Well, so much for John "Pander Bear" McCain's vow to distance himself from the history of Republican attack campaigning.
In a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook, the McCain camp has been vigorously attacking Democratic candidate Barrack Obama for cancelling a visit to wounded troops in Germany. The McCain version is that Obama did so because base officials refused to allow reporters to accompany him on the visit. The Obama camp has denied that, but how is a voter to know who's telling the truth here?
Well, now comes a Washington Post report http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter that, in fact, base commanders were uncomfortable with Obama foreign policy advisor, retired Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, accompanying the candidate. Gration's presence might make it seem like a campaign event, the commanders felt.
There is no evidence that Obama cancelled the event because reporters could not accompany him.
But, confronted with this evidence, the McCain camp remains unapologetic. Seems like a sign of desperation to me.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Gays in the military
You know, I'm beginning to think that don't-ask-don't-tell should be a policy for the ignorant. But, then again, if you're ignorant it stands to reason you don't know you're ignorant, so you wouldn't be asking and how could you tell?
Well, it's pretty easy for most people to tell and it's apparent that some of the military establishment simply refuses to leave the past on the issue of gays and lesbians serving their country.
Recently a study panel made up of four retired military officers, including one who worked with President Clinton on implementing the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, determined that the presence of gays and lesbians in the service would not detract from the military's ability to do its job. Apparently the panel found no loss of discipline within the British and Israeli armed forces although gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in both.
But the military establishment may be on to something when they insist it is different in America. Methinks the difference is that there is more intolerance here.
I can recall the debate leading up to the 1995 enactment of the Rhode Island law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the areas of housing, credit, employment and public accomodations. The law simply said you can't refuse to rent or sell a house, deny credit, refuse to hire or refuse to allow someone in a restaurant or public museum simply because of their sexual orientation. But if you listened to that debate you'd have thought passage of the law was going to be the death knell of our society. Now, 13 years later, I can't say as I've ever heard of one complaint about that law and, despite the best intentions of the Bush administration to put us on the road to economic ruin, our society seems to be faring well.
I recall writing a column before the law passed saying, in time, people would look back and say "What was all the fuss about?" I think that has pretty much come to pass. My guess is that eventually the American military establishment will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century - although it might take until the 22nd century for that to happen - and realize that any able bodied man or woman who wants to serve their country should be allowed to do it no matter their sexual orientation.
Forcing them to keep their orientation secret only plays into the intolerance and hatred of those who seek to keep them under the establishment's thumb. I, for one, choose to be on the side of inclusion and against bigotry.
Well, it's pretty easy for most people to tell and it's apparent that some of the military establishment simply refuses to leave the past on the issue of gays and lesbians serving their country.
Recently a study panel made up of four retired military officers, including one who worked with President Clinton on implementing the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, determined that the presence of gays and lesbians in the service would not detract from the military's ability to do its job. Apparently the panel found no loss of discipline within the British and Israeli armed forces although gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in both.
But the military establishment may be on to something when they insist it is different in America. Methinks the difference is that there is more intolerance here.
I can recall the debate leading up to the 1995 enactment of the Rhode Island law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the areas of housing, credit, employment and public accomodations. The law simply said you can't refuse to rent or sell a house, deny credit, refuse to hire or refuse to allow someone in a restaurant or public museum simply because of their sexual orientation. But if you listened to that debate you'd have thought passage of the law was going to be the death knell of our society. Now, 13 years later, I can't say as I've ever heard of one complaint about that law and, despite the best intentions of the Bush administration to put us on the road to economic ruin, our society seems to be faring well.
I recall writing a column before the law passed saying, in time, people would look back and say "What was all the fuss about?" I think that has pretty much come to pass. My guess is that eventually the American military establishment will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century - although it might take until the 22nd century for that to happen - and realize that any able bodied man or woman who wants to serve their country should be allowed to do it no matter their sexual orientation.
Forcing them to keep their orientation secret only plays into the intolerance and hatred of those who seek to keep them under the establishment's thumb. I, for one, choose to be on the side of inclusion and against bigotry.
Only we know what's good for you
The Bush administration is intent on going out feet kicking. The audacity of their recent stance regarding withdrawal from Iraq is nearly unmatched.
Now even though a great many people in our own country would like to see some sort of withdrawal timetable, it's understandable that the Bushies continue their tunnel-vision thinking on the issue. It is their contention that a timetable would enable the insurgents, who would then bide their time and jump out of the bushes (no pun intended) once American forces left town. That's debateable, but at least they're being consistent.
But it's unconscionable when they refuse to comply with the Iraqi government request for some type of timetable. The Iraqis have insisted they will not sign any agreement about the future use of US troops in Iraq unless it includes a timetable for withdrawal. The Americans insist that issue is not on the table. That's funny. I read that both the Iraqi prime minister and the national security advisor had raised the issue.
Apparently the Bush administration chooses to treat the Iraqi government as some sort of unruly child who doesn't really know what's good for them.
I was under the impression that the war was, in part (although maybe just in small part) to set up a democratic government there. Now that the country does have its own government in place, apparently we don't care what they think.
But, again, that is just the Bush administration being consistent.
Now even though a great many people in our own country would like to see some sort of withdrawal timetable, it's understandable that the Bushies continue their tunnel-vision thinking on the issue. It is their contention that a timetable would enable the insurgents, who would then bide their time and jump out of the bushes (no pun intended) once American forces left town. That's debateable, but at least they're being consistent.
But it's unconscionable when they refuse to comply with the Iraqi government request for some type of timetable. The Iraqis have insisted they will not sign any agreement about the future use of US troops in Iraq unless it includes a timetable for withdrawal. The Americans insist that issue is not on the table. That's funny. I read that both the Iraqi prime minister and the national security advisor had raised the issue.
Apparently the Bush administration chooses to treat the Iraqi government as some sort of unruly child who doesn't really know what's good for them.
I was under the impression that the war was, in part (although maybe just in small part) to set up a democratic government there. Now that the country does have its own government in place, apparently we don't care what they think.
But, again, that is just the Bush administration being consistent.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Just win, baby
This is why Republicans are so successful nationally. As a group they are definitely of the Al Davis school of thinking. The Oakland Raiders head honcho is credited with coining the phrase "Just win, baby," when asked why he took so many chances on players other organizations had cut loose because of their wayward ways.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans have their primary squabbles, but usually close ranks once that battle has been fought. Witness the Reagan-Bush battle in 1980 or the Bush-McCain tussle in 2000. Republican voters know that, in their world, whoever wins that primary will be preferable to the Democratic candidate.
Democrats, for some reason, aren't as successful in patching up their differences. Apparently they are too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble of political races. Witness the ongoing enmity between Obama and Clinton supporters. Sure there were some rough patches during that bruising primary. Each side did what it thought best to win. That battle has been fought and it's over. Now is the time for Democratic voters to look at the battle ahead. The only question should be: How does Obama win in November?
One way not to win is to keep fighting the primary battle. A New York Times article today portrayed many Democratic supporters as whining, grudge-holding babies. When one Obama supporter was asked about donating to help Clinton retire her debt one said, "Not a penny for that woman or her husband." Another said, "Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Sen. Obama?"
Well, one reason might be to help win in November. If they think Clinton dumped on their candidate wait until they see what Republicans have in store for them this fall. Helping restore harmony will heal wounds and help attain the ultimate goal - the White House.
Clinton supporters are no better, crying sexism as the reason their candidate lost, and threatening to jump to the McCain camp. Besides being a crock, the charge only perpetuates the antagonism between the two camps and increases the liklihood of another four years of Republican White House rule and 30 to 40 years or conservative dogma eminating from the Supreme Court.
And if there ever was an election where tDemocrats need to take a tip from the Al Davis playbook it's this year.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans have their primary squabbles, but usually close ranks once that battle has been fought. Witness the Reagan-Bush battle in 1980 or the Bush-McCain tussle in 2000. Republican voters know that, in their world, whoever wins that primary will be preferable to the Democratic candidate.
Democrats, for some reason, aren't as successful in patching up their differences. Apparently they are too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble of political races. Witness the ongoing enmity between Obama and Clinton supporters. Sure there were some rough patches during that bruising primary. Each side did what it thought best to win. That battle has been fought and it's over. Now is the time for Democratic voters to look at the battle ahead. The only question should be: How does Obama win in November?
One way not to win is to keep fighting the primary battle. A New York Times article today portrayed many Democratic supporters as whining, grudge-holding babies. When one Obama supporter was asked about donating to help Clinton retire her debt one said, "Not a penny for that woman or her husband." Another said, "Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Sen. Obama?"
Well, one reason might be to help win in November. If they think Clinton dumped on their candidate wait until they see what Republicans have in store for them this fall. Helping restore harmony will heal wounds and help attain the ultimate goal - the White House.
Clinton supporters are no better, crying sexism as the reason their candidate lost, and threatening to jump to the McCain camp. Besides being a crock, the charge only perpetuates the antagonism between the two camps and increases the liklihood of another four years of Republican White House rule and 30 to 40 years or conservative dogma eminating from the Supreme Court.
And if there ever was an election where tDemocrats need to take a tip from the Al Davis playbook it's this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
