HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Barney Frank 'Strongly Op...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:38 PM

Barney Frank 'Strongly Opposes' Chuck Hagel As Defense Secretary

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:11 PM - Edit history (1)

WASHINGTON -- Outgoing Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) announced on Monday that he "strongly opposes" the potential nomination of Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary, due to anti-gay comments the former Republican senator from Nebraska once made.

In 1998, Hagel called James Hormel, then President Bill Clinton's choice for U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, “openly, aggressively gay." He called Hormel's sexual orientation an "inhibiting factor" that would prevent him from doing "an effective job."

Hagel recently apologized, saying his 1998 remarks were "insensitive."

That apology has not been enough for some members of the LGBT community. Hormel himself questioned the sincerity of Hagel's comments, saying they appeared to be made "only in service of his attempt to get the nomination."

MORE...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/barney-frank-chuck-hagel_n_2389608.html

34 replies, 2350 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Barney Frank 'Strongly Opposes' Chuck Hagel As Defense Secretary (Original post)
Purveyor Dec 2012 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2012 #1
dsc Dec 2012 #2
Purveyor Dec 2012 #3
dsc Dec 2012 #5
Purveyor Dec 2012 #9
dsc Dec 2012 #12
Purveyor Dec 2012 #14
dsc Dec 2012 #18
Purveyor Dec 2012 #20
dsc Dec 2012 #21
Purveyor Dec 2012 #25
dsc Dec 2012 #26
Kali Dec 2012 #4
dsc Dec 2012 #6
Purveyor Dec 2012 #10
dsc Dec 2012 #13
Purveyor Dec 2012 #15
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #17
dsc Dec 2012 #19
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #23
hughee99 Jan 2013 #32
dsc Jan 2013 #33
hughee99 Jan 2013 #34
Prometheus Bound Dec 2012 #7
Purveyor Dec 2012 #8
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #11
dsc Dec 2012 #16
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #22
dsc Dec 2012 #24
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #27
Maven Dec 2012 #29
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #30
Maven Dec 2012 #28
JeanPierre2 Jan 2013 #31

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:41 PM

1. One 'trick' Barney? I don't think so.

That is uncalled for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:44 PM

2. nice slur in bold at the end of your post

Imagine if Hagel had opposed Albright for her gender, or replace homosexual with muslim and see what you would think of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:53 PM

3. Hagel's comment were some 14 years ago. You stand by everything you stood for some 14 years ago?

BTW...I always 'bold' my commentary within an original OP so it doesn't get confused with the OP text.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:02 PM

5. I wasn't a US Senator 14 years ago

but more to the point, where was he when we were ending DADT? If he really changed his mind on gays, and isn't just saying whatever he thinks we want to hear, he had a golden opportunity to display that change of heart. The reason he was silent in 2009 and 2010 as this was going on was that he still believed that gays were inferior in 2009 and 2010. Even Sam Brownback managed not to behave the way he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:22 PM

9. Hagel wasn't in the Senate 2009-2010...he retired the Senate in 2008. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:32 PM

12. but as a former military person who changed his mind

his voice would have helped immensely. Goldwater penned an editorial long after he was no longer a Senator in favor of open service by gays to site one example. The fact is his apology only was offered because he wants to be Secretary of Defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:38 PM

14. Was he party to the cause? Was he petitioned to do so and refused? Or should he just have stepped

forward and 'let blood' on the Capitol steps to prove his 'mistake'.

Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:55 PM

18. No one made Goldwater do it

I would be willing to bet just about any sum of money that he had no change in heart at all prior to the possibility of being appointed Secretary of Defense came up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:04 PM

20. Goldwater? LOL. I'm not THAT old nor care to study the politics of 'Goldwater'. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:06 PM

21. It was a pretty big deal back in 1993

and probably helped gain a vote or two we otherwise wouldn't have had. It wasn't enough. But my central point is that Hagel didn't need to be asked. If he really had this massive change of heart he would have sought out reporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:16 PM

25. Now you are going back 20 years? We are done. Have a Happy and Enlightened New Year. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:19 PM

26. the point is the comparison

Goldwater had been out of public life for quite some time (McCain won his seat in 86) but chose, because he actually believed in the cause, to write an editorial. Hagel had been out of public life for a mere 3 years yet sat on his hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:56 PM

