http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/perrys-bad-night.html?nl=todayshea dlines <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/perrys-bad-night.html?nl=todayshe adlines&emc=tha212> &emc=tha212 Perrys Bad Night Gail Collins NY Times Op-Ed: September 24, 2011 Gloom pervades the land. Some people believe its the economy. Others blame the weather. I think its because the country is gradually coming to grips with the fact that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for president.
It is a scientific fact. Every minute, somewhere in America, another citizen realizes that Mitt is going to be in our face for the next 14 months. Conceivably for the next nine years. Children now in third grade might graduate from high school without ever experiencing a totally Romney-free day. This is not something Im happy pointing out. For one thing, I dont want to believe I live in a country that would seriously consider bestowing the nations highest office on a man who once drove to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car. Plus, we have barely gotten started on Rick Perry, the last great Mitt alternative. Have you noticed how huge his chest and shoulders are? Looming over his lectern at Thursdays debate, he looked like a float. But it was impossible to watch that debate without realizing that Perry is not presidential timber, or even presidential polyurethane. Here was Perrys answer to the inevitable question about what hed do if the White House phone rang at 3 a.m. In this case, the hypothetical call informed the hypothetical President Perry that the Taliban had gotten control of Pakistans nuclear weapons. Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region. And thats one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with and thats the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country so to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States. He went on to tell a story about how the Obama administration wouldnt sell upgraded F-16 fighters to India. Which never happened. Romney, meanwhile, was very much on his game, glib and grinning madly. He lashed into Perry for the Texas version of the Dream Act. (If youre an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount!) One of the very few silver linings in this story is that over the next year well all have a number of opportunities to revisit the saga of the undocumented immigrants who used to mow the Romney lawn. The debate stage was crowded with other would-be candidates, most of them pretty well worn. The only newbie, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, made a big splash with a joke about how his neighbors two dogs produced more shovel-ready projects than Barack Obama did. Johnson cracked the place up! Line of the night! Then on Friday everyone discovered that Rush Limbaugh had told the joke the day before. The dog-owning neighbor joins the ever-growing throng of Republican Imaginary People, along with the woman who told Michele Bachmann the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer made her daughter mentally retarded. Perry appeared very cheerful during most of the debate he has a way of cocking his head and grinning as if he saw a waiter entering the room with a large dessert. Perhaps he was anticipating the triumphant moment when he would be able to nail Romney for being a flip-flopper. This appeared to be something he had prepared for. When the opportunity presented itself, this is what Perry said: I think Americans just dont know sometimes which Mitt Romney theyre dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it was before he was before the social programs from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe versus Wade before he was against first Roe versus Wade? Him he was for Race to the Top. Hes for Obamacare and now hes against it. I mean, well wait until tomorrow and and and see which Mitt Romney were really talking to tonight. So there you are. It is true that the nation has elected incoherent Texans to the White House before. But the first one had been vice president. And when George W. Bush was marching through the primaries, saying things that made no sense whatsoever, Republican voters told one another that if he got into trouble, he could always ask his parents for advice. I swear to you, that came up a lot. But I always thought it was an excuse, to cover the fact that they were really just trying to avoid John McCain. And then in 2008, they nominated McCain just to avoid Mitt Romney. No wonder theyre miserable. Next week, give a Republican a cookie, just to show you understand. * * * http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/dont-ask/?nl=todaysheadlines <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/dont-ask/?nl=todaysheadline s&emc=thab1> &emc=thab1 Don't Ask Peter Capatano NY Times Op-Ed: September 24, 2011 We really wanted to move things to a higher plane. But they keep having these debates. After all, it did appear at moments this week that life might still be fantastic, mind-expanding and shot through with wonder. First, 50 new planets outside our solar system were found, one of them <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/science/space/16planet.html> orbiting not one but two suns. Then, a report of subatomic particles <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html> shattering the speed of light. The world in a grain of sand. Infinity in the palms of our hands! Wow. What wasnt possible? Plus, isnt the new iPhone coming out? Back on terra firma, though, things were less awesome and more confounding. Here, humans still roamed the earth, with predictable results, and could be observed saying things like we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past to large audiences, who would then applaud. That statement was not uttered by a mischievous astrophysicist but by Rick Santorum, a candidate for president, speaking at the most recent Republican debate last night in Orlando. Santorums time-twisting formulation was his way of saying that, if he were president, he would reinstate the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy on gay men and women in the military. The law, of course, <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/after-toiling-in-shadows-to-end-dont-a sk-dont-tell-1st-lt-josh-seefried-greets-a-new-era.html> was repealed Tuesday, after years of efforts by advocates; discrimination in the armed forces based on sexual orientation would never again be allowed. The march of time could not be reversed. Or could it? That the past and future could dovetail in some Mobius strip of time was suggested by Santorum in a response to a question from a gay soldier, Stephen Hill, who is serving in Iraq. Hill appeared at the debate to ask his question via the magic of video. Please watch: ( If you want to see the video, Click on URL at the top and scroll down - Ed) Or read. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILL: In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because Im a gay soldier, and I didnt want to lose my job. My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress thats been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military? (END VIDEO CLIP) (Booing from audience.) SANTORUM: Yeah, I I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that theyre making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to to and removing dont ask/dont tell I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the militarys job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform. (APPLAUSE) And I believe this undermines that ability. (APPLAUSE) KELLY: So what what what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill? I mean, hes now hes out. Hes you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now hes out. So what would you do as president? SANTORUM: I think its its its look, what were doing is playing social experimentation with with our military right now. And thats tragic. I would I would just say that, going forward, we would we would reinstitute that policy, if Rick Santorum was president, period. That policy would be reinstituted. And as far as people who are in in I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was, sex is not an issue. It is it should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it keep it to yourself, whether youre a heterosexual or a homosexual. (APPLAUSE) The gay conservative group GOProud <http://www.goproud.org/rick-santorum-owes-gay-soldier-an-apology> quickly demanded an apology from Santorum. Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, the statement said, and he owes Stephen Hill an immediate apology. That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldnt even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service. But that sure wasnt the end of it. (Santorum, in a <http://gawker.com/5843390/rick-santorum-thanks-gay-soldier-for-his-service- many-hours-later> follow up interview today, did thank the soldier, and claimed he did not hear the booing, but alas he could not turn back time. The truth was out there.) Yes, the boos were for the soldier. And the applause for Santorums explanation of why he would repeal the repeal as president. This more or less followed the pattern of the notable audience outbursts at the two previous debates the <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/they-messed-with-texas/> Texas death penalty cheer and the <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/lets-talk-about-death/> Let him die uninsured whoop. Jonathan Weisman at The Wall Street Journals Washington Wire was quick to note <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/23/gop-debate-the-audience-again-deli vers-a-message/> the pattern, which is certainly being used by opponents of the G.O.P. Three Republican debates in as many weeks have produced plenty of fodder for voters deciding not just who the Republican presidential nominee should be but ultimately who should sit in the White House. But a surprising factor has emerged in the impressions being left: the audience. Three times now, an incident with the audience has left some watchers scratching their heads and has touched off plenty of chatter in media and pundit circles. Ultimately, voters are making judgments on the candidates, not the crowds that pack the debates. But liberal activists are using the crowd responses to paint the GOP as extremist. So true. Support for Santorums position or for the proclivities of the audiences at the Republican debates was exceedingly hard to find. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air agrees that, policy aside, moments like this one have <http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/23/debate-candidates-formats-and-crowd-c ontrol/> repercussions for Republicans beyond the lecterns. They turn into red meat for the Democratic wolves: When something like that happens, the response of the candidate and even the subject itself ceases to be the story and the media picks up on the bloodthirsty Republican audience as the story du jour. It happened last time with the death penalty and health insurance questions, and sure enough, when I began flipping through the morning news shows today, those two items were right up near the top of the list of what they were talking about. Hey, look! Republicans are booing an active duty soldier and cheering for the elimination of unemployment insurance! You dont need to be Karl Rove to figure out this might not be a winning visual image. Andrew Sullivan, who aside from being a blogger and editor of renown is openly gay, did fire off a quick tirade during the debate, but stewed overnight and returned Friday with <http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/the-anger-.html> an extended, angry meditation: As I went to bed last night, the scattered boos for an American soldier in the field at any debate began to sink in. And Santorums despicable lie in response that repealing DADT somehow means license of gay sexual misconduct in the armed services was intended to reduce that soldier, his life and work, to Santorums obsession: the intrinsic evil of gay sex. Again, this is usual. Gays are used to being reduced to sexual acts rather than being seen as full human beings, like straight people, with sexuality sure, but a whole lot of other things as well. But somehow the fact that these indignities were heaped on a man risking his life to serve this country, a man ballsy enough to make that video, a man in the uniform of the United States well, it tells me a couple of things. It tells me that these Republicans dont actually deep down care for the troops, if that means gay troops. Their constant posturing military patriotism has its limits. The shocking silence on the stage the fact that no one challenged this outrage also tells me that this kind of slur is not regarded as a big deal. And then I think of all those gay servicemembers who have died for this country, or been wounded in battle, or been on tours year after year and the fury builds. At Politico, Roger Simon imagined how the audience might be <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64242.html> called to account for its response: The crowd, knowing it was several thousand miles away from him, felt courageous enough to boo. Its a shame that the curtains did not part, revealing the soldier standing on the stage. Did I mention this guy had biceps he could cracked walnuts with? The boo-birds would have whimpered once or twice and then stampeded for the exits. Walter Shapiro at The New Republic suggested that Santorum not only went awry, but could also use to <http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/95251/perry-romney-problem-fox-news-deb ate> brush up on his military history: Santorum was unyielding in his demand for heterosexuality in the military. The former Pennsylvania senator did not even thank the solider for his service in a war zone. But Santorum did insist, Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. Needless to say, that comment displayed a naiveté about the lives of soldiers since the days of Achilles and Hector at the gates of Troy. A few others found the no sex in the military line to be absurd. At The New Yorker, <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/09/gop-debate-a-brave- soldier.html#ixzz1YmnwmclJ> Amy Davidson wrote: Sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military? That will be a surprise to the men and women, of every orientation, who love, marry, and become parents while serving. We have an all-volunteer military whose health relies on its strong ties to civilian life not a praetorian guard of eunuchs. Does Santorum think that the military is a collection of battle scenes in an action movie? Surely not; his father worked for the Veterans Administration, and so he must know better. He also ought to know that there is no special privilege here, just the possibility of serving without the special obligation of lying, and the same knowledge other soldiers have that the person they love most might be able to be handed a folded flag if they die. Or is the word gay so strong for Santorum that it blotted out the word soldier? James Joyner at Outside the Beltway <http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/gay-soldier-booed-at-gop-debate/> followed suit: Rick Santorum once again proved what a weird human being he is. Aside from the Mike Dukakis-like tone deafness of his response to the question being humanized rather than theoretical, the notion that Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military is simply bizarre. At Opinion L.A. the Los Angeles Times opinion staff <http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/09/gop-debate-rick-santorum-dont- ask-dont-tell.html> points out the damage this sort of rhetoric does for social conservatives: That a Republican endorsed dont ask, dont tell isnt surprising. But there was something especially crass about Santorums reply. His remark that any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military completely misses the point and continues his bizarre refocusing of the gay-rights debate on sex. And he doesnt know how profoundly insulting it is to gays and lesbians to call requiring the military to afford them basic respect a social experiment. (Besides, which is the more dubious social experiment: sexually cleansing our armed forces, or having them reflect societys inexorable march toward fully accepting gay men and women?) Worst, watching Santorum and other Republicans stand stoically while a handful of debate-goers shout their disgust with a homosexual soldier leaves the impression that the GOP candidates have more outwardly embraced anti-gay prejudice to win over conservative voters. This kind of behavior makes it difficult to take social conservatives at their word when they insist that their opposition to, say, same-sex marriage is rooted respect for a longstanding institution instead of prejudice. William Kristol summed up the general G.O.P. sentiment with the headline of The Weekly Standards special editorial following the debate: <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/special-editorial-yikes_594095.html> Yikes. Kristol does not single out Santorum, but rather channels the despair of the party faithful about the field of candidates: Reading the reactions of thoughtful commentators after the stage emptied, talking with conservative policy types and GOP political operatives later last evening and this morning, we know were not alone. Most wont express publicly just how horrified or at least how demoralized they are. After all, they still want to beat Obama as do we. And they want to get along with the possible nominee and the other candidates and their supporters. They dont want to rock the boat too much. But maybe the GOP presidential boat needs rocking. The e-mails flooding into our inbox during the evening were less guarded. Early on, we received this missive from a bright young conservative: Im watching my first GOP debate and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!! As the evening went on, the craziness receded, and the demoralized comments we received stressed the mediocrity of the field rather than its wackiness. Conservatives reflecting on their own weaknesses? Whats next? Democratic bouts of self-examination? Maybe the earth still is a wondrous place. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
