HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I find an intriguing doub...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:59 AM

I find an intriguing double standard in regards to Bill Clinton and Chuck Hagel

When discussing Bill Clinton's gay rights record I have been told repeatedly by many on this board that the time frame in which he served was irrelevant to the point that one major poster told me directly that there was no difference in the opinion of gay people in 1992 than now. But when it comes to Hagel we hear, well 1998 was so long ago and people's opinions of gays were way different. I think people do need to judge politicians records in terms of the time they served in. And even by that standard, Hagel's behavior was beyond what most politicians were doing. Only Helms, Coburn, Hagel, and Lott went on record saying that gay people couldn't be an ambassador due to being gay. Frankly, that is pretty crappy company. To equate that with DOMA, as awful as DOMA is, is the height of false equivalency.

11 replies, 805 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

Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:45 AM

1. Another double standard in regards to Hillary and Hagel.

Both Hagel and Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Hagel is presented on DU as being 'anti war' although he is a Republican while Clinton's duplicate yes vote is presented as war happy Bush supporting and back in the primary, her vote was presented as a disqualification for office by many who are now pushing Hagel, a Republican who cast the same vote as Hillary.
Then there is the diplomatic double standard for nominees. McCain and Graham question Susan Rice's abilities, and they are roundly and correctly criticized for the racist tone of their questions people were outraged. Same people excuse Hagel for far worse attacks on another diplomatic nominee. So ask Rice a question, that's racist. Call Hormel's sexuality an "inhibiting factor" to effective service as a diplomat, that's understandable, no big deal, it is excused and dismissed.
The thing is, the pro Hagel people face the daunting task of promoting a Republican without actually sounding like they are Republican. Hard to promote a Republican without using Republican tactics. Lay down with dogs and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:49 AM

2. there is that too

keep up the good and lonely work in regards to Hagel. I think we are the only two on our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:18 PM

3. People who have his sort of record should not sail into high office unquestioned, I know you agree.

To be clear, I did not vote for Hillary in part because of that war vote, but I have been stunned at some of the DUers who are promoting Hagel who were calling Hillary a war mongering racist during the primary because of that vote which Hagel also cast.
Also surprised that Hagel's full tilt pro life, anti choice views do not concern people at all. We have women in the military. Chuck's Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
But for some reason, for Chuck, his 100% Anti Choice rating does not matter, nor his 0% rating on gay rights.
This does not matter either:
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)

Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance.

And then there is Chuck's record as a dutiful vote suppressor for his Party:
Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)

Just a few weeks ago, DUers were furious at Republicans for their Photo ID requirements used to prevent voters from voting. It was a huge deal. Now, the same people are supporting one of the key Voter ID proponents. I guess now vote suppression is no longer seen as racist and unacceptable?

I could go on and on. He's a Republican. That should be enough reason for Democrats to oppose him, or at the very least question and inspect him unmercifully if he wants this job with that awful record on so many important issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:53 PM

4. sadly even Frank has backed down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:44 PM

5. Bill Clinton used up most of his political capital immediately upon taking office by trying to fix

the problem with Gays in the Military. Clinton was attacked ruthlessly for his stance on the situation and because the attacks came from within his own Party as well as from the Republicans, so he HAD TO SETTLE for his "don't ask, don't tell" Policy... I don't get your point at all.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:01 PM

6. my point is we hear

that Hagel is fine and dandy since back then everyone hated gays but if one makes the argument you just made in regards to Clinton we hear that he just backed down and was really in favor of DADT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:20 PM

7. Remember "Don't ask don't tell" was a HUGE improvement over the way it was.

Clinton did not get what he wanted but he did get a change in policy and much national recognition of the problem...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:30 PM

9. Oh I agree and have made that argument often

but I often hear in return that Clinton was evil and is entirely at fault for DADT. I have literally had posters here say that it was better before DADT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:21 PM

8. Why do you think that is?

What is behind the double standard do you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:32 PM

10. I think it is because people think Hagel will support their issues

and demonizing Clinton is what many Obama supporters here love to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:35 PM

11. it's because Hagel is a republican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread