push to get evangelicals, but wouldn't agree with any of those issues.
Well, sorry if I mislabeled you. You strike me as pretty darn conservative no matter what qualifier you put in front of conservative - but if you don't agree, that's fine. You know you a lot better than I know you. The things you mention are certainly more moralistic than the things I mentioned. barfo
Go Obama! /sarcasm http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68M5X220100924 Obama seeks to curb ruling on gays in military (Reuters) - Weeks after a federal judge struck down a U.S. military rule that bans openly gay men and women from the armed forces, the Obama administration sought on Thursday to keep the policy mostly intact while Congress debates the issue.
