SOTU response: short program

Every so often, I'll criticize the Democrats for being wishy-washy on their promises regarding gay rights. The support of my fellow 'mos has seemed a wee bit on the "taken for granted" side, and it's been a notable frustration. As a response, the question has been put to me why I don't consider supporting the GOP. Mentions are made of Cindy McCain and Cheney, Dark Lord of the Sith. Perhaps, it is posited, the Republicans are turning around on gay issues.

To which I would simply draw one's attention to the response last night to the President's statement that Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be abolished this year. (Will it happen? Sully is skeptical. I'm optimistic.) One party stood and applauded. One sat in stony silence, apparently in support of an idiotic policy that is destined for the dustbin of history. (Because, y'know, gays are allowed to serve openly in Israel, and Israel doesn't take national security at all seriously.)

(Also, there's point eight on that pesky purity test.)

Anyhow, I think it demonstrates why I continue to stick with my poor, hapless Democrats. They frustrate the ever-living crap out of me, but at least they want to make things better. The GOP? Not so much.

Update: Also, there's this.


  1. Perhaps you are right, and Obama will get around to it right after he closes GITMO, keeps his promise about a net spending cut, and gets Congress to pass a law prohibiting foreign nationals and corporations from contributing money or anything of value to political campaigns or committees. Oh, wait, we can check that last one off. Congress did just that, back in the 1990s. Well, there you go, Obama gets results.

  2. gj, he said it in the SOTU. It ain't something he muttered under his breath in response at a press conference. Tell me one time, ever, any Republican President has come out in favor of any gay rights at a SOTU. It isn't something he can back down from, I can promise, win or lose in November right after the elections it is gone. As to Gitmo, do you really want it open? For God's sake it is a blight on the reputation of America and, incidentally, will totally screw us over when the Castro brothers die. Do you really think any liberalizing forces there will be happy that the US lodges the worst terrorists in the world on their territory, it is gonna make it down right impossible for there to be any co-ordination with them. But, obviously, you don't care the Cuban tyrants will use Gitmo to continue their repression by stoking anti-American sentiment. I had no idea you loved Castro or the Communists there so.

    Ship the lot to Johnston atoll in the South Pacific. It is US territory, uninhabited (except for US military personell) and about as far away from the rest of the world as can be (trust me, in 6 months everyone will forget about them)
    As to your 3rd point, wtf are you talking about? That law had zero to do with the Supreme court case. Right now, because of the ruling, any company can spend unlimited amounts of money on advertising for or against candidates without contributing a dime to any political campaign or committee. Of course it can be any company, American or Foreign owned, since foreign owned companies register in the US they are entitled to the exact same rights as American owned ones.
    Damn dude, this is econ 101.

    I am sorry, but you are too damn easy since you simply have no ability of analysis.