4. please explain what you mean by "One 'trick' Barney"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kali (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:03 PM

6. he means he used a prostitute and horror of horros a gay one

but figured, sadly correctly, he could get away with one trick Barney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:24 PM

10. You dispute the fact that Frank 'used' a prostitute...and 'got away with it?"...of course, yes...he

the all knowing Congressman was 'set-up'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:37 PM

13. He paid for sex big whoop

He was never an advocate of chastity. He didn't cheat on his husband. He didn't sleep with a married man. He and Mr. Gobie were conscenting adults. On the other hand, Mr Hagel was the margin to defeat ENDA in 1999. Because of him every gay person living in at least all of the following states (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MI, AR, LA, TN, KY, OH, PA, MI, IN, KS, NE, ND, SD, OK, TX, MT, ID, UT) can be fired tomorrow simply for being gay. One hurt no one, the other hurt thousands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:42 PM

15. A vote some 14 years ago. Positions change. You the same person today you were 14 years ago? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:55 PM

17. I can't find any info on ENDA or on who specifically voted for it. All I see on Wikipedia

is that it died in a Senate committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:01 PM

19. Here

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/employment-non-discrimination-act-legislative-timeline

1996

First hearings held on ENDA in the House in Government Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Small Business (H.R. 1863); First floor vote held on ENDA; Senate rejects it, 50-49 (104th Congress, S. 2056, 3 co-sponsors; Roll Call No. 281).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:11 PM

23. Hagel was not in the Senate then. The 104th Congress Senators for

Nebraska were Jim Exon and Bob Kerrey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:56 PM

32. Sure, his boyfriend just ran a prostitution service out of Frank's apartment.

I'm sure he didn't know anything about it, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:10 PM

33. It was thoroughly investigated at the time

with not one single solitary charge being brought against him. He stated, under oath, that he didn't know, again with no single solitary charge being brought. Oh, and the evidence for this ring came from Gobie himself, no one else testified. No johns, no prostitutes.

And here is the text and link to back me up

In 1985 Frank was still closeted. That year he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex, and they became friends more than sexual partners. Frank housed Gobie and hired him with personal funds as an aide, housekeeper and driver and paid for his attorney and court-ordered psychiatrist. In 1987, Frank kicked Gobie out after being advised by his landlord that Gobie kept escorting despite the support and was doing so in the residence. Later that year, Gobie's friends convinced him they had a gay male version of Mayflower Madam, a TV movie they had been watching. In 1989, Gobie tried to initiate a bidding war for the story between WUSA-TV (Channel 9), the Washington Times, and The Washington Post. He then gave the story to The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract. Amid calls for an investigation, Frank asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate his relationship "in order to insure that the public record is clear." The Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets and for misstatements of fact in a memorandum relating to Gobie's criminal probation record. The House voted 408–18 to reprimand Frank. The attempts to censure and expel Frank were led by Republican Larry Craig (whom Frank later criticized for hypocrisy after Craig's own arrest in 2007 for lewd conduct while soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom). Despite the controversy, Frank won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins until the 2010 Mid-term elections when Frank won by eleven points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

You shouldn't trash Democrats on this site even if their being gay makes them less deserving of respect in your mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:41 PM

34. I wasn't trashing Frank, and I remember it pretty well.

It's not exactly the same thing though as one time paying for sex.

Frank's boyfriend was running criminal activity out of Frank's own apartment. I don't doubt that he was doing it without Barney's blessing, though the fact that the House Ethics Committee couldn't prove he knew anything about it isn't exactly the same as proving one's innocence. The House Ethics Committee has a long and impressive history of not being able to find much evidence on all sorts of stuff. Hell, Jim Trafficant was convicted of bribery and corruption MONTHS before the House Ethics Committee was able to gather enough evidence to expel him from congress.

Honestly, my only issue with Barney Frank was that he was supposed to be keeping an eye on the banking industry, and ended up coming out a hero to some by getting kind of tough only AFTER things were all fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:08 PM

7. You should delete that comment. Shame on you for a number of reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prometheus Bound (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:15 PM

8. Done but Barney must not forget his transgressions in the past before casting stones at another. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:26 PM

11. Jeezus, the man has to be the only conservative in history who has ever apologized

publicly to the LGBT community for the wrong views he'd had---and he pledged to do better by them. The other 99.9999% of Republicans in government positions or elected office will never apologize. And a huge chunk of them are almost certainly AT THE PENTAGON. I like what Andrew Sullivan says about this:

"Does Barney know of any other minority group whose image has shifted so quickly since 1998? Gays were still among the last despised minorities back then - which helps explain why president Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, enforced the ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants, and doubled the rate of discharges from the military on grounds of homosexual orientation. But Clinton - who ran ads in 1996 bragging of his opposition to marriage equality - is a civil rights hero now, because he has evolved. And the president is congratulated for evolving as well. Whereas Hagel, a Republican, cannot even have an apology accepted, and is penalized for his past views. "

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:52 PM

16. He did no such thing

“My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive,” Hagel was quoted as saying Friday. “They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”

That is the text of his apology. He apologized for his comments. He claimed his views were just fine as was the totality of his record. A record that earned him a zero, count it zero, score from the HRC. As to the bullshit that Sullivan posted. Clinton enforced the ban on HIV positive people because it was the law of the land and he wasn't an unaccountable king (it passed in 1987 which in case you or he are math challenged is before 1993 when Clinton took office). Clinton removed the ban from government employment for openly gay personnel for every department save uniformed military which he also tried to do. That is one reason he is viewed as a civil rights hero. Oh, and the ingrate Sullivan, is quite likely alive today only because of the increased funding for AIDS research secured by Clinton. Another reason he is viewed as a civil rights hero. Oh, and let's remember why Hormel was up for Ambassador, he was named by Clinton to be the first ever openly gay ambassador. Yet another reason he is viewed as a civil rights hero. And finally, one air base in Texas was responsible for over half of all discharges under DADT during the Clinton years. If you take that base out, then the record would be rather different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:07 PM

22. I'm sorry, I read that apology and I can't find a thing wrong with it.

It wasn't one of those "I misspoke" or "sorry you were offended" apologies. It was pretty solid, AND he made a committment of support to LGBT families. Hormel accepted the apology. Short of setting himself on fire on the steps of the White House as a gesture of shame and contrition, I am not sure what more he can do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:12 PM

24. Just what part of his public record isn't reflected in those remarks?

The part where he got a 0 from the HRC. The part where he voted for an amendment to the US Constitution enshrining marriage discrimination. The part where he cast the vote blocking ENDA. The part where he sat silently while DADT was lifted when he could have helped back in 2009.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:42 PM

27. He did not vote for an amendment against marriage discrimination. It never

went beyond a cloture motion (moving the bill forward)--he voted for cloture in 2004, but not in 2006. In fact, he was about the only Republican Senator NOT to cosponsor that amendment in 2006. He was not in the Senate when ENDA was up for a full Senate vote, so you really need to stop hanging that on him, it's just not factual at all. Really, his anti-gay record is pretty slim for a Republican conservative. That's why someone had to dig up a newspaper interview comment from 1998 to slam him with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:52 PM

29. Hmm. Maybe the timing of it makes it a little suspect.

You think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maven (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:16 PM

30. I don't know. I wonder if anyone demanded a public apology when

he first made the remarks--he did make them in a newspaper interview. Nowadays if you said this you'd be pounced on immediately, but 15 years ago it must not have gotten any attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:50 PM

28. This is what DU has come to? Shitting on Barney Frank to defend Chuck Hagel?

Gross.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:34 PM

31. Hagel still a bigot

Hagel's nasty remarks are not the only issue. Ambassador Hormel said he would accept the apology if Hagel came out for equal treatment of gay military families. But Hagel is too bigoted in 2013 to do that.

Even now, he has not said one word to advocate for the equality of gay military families.

There are many ways a Secretary of Defense could help gay military families no matter how DOMA is decided and Hagel has not come out in favor of any of these.

Reports to the contrary, LGBT equality is not yet a done deal in the military. There is still the matter of partner benefits. There still remain a handful of regulations that could be revised independent of the Defense of Marriage act that could bring some equity of compensation and benefits to gay and lesbian servicemembers. but remain denied due only to Department of Defense foot-dragging:

Included in the discretionary benefits currently denied are spousal identication cards, cited in the Pentagon's own Working Group

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread