Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lieberman wants to lead charge to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 07:31 AM
Original message
Lieberman wants to lead charge to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

On 'ask,' Lieberman answers the call: An exclusive chat about Don't Ask, Don't Tell
James Kirchick

Monday, February 22nd 2010, 4:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Just when you thought Joe Lieberman couldn't frustrate and perplex liberals any further, he is going off to become chief sponsor of the most significant piece of socially progressive legislation that Congress will deal with this year.

Next week, the Connecticut senator will announce that he's taking the lead on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the 1993 law that prohibits gay people from serving openly in the armed forces. Since implementation of the statute nearly 20 years ago, the military has discharged some 14,000 qualified men and women, many of them serving in critical jobs like Arabic and Persian translation.

It's an unconscionable policy, as it forces individuals willing to die for their country to lie to their comrades and lowers the overall quality of our fighting force.

In recent years, Lieberman has provided no end of frustration to the American left, which views him as a traitor for his outspoken support of the Iraq war, his decision to endorse Sen. John McCain for President in 2008 and his objections to some early provisions of the Senate health care bill. For his heresies, Lieberman has been demonized like few other contemporary political figures.

Now that he's taking such a public stand on a core liberal issue, will the left be able to get over its aversion to the iconoclast in their midst and recognize that Lieberman isn't just the ideal person to front for this effort - given his popularity with Republicans and the trust he has earned from senior military officials - but that he's genuinely sincere in his motivations?

<SNIP>

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/02/22/2010-02-22_on_ask_lieberman_answers_the_call.html#ixzz0gGdWonfw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. With Lieberscam, there's always an agenda......
Edited on Mon Feb-22-10 07:43 AM by marmar
..... everything he does is to benefit Joe Lieberman, so he must sense that the wind is blowing in a certain direction. ..... But if it helps get DADT repealed, then he can be a useful idiot.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. He does like it for lobbyists
He doesn't want to be asked, and he certainly won't tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. Exactly..what's in it for joeschmolieman?
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 05:00 PM by Cha
I hope those who actually care about this are taking that into consideration and monitoring his ugly ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Submariner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. A military veteran like Kerry should take the lead in repeal of DADT
A draft dodging coward shouldn't take the lead. It's just not right that a wimp like Joe should get any credit whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Kerry testified in 1993 for gays to serve openly in military. Looks like mediaDems want to play
catch up to turn their legacies around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. I think Lieberman actually could be more successful because he is seen as
Edited on Mon Feb-22-10 09:55 AM by karynnj
a defense hawk. Lieberman has also had a good record on civil rights. This does not change that Kerry used his own credentials to lead on this in the 1990s when it was far more controversial.

Kerry testified before Strom Thurmond's Armed Services Committee in 1993 on allowing gays into the military. Thurmond was not happy with Kerry's insistence that their were gay soldiers in the Vietnam War. He also gave a speech on the Senate floor that he could read verbatim now if he chose. (rather impressive as public opinion moved a huge amount since 1993.)

This is a speech before DADT was proposed:

But against that you have to measure what those problems really represent once you have acknowledged them: Why is there a problem? There is a problem because many people view gays with scorn or derision or fear. There is a problem because when people look at gays or lesbians, they find a lifestyle which they may abhor, cannot understand, do not want to understand, and believe they should not have to understand, and so do not.

The result is that we find ourselves put in the position of either embracing or rejecting what is a fundamental form of discrimination--a dislike of someone or something else because it does not conform to our sense of how we want to be or how we think everybody ought to be.

That is not what this country is supposed to be about. Whether it is a matter of skin color or religion, that is not who we are. And it is also not who we are with respect to matters of sexual preference.

Now, I am not going to spend a lot of time going into or discussing why someone is or is not gay . I am no expert on that. I can only suggest that the vast majority of people to whom I have talked who are gay do not view it as a matter of choice. They are born with that choice already part of their constitution. And for many, there is a lifetime of agony in trying to face up to the realities of who they are as a human being, as a person. And those agonies can drive some to suicide. They drive some to live a life of lies and running away. Others embrace it more readily and more capably.

We are supposed to be a society that does not drive people to run away from themselves or from their history or who they are. We are supposed to be a society which allows human beings to live to the fullest capacity of who they may want to be or who they are, defined by themselves, as long as they do not break the law, break the rules, intrude on other people.

Now, that is conduct, and conduct is what should matter in making judgments about what should or should not be allowed within the military . Status, the actual fact of being gay , and only being gay without attendant conduct that might offend somebody, cannot be sufficient in the United States of America to disallow somebody the choice, if they are qualified in every other regard, of serving their Nation.

Now, if we were to adopt a policy in this country that were to codify discrimination of this form, I think we would turn our backs on a number of different things, Mr. President, not the least of which is reality. Is there anyone in the Senate, or in this country, or in the Pentagon particularly, who believes that none of the 58,000 heroes listed on the wall in front of the Lincoln Memorial was gay ? I have never heard anybody, nor do I believe anybody could, make that assertion. Is there anyone who believes that there are not hundreds, perhaps even thousands of individuals who were gay who are buried beneath the white crosses at Arlington?

Is there anyone who does not believe that there are thousands of gays and lesbians in the military at this minute? Eleven thousand of them over the last few years have admitted it, voluntarily or not and they were drummed out.

We can be assured that there are surely thousands more who are scared to admit, who are forced by our policy to live a lie. They go about their business. They defend their country. They defend our freedoms. They defend the Constitution because they believe in what we, as a nation, stand for.

The question is not whether we should have gays in the military , because we have gays in the military . Gays have fought in the Revolution, in the Civil War, in both World Wars, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the Persian Gulf, and they fought, Mr. President, and they died not as gays or lesbians, but as Americans.

So the question is whether we as a country should continue to treat a whole group of people as second-class citizens? Is it appropriate to codify a lie, to pretend that there are no gays in the military ? Is it right to continue a policy that says to this group of Americans you are somehow not part of America, not entitled to help defend America, not someone whom we are willing to openly associate with in the military , even though every day in the workplace, every day in schools and colleges across America, we have learned to live and work together?

Mr. President, to codify discrimination in the military alone is not worthy of America. These are people who want to serve our country. They want to risk their lives and we respond instead by treating them like criminals, requiring them to hide from the fundamental part of their own identities not asked for but God given, forcing them into lives of secrecy and needless and senseless fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. It was an amazing speech for back then. Too bad Clinton sided with irrational fear instead of reason
and human dignity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Clinton did what he could at the time. Kerry said he would support a ban on gay marriage in
MA in 2004.

It's politics. Games. You do what you must to advance what you really believe.

It's just the way it is. I think that's what Pres Obama is doing now with healthcare. I think he wants more, but he knows he can't get it in 2010.


It's what I thought about Hillary, Kerry, Gore, and Bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Kerry never said he'd support a ban on gay marriage. And Clinton DIDN'T do what he could at the time
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 05:37 PM by blm
Clinton could have had the entire GOP and DC establishment over a barrel in 1993 with BCCI and dancing to HIS demands IF he wanted to...but....he didn't, did he?

It was a cherrypicked scrambling of Kerry's words about gay marriage in 2005 that led to the internet myth you regurgitated. Kerry was the FIRST Senator ever to submit progay legislation in the 80s and testified mightily for gays to be allowed to serve openly in the military in 93, and refused to support DOMA while facing election in 1996.

You. Don't. Know. Kerry. You're willing to believe the worst about him, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. I agree. I wish it were Kerry, but I still believe he supports us on this issue.
*us* meaning GLBT'ers, not necessarily you (I don't know your orientation)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. A conservative hawk like Lieberman leading it is a good idea
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. Yeah, I see your point..and lieman and mcpalin part
ways on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. Whatever Joe, just do something good to stop embarrassing us in Connecticut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. ...and then will vote against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
8. CYA Liberalism...like Harold Ford. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Wrong
Lieberman's been a supporter of GLBT rights for over 30 years, long before most Democrats had the guts to get involved with these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. From a gay man: 30 years and that's what he has to show? He's still a vile douche
who should be shunned by polite society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
9. I wouldn't want Lieberman to be in charge of anything good. He is not trustworthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. The only charge I want Lieberman to be leading...
is the charge back to wherever the hell he came from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. Get your greasy paws away from the wheel, Loserman
We don't need your ass. Back of the line...now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belpejic Donating Member (431 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
13. Nice Joe.
Won't stop me from supporting every effort to make sure you have absolutely no future in CT or national politics.

Sorry dude, you burned that bridge a loooooong time ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
14. Lieberman has always been a strong supporter of GLBT civil rights
As a state senator, he sponsored one of the first gay rights laws in the nation. When he ran for president, he had more support than you would suspect among GLBT Democratic activists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belpejic Donating Member (431 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Progressives need to stop playing games with Lieberman.
He supported McCain in 2008. Enough said. He needs to be jettisoned.

Trust me, I care about another issue a great deal--the environment, where he has been a great friend--but that doesn't justify continuing to support this shameless political jellyfish. He needs to go, no matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. Trying to burnish a tarnished reputation.
Bt running to the front of a parade already in full swing...that 'person' is detestable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ericgtr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. There's nothing he can do to revive those negative poll numbers
Too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
23. Well at least he's good for something. We need to take what we can get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
27. Don't trust that slime. He and Palin called Obama a terrorist and smiled and agreed
when their crazed fans yelled "kill him" when Obama was mentioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
28. Who cares what he wants to do. Time to replace that guy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
29. If he can get the job done, I wish him the best of luck
especially if he can convince his buddies like John Kyl, Jack McCain and Lindsay Graham.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC