Where have I heard this before?

First, the article:
Republican presidential candidates were mostly quiet today after a tongue lashing from President Obama about their failure to stick up for soldier booed at a GOP debate because he was gay.

..."You want to be commander-in-chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient," the president told the crowd in reference to a recent Republican debate.

At the debate last month, an openly gay Army soldier asked on videotape, "Do you intend to circumvent the progress that has been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?"

From the audience came a couple boos, but none of the candidate said anything about them.

"I happen to think that maybe they were booing the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal more so than booing that soldier," Cain told ABC's Christiane Amanpour on "This Week."
Cain was referring to the policy that has been lifted allowing gay members of the military to serve openly.

But the president, in full campaign mode, went after every Republican candidate.

"We don't believe in a small America. We don't believe in the kind of smallness that says it's OK for a stage full of political leaders -- one of whom could end up being the president of the United States -- being silent when an American soldier is booed," he told the audience Saturday night.

Right after the debate, some Republicans said they didn't hear the boos, others said they weren't given time to respond.

Now, some comments:
1 - "Don't ask, don't tell" could have worked if it was done properly. It should have applied to straight people as well as gay people. In reality, nobody should even care who your sleeping with, and anyone who does care needs to learn how to mind their own damn business. You join the military to serve your country, not talk about your sex life. That's what Facebook is for.

2 - The silence of the GOP candidates is simply "the norm" for their party historically when it comes to bigotry; ignore it. . . . and they pretend not to understand why they don't get wide spread support from minorities. On that stage, that night, they made the reason clear for all except those in complete denial.

3 - I do agree that there is no room for discrimination or racist actions. However, this country will never learn that discrimination, racist and hate are rampant and should be slammed wherever it comes up. I am disappointed that only Obama and Herman Cain have mentioned this outrageous act. Shameful. A vetr is a vet and has served this country. So have many gay soldiers before him. Growup America and join the rest of the world in not accepting this socially unacceptable act.

4 - Congress should now recognize heroic Transsexuals in the United States Military. This last resistant bunker of intolerance and prejudice must fall to our modern society.

5 - "Who gives a rats behind why the people booed! The candidates have no power over what other people do." ................................................. No, they don't. But they could have handled the situation the way that John McCain did during the 2008 campaign, when the "birther" (typical Republican) asked him if he thought that Senator Obama was not American. Senator McCain replied, "No ma'am, Senator Obama is a good American who cares about our country just like you and I do." ... The Republican candidates at the debate could have easily started off their reply to this soldier's question as, "First of all, regardless of your sexual orientation, I thank you for your service to our country." ..... they didn't.

6 - Who gives a rats behind why the people booed! The candidates have no power over what other people do. I wish the gays would give it a rest though. So what if your gay, do you have to be so open about it that you tell everyone? Put the soapbox away gays, you have your DADT repealed now get to freekin' work.
First of all, props to Obama for calling out the Republican candidates. However...he is a politician seeking re-election, so this is probably just a little sumpin' sumpin' for the resume.

Second of all, if the GOP is hoping it'll "mean something" if Herman Cain's the one who ends up running against Obama, then they really don't understand Black people at all.  The GOP has lost the Negro vote, and they ain't gettin' it back with Captain Slavery Fetish.

Which leads me to third of all:  I'm really not worried about the GOP in 2012.  As Angry Black Bitch points out, their debates have been seriously embarrassing:
...the GOP debates have turned into Home Training Fail case studies. GOP debate audiences have enthusiastically cheered the fact that Texas has executed 234 people while Rick Perry has been Governor and screamed their support of allowing a hypothetical uninsured cancer victim to rot and die.

And now we have GOP audience members booing a soldier currently serving in Iraq because he is gay and asked a question about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

My people call that disgraceful.

Pause…sip coffee…continue.

My first thought was that the GOP minions have lost their touch and that clearly they have not been screening audience members they way they used to.

But then I gave this outbreak of boorish GOP audience behavior some additional thought…and I cruised through some websites and blogs favored by those who adore tea, where I noted that contributor and comment-makers were thrilled by these outbursts…and it occurred to me that the GOP may be letting the audience send a message to the base that they don’t want their nominee sending lest she or he disgust the rest of the electorate.
And fourth of all - and this here is the meat & taters of the post - whenever some heterosexist tries to move the discussion away from gay concerns and onto the fact DADT has been repealed, it always sounds to me a lot like when racists say, "The most important fact about slavery in America is that we ended it."  That's what I'm hearing here and elsewhere on the nets.  "The most important fact about institutionalized discrimination against gays in the military is that we ended it."

Um...who the hell is 'we'?

By now we've all noticed privileged people's tendencies to implicitly usurp success with the overturning of policy or the implementation of an act, when we all know they didn't have a damn thing to do with it.  It's like all these aging white liberals on Capitol Hill who want to pretend they all were Civil Rights activists in the 1960s, and that they all marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., (or that they all attended Woodstock).

In the case of DADT's repeal, the resentment is still fresh, but we know where the tone is going.  Fifty years from now, every young homophobe who didn't think gays should so much as draw breath will be telling their gay son or lesbian granddaughter of how they rallied behind a mighty Black president (which they'll falsely claim to have voted for) and valiantly helped him overthrow DADT.

Negro, please.

Comments

  1. "By now we've all noticed privileged people's tendencies to implicitly usurp success with the overturning of policy or the implementation of an act, when we all know they didn't have a damn thing to do with it."

    It really is amazing how selective white people's memories can be. Privilege - it does a body good, amirite?

    I always think when ppl say shit like "Well, MAH granddaddy never owned slaves!" or some shit about how their family was a magic snowflake and miraculously different:

    1. how the fuck would you know? Maybe they did and they didn't say anything about it to you.
    2. so the fuck what if they didn't. Did they actively go out and protest against slavery either? No? still guilty by quiet acquiescence.

    But you know what's great? Those same white people can do something NOW about the shit going on NOW. They just wont'. Apathy - something only the privileged can afford.

    "I wish the gays would give it a rest though. So what if your gay, do you have to be so open about it that you tell everyone? Put the soapbox away gays, you have your DADT repealed now get to freekin' work."

    Just to be clear, Ankh, is this your comment or someone else's? Because I disagree with the sentiment. I do agree with not harping on something so that it prevents further progress and action, but I disagree about the implication that gay people have some agenda where they want to tell everyone about their sexuality and are somehow a monolithic group unable to see past booing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Right after the debate, some Republicans said they didn't hear the boos,"

    Uh-huh. Just as the Tea Party members didn't see those racist signs in their midst until after the photos were printed/widely circulated. Sure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Sonic

    Just to be clear, Ankh, is this your comment or someone else's?

    It's one of the comments on the articles. I can never resist reading some of them and reposting them.

    That particular comment is ironically one of the main reasons I wrote this post because like I said, we know where the tone is going. First, it's "Don't let gays in the military." Then it's "Make them keep their orientation to themselves." Then it's "Don't repeal DADT." Then it's "Fine. Whatever. Repeal that shit. I don't give fuck" - that's the stage where we're at now.

    Next stop: "The most important fact about institutionalized discrimination against gays in the military is that 'we' ended it."

    ReplyDelete
  4. DADT was always a crock of discriminatory BS.
    But the kicker was that you didn't have to tell. People got kicked out for being outed by other people. So it wasn't that Major John was coming to training telling everyone about all of the dick he got all weekend. But if someone noticed that he had the same "roommate" for too long, or stumbled into him out on a date with another man, he could be reported and he'd be thrown out of the military.
    And it blows my mind when I read stories about the kinds of people that they kicked out b/c of who they sleep with. Language specialists (very hard to come by), people with extremely rare skill of all kinds.
    The biggest kicker should be that if you are a heterosexual male who abuses females, you aren't punished at all, and you certainly aren't discharged.
    Rape of a woman by a straight man is apparently a-okay with the military.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ leoprincess

    You noticed that too, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This reply might be a bit lengthy but you knew I had to weigh in here:

    "First of all, props to Obama for calling out the Republican candidates. However...he is a politician seeking re-election, so this is probably just a little sumpin' sumpin' for the resume."

    If Obama was white, I might be inclined to agree but the fact is, he's not winning any favors with anybody for standing up for gay rights. Even though he has done more for LGBTQs than any other president including (but not limited to) DADT, and assigning a trans woman to his cabinet, he has still caught more heat from racist white LGBTQ leaders more than he has Republicans. Said white LGBTQ leaders who didn't do shit when Bush was in power threatening to change the Constitution to halt gay marriage. Republicans hate him and liberal white fauxgressives are constantly undercutting him. So he really has nothing to gain by doing the right thing here.

    "Second of all, if the GOP is hoping it'll "mean something" if Herman Cain's the one who ends up running against Obama, then they really don't understand Black people at all. The GOP has lost the Negro vote, and they ain't gettin' it back with Captain Slavery Fetish."

    And this is what white folks don't get. If it was strictly about race than Alan Keyes would've had the black vote going up against Clinton when he ran. If it was strictly about race with us, then Al Sharpton would've done far better. The fact is white or black, a candidate has to come correct if they're looking to gain the black vote. Say what you will for Clinton, that is one thing he understood and one thing he did right. See black folks will vote for a white candidate even against another black candidate, if said white candidate comes correct. The problem is white folks think they can run game on us by telling us what they think we want to hear.

    "You know that Martin Luther King fellow was truly an inspiration."

    "It's such a shame that people are still racist. It's sooooooo sad. Racism is just stupid."

    What they don't get is that we've been hustled and exploited for over 500 years. We know the game. We know the hustle. So for the fakes, we usually see them coming a mile away and have their number before they even know the score.

    That's the weakness of racism. They think they're smarter and superior to us and yet because they won't allow reality to show them otherwise, that's why we're a mystery. They'll never understand us because it means releasing the illusion that they are superior and can do no wrong.


    "In the case of DADT's repeal, the resentment is still fresh, but we know where the tone is going. Fifty years from now, every young homophobe who didn't think gays should so much as draw breath will be telling their gay son or lesbian granddaughter of how they rallied behind a mighty Black president (which they'll falsely claim to have voted for) and valiantly helped him overthrow DADT."

    THIS!!!!!! Just like whites who swear they fought for Civil RIghts but still advocate racial profiling.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To be fair, I think it's also important to point out that if you recall, Republicans originally hated DADT and were pissed when Clinton introduced it.

    Ironically it was actually a compromise to keep gays in the military. And if you recall Clinton caught heat on both sides. That's why it's been interesting to see how that shit has flipped where Republicans are defending it to keep/kick gays out.

    "Uh-huh. Just as the Tea Party members didn't see those racist signs in their midst until after the photos were printed/widely circulated. Sure."

    @Leoprincess, as I was whitesplained on Facebook, those were actually liberal plants who were trying to make the poor Tea Baggers look bad in front of the media.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Obama was white, I might be inclined to agree but the fact is, he's not winning any favors with anybody for standing up for gay rights. Even though he has done more for LGBTQs than any other president including (but not limited to) DADT, and assigning a trans woman to his cabinet, he has still caught more heat from racist white LGBTQ leaders more than he has Republicans. Said white LGBTQ leaders who didn't do shit when Bush was in power threatening to change the Constitution to halt gay marriage. Republicans hate him and liberal white fauxgressives are constantly undercutting him. So he really has nothing to gain by doing the right thing here.

    In that case, he has all my applause.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "@Leoprincess, as I was whitesplained on Facebook, those were actually liberal plants who were trying to make the poor Tea Baggers look bad in front of the media. "

    And yet they didn't kick their gatecrashing asses out the minute they were spotted. I see someone in my group with an off-colour (no pun intended) sign that does NOT reflect our core beliefs, and I'm not calling them out then and there? *side-eye* Mm hm. Whatever.

    I'm not surprised the candidates didn't acknowledge the boos, or even say anything in response to the man's question. After all, that would mean acknowledging that he and others are people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Ankh: I didn't think it was yours because of the misspellings and the fuckwittery behind it, but just wanted to be sure :)

    That person's mindset is kinda like "I don't see color!!!!eleventy!! Racism only exists because POC keep bringing it up." Like if "the geyz" would just stop harping on their identity so much, everything would be normal.

    Yeah if only the oppressed would shut the fuck up, THAT would make all these problems go away.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is why I really don't care about the republi-cons and their dick-suckin house negroes, nor do I care about the demo-crats. I mean seriously, a party that is largely pro-life and is against abortion supports the death penalty and wars. Something is not registering up there *points to his head*. Then again, that would've been a reasonable thought considering how "Christian" they claim to be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are lot's of young men/women who would love to be in the military,but if it isn't their health that are preventing them from being in it then it's issues like that. It's a crying shame.

    I've never understood why is that when you mention the "G" word and people will treat like you got TB or something? I was talking with a cousin of mine about his workplace and he vowed never to work in an area where gays work at. I laughed at his what he said. What he didn't know that he was working in the same very area that he vowed he wouldn't work in. It's like Greenwich Village. Although a lot of gays work in the area, so do a lot of straight , religious and college students people that live there and it's all good. I'm straight,but I have no problems with the area as I've also worked in it.

    What I don't get with his is that he get's crazy of people being gay, yet he doesn't mind bringing in his lawbreaking girlfriend who isn't allowed in any of our homes. It's almost like we forget about the corrupt people out there who can pose a big threat to us..yet mention that someone is gay and it's like " OMG... run!" It's just crazy.

    I 've seen that clip and it's downright pathetic how this man was treated. They want to serve their country, yet they are being told not to. Even if you may not agree with the gay lifestyle, it doesn't mean you treat them like nobodies for it. Everytime they talk about people being patriotic, they need to learn what it means. It shouldn't be about this soldier's lifestyle, it should be about his loyalty and love of his country and when the GOP boos this guy for who he is, they aren't being very patriotic as much as they want to boast about it.

    Gays been in the army since it began. The only difference now is that they have rights to say who they are. It should always have been that way.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

This blog is strictly moderated. Everyone is now able to comment again, however, all Anonymous posts will be immediately deleted. Comments on posts more than 30 days old are generally dismissed, so try to stay current with the conversations.