Quantcast

«

»

Sep 27 2012

Ryan Would Not Reverse DADT

Well this is an interesting development that should have the hard right throwing a fit. Paul Ryan did an interview with a Miami TV station and said that while he opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, he does not think that decision should be reversed and that’s time to move on from that controversy.

One year after the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that barred openly gay and lesbian service members from serving in the military, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said in an interview with WPTV NewsChannel 5 that the controversial policy should not be reinstated.

“Now that it’s done, we should not reverse it,” Ryan told WPTV NewsChannel 5 during a visit to Miami. “I think that would be a step in the wrong direction because people have already disclosed themselves.” …

“I talked to a lot of good friends of mine who are combat leaders in the theater and they just didn’t think the timing of this was right to do this when our troops were in the middle of harm’s way in combat,” Ryan said. “I think this issue is past us. It’s done. And, I think we need to move on.”

The wingnuts aren’t going to like that one bit.

23 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    eric

    Wow, what a reasonable statement. ‘I wish the bell hadn’t been rung, but there’s no sense in trying to unring it.’

    Is it optimistic to think this may be a very early movement by GOP leadership to accept gay rights? Lots of commenters (I think including Ed) have made the point that, demographically, the GOP is on the wrong side of this one. And that to remain viable over the next decade or two, they are going to have to change. Could this be the start of that change?

    Ryan is perfectly positioned to lean forward on this issue. As a VP candidate, any statement he makes that turns out to be unpopular can be blamed solely on him, without much fallout to the party. But if his statement turns out to be popular, the party can take credit.

    This seems very similar to Biden’s “gaffe” supporting gay marriage, and how the Democrats responded to it. Caculatingly similar.

  2. 2
    John Hinkle

    “I talked to a lot of good friends of mine who are combat leaders in the theater and they just didn’t think the timing of this was right to do this when our troops were in the middle of harm’s way in combat,” Ryan said.

    Smells like bullshit. That was one of the right wing talking points pre-DADT repeal.

    He gets in a jab at Obama while not mentioning that everything was ok after DADT was repealed. What a tool.

  3. 3
    Mr Ed

    Mr. Next-in-line is staking out positions for 2016.

  4. 4
    thisisaturingtest

    I talked to a lot of good friends of mine who are combat leaders in the theater and they just didn’t think the timing of this was right to do this when our troops were in the middle of harm’s way in combat.

    Sounds like he’s selling this as strictly a utilitarian thing- and wingnuts will buy anything that has the “Anyone But Obama” label.

  5. 5
    Ben P

    Is it optimistic to think this may be a very early movement by GOP leadership to accept gay rights? Lots of commenters (I think including Ed) have made the point that, demographically, the GOP is on the wrong side of this one.

    I think the important point is that despite Romney being from most appearances a devout mormon and Paul Ryan being catholic Romney and Ryan are both part of the faction of the GOP that stands opposite the Bachmanns, Santorums etc.

    They are conservative yes, and are perfectly willing to pander to religious conservatives to elected, but I don’t think either of them are really true believers in the theocrat nonsense pushed by the religious right.

    You get an honest opinion out of a religious right figure and half the time they’ll homosexuality ought to be recriminalized. The kind of people who suggest, earnestly, that homosexuality is the biggest threat to America today.

    You get an honest opinion out of an economic conservative like Ryan and you get kind of an “eh…whatever” response like this. They don’t support large scale social change, but enforcing religious morality just isn’t something that’s very high on their list of priorities, unless they need to espouse it to get elected of course.

    On the other hand, if you give Paul Ryan a laptop with powerpoint and let him talk about the national debt, he’ll go for days. I suspect Fredrich Hayek and Milton Friedman are higher on his list of influences than Jesus.

  6. 6
    tommykey

    If they haven’t already, I’m wondering when the hysterical opponents of repealing DADT are going to start citing the repeal as the reason why some Afghan soldiers supposedly on our side have been killing our soldiers lately.

    “Can you blame these poor Afghans? Now they have to worry whether the American soldier training him or fighting alongside him is going to start making sexual advances towards him.”

  7. 7
    tommykey

    enforcing religious morality just isn’t something that’s very high on their list of priorities

    You mean the same Paul Ryan who co-sponsored a bill to declare a fertilized egg to be a person?

  8. 8
    peterh

    “… enforcing religious morality just isn’t something that’s very high on their list of priorities.”

    Enforcing religious morality ought never to be on their list.

  9. 9
    tommykey

    Dammit, didn’t close the italics in the right spot!

  10. 10
    Abby Normal

    I view the nude calendars as similar to antibiotics. They are useful for knocking out some strains of misogynistic organisms. But other strains are resistant and may even thrive. A different option is needed to treat these calendar resistant super-misogynists.

  11. 11
    Abby Normal

    Sorry. Wrong thread.

  12. 12
    gshelley

    I think that would be a step in the wrong direction because people have already disclosed themselves.”

    Which really ought to convince anyone other than those whose hatred of gays outweighs their desire for national security

  13. 13
    Ben P

    You mean the same Paul Ryan who co-sponsored a bill to declare a fertilized egg to be a person?

    You mean the same bill that by my count (admittedly, hand count from the text of the bill) was co-sponsored by 52 members of the Republican House delegation? i.e. almost a quarter of the house republicans?

    see e.g. pandering.

  14. 14
    alanb

    @ Ben P:

    They are conservative yes, and are perfectly willing to pander to religious conservatives to elected, but I don’t think either of them are really true believers in the theocrat nonsense pushed by the religious right.

    I used to think that about Romney as well, but now I’m not so sure. Now I don’t know what believes. In fact, I’m not sure that Romney knows what Romney believes. I would just go with that which was once said about his father: “Really deep down he’s shallow.”

  15. 15
    Ben P

    I used to think that about Romney as well, but now I’m not so sure. Now I don’t know what believes. In fact, I’m not sure that Romney knows what Romney believes. I would just go with that which was once said about his father: “Really deep down he’s shallow.”

    I agree with you, but modify it slightly.

    In my opinion Romney was too successful at his chosen profession to be the sort of wishy-washy willow in the wind that he appears to be on the political stage. The corporate world (and more particularly the investment banking world) does not tend to reward indecisive weak willed people. On the other hand, the Corporate world does often reward self aggrandizing sociopaths who will do or say whatever it takes to close the deal and make sure it’s in their benefit.

    I’ve started to honestly believe that Mitt Romney believes in very little but Mitt Romney. He can play the moderate centrist governor when that’s what it takes to get elected in Massachusetts, then turn around and tell the christian right that he stands with them wholeheartedly, and until he’s called out on it, simply not see any problem with any of it.

  16. 16
    slc1

    Re Ben P @ #15

    The only thing that Romney believes in is that he should be elected POTUS. Other then that, he’s open to suggestion.

  17. 17
    Johnny Vector

    This sudden change of heart has the scent of recent polls all over it. The Romney campaign sees the sails luffing, and knows it have to do something. “Well, lessee,” it thinks, “I’ve had the tiller hard to port on social issues; that must be why I’m losing wind.” Noting that support for SSM and gay rights in general is now quite high, they decide that’s the safest issue to try to centrify on. “Hey all you homos, I won’t try to roll back the little progress you’ve made so far!” it cries out to the people on its left.

    Which of course just pisses off the base while winning back none of the people who have already abandoned his ship. Very clever.

  18. 18
    abb3w

    I’m inclined to agree somewhat with Mr Ed @3, that this is testing the waters for 2016.

    However, I wonder if it’s an early crack that might end splitting the more Libertarian parts of the GOP and/or Tea Party away from the Religious Right parts. Earlier this month, Ryan also was apparently going rogue about cannabis.

  19. 19
    baal

    I’m guessing the Ryan quote is one of two things. He saw the poll numbers and needed to seem a bit more moderate (he was briefly pro-pot at one event) or he’s lying his ass off for a certain audience and has forgotten about recording devices.

  20. 20
    Michael Heath

    Ben P about Paul Ryan:

    I suspect Fredrich Hayek and Milton Friedman are higher on his list of influences than Jesus.

    Just like conservatives have abandoned the practices that led to successes for Ronald Reagan, they’ve done the same when it comes to Milton Friedman. Two examples:

    1) Republicans’ fierce resistance for monetary easing in the current part of the business cycle, which isn’t growing sufficiently enough to strengthen the labor market. That’s a complete abdication of what Friedman both taught and previous policymakers have proved works though only to a ; expansion out of the hole we’re digging out of also requires expansionary fiscal policies where Republicans in Congress have successfully obstructed the Democrats from doing.

    2) Rejection of a ‘fee and dividend’ policy to eradicate the enormous negative externality costs for both coal and oil. Such a policy would create an environment where market principles would drive us to more cost effective energy sources.

    Obviously Republicans have ulterior motives for rejecting Friedman; but they are in fact rejecting Friedman.

  21. 21
    davem

    I talked to a lot of good friends of mine who are combat leaders in the theater

    Musicals, natch.

  22. 22
    Dennis N

    On the other hand, if you give Paul Ryan a laptop with powerpoint and let him talk about the national debt, he’ll go for days.

    Actually, I hear his PowerPoint is 4 slides. Not to mention he clearly doesn’t understand economics. Other other hand, give Paul Ryan a laptop with PowerPoint and the Village will go on about him for days.

  23. 23
    cry4turtles

    Reaching out to pot smokers has the potential to fire up a base of voters. Some people are heavy users, many people are causal users, almost everyone who grew up in the 60s + has tried it. Me? I plead the 5th.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site