By JAY BOOKMAN

July 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

Man2Man posting has been unpublished.

By Man2Man

July 8, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Well.

By N-GA

July 8, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

The Supreme Court struck down the last of the anti-miscegenation laws in 1967. But for much of the 20th century there were many states that prohibited interracial marriages.

It amazes me that the federal government is allowed to discriminate so openly.

By Lily Toad

July 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

We’re not just talking about an opinion that Nunn has changed. He opposed President Clinton’s proposal to drop the prohibition on gays in the military and held hearings to develop the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. So he actively worked against the interests of gay people, not just held an opinion. I’m glad he has changed his position on this issue, but don’t minimize his role by just calling it an opinion.

By Teddy Bare

July 8, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this

Obama just criticized Bush’s decision to go to the opening ceremonies of the olympics. Another feather in my cap. I suggested that the obama campaign do just that last week.

McCain just flip flopped on his own immigration bill. He was for it, I mean, it’s his bill, but now he’s against it, his bill.

McCain 08: FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP

By Teddy Bare

July 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

Wow, they STILL cant find the source of the Salmonella outbreak. What is going on? Did you know that 9 thousand people a year die from food poisoning in the USA alone?

Mostly from fat chefs who dont wash their hands in restaurants. The restaurant lobby wont let the media dwell on this fact.

They also say that terrorists could easily attack our food supply and poison many americans. More than the 9K poor souls that sloppy chefs kill? Who knows, my friends, who knows.

By RW-(the original)

July 8, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

Is the voting block within the gay community large enough to have any real effect on a Presidential election, where you have to win entire states, to really make that a concern about not taking Sam Nunn as a running mate?

Right now it seems that many moderates are a little leery of Obama’s feign to the center. Picking Nunn would tend to make them believe he was only fooling the left by pretending to be a liberal in the primaries, but the moonbat(ic)s® are going to vote for him anyway. I believe picking Nunn would lock in his November victory and then in January Obama could get started destroying the country.

By N-GA

July 8, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad,

I’m not as close to the issue as you seem to be, so go easy on me. However, perhaps Senator Nunn saw that the alternative to “don’t-ask, don’t tell” was the only option that would pass Congress and thought that some progress would be better than “Nunn” (pun intended).

As a veteran (69-75), I worked side by side with many openly gay servicemen and women and never was there an issue. No CO or fellow GI ever raised any objection.

The problem has always been with politicians and career Field Grade officers who possibly entertained post retirement positions that required political connections.

Doesn’t make it any better. But it is certainly possible that Sam Nunn was a friend of the gay community, even back then. As a politician he was certainly taking a significant risk. Think about it.

By Cotton Gin

July 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

Why dont you ask your dad about that, RW, I’m sure he’d know about the gay polls.

By blah

July 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

I agree that Sam Nunn had much more than an “opinion” on gays in the military. He embarked on a terrific scare campaign of misinformation, utilizing every negative stereotype about gay people to make sure that soldiers could not serve if they were openly gay or lesbian. These are soldiers — people who have given so much to this country, only to have this country slap them in the face by people like Sam Nunn.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has done irreparable damage to thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers and their families, and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” exists today because of Sam Nunn. I am glad he has had a change of heart, but he would need to be as equally vocal and forceful about having made a hurtful mistake, as he was in 1993 when he spent so much time denigrating gay and lesbian heroes.

By N-GA

July 8, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

RW,

C’mon now…he (Obama) can start destroying the country? It’s already been left a wasteland by the current administration! There will be little left to destroy.

As far as the gay vote, I still try to believe that every vote counts. Apparently Georgia is in a statistical deadheat. Now since you won’t be voting for either Obama or McCain, all we need is a few more like you coupled with a strong gay voter turnout and Obama could win Georgia.

Wow! Only in America….lol

By RW-(the original)

July 8, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

Cotton Gin,

My father is dead.

It’s actually a serious question and one that you obviously aren’t able to deal with, but here’s a brief expanation of why I ask.

Every decision a politician makes gains them some support from somewhere and costs them some from somewhere else. When you’re a politician like Obama, in that you have no core convictions other than attaining the office, you’ll weigh every decision based solely on the effect that decision will have on your electoral chances.

By RW-(the original)

July 8, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Lighten up. Without a little hyperbole what fun would these blogs be.

I may make it up to Cynthia McKinney for those times I crossed over to vote her out in the primaries and give her a vote.

Every vote does count, but within any group you aren’t normally going to have 100% support for one candidate and then when you say a decision is going to adversely effect the block you do have yo need to weigh a few things. One is whether you’ll still get the vote but the people will be less happy with you. Next is whether you’ll cause them to stay home or vote for a fringe candidate, and last is the most concerning. You then have to weigh whether you will cause a massive shift to your main opponent. Would picking Sam Nunn cause a massive movement to McBushie in the gay community? I don’t think so.

By Jay's brother

July 8, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this

Those who believe VP choices make a difference are sadly mistaken. Remember Lloyd Bentson, conservative Dem from TX?—He helped Dukakis alot didn’t he?

By Abomi Nation

July 8, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this

A willingness to change it? Eventually? That does not sound like a big endorsement does it?

RW talks about this issue as if only gays are concerned about this matter. I see it as a broader issue, one of national security. Throwing out translators in the middle of a war because they are gay is absurd. Throwing out gays when we are having trouble recruiting is absurd. Throwing out gays that are willing to serve and at the same time allowing felons to serve is absurd.

Poll after poll show that Americans overwhemingly support allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Even 50% of all Republicans now say the the current policy needs to be changed.

Its time our leaders had the guts to come out and do what is right. It has nothing to do with alienating a small part of your base. Its about doing the right thing.

Lets also not forget that Nunn has a history that is not exclusive to the don’t ask don’t tell policy. Back in 1982 he fired 2 of his staff members because they were openly gay. I don’t think Nunn had a choice in the matter because at the time gays were not given security clearance whether they were in the closet or not. However I could see how gays would be reluctant to support a man that was clearly a part of the past that was openly hostile to their lifestyle.

Eventually change it? How about demanding it now.

By RW-(the original)

July 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Link to this

RW talks about this issue as if only gays are concerned about this matter.

Abomi,

Did you happen to check out the topic the host posted?

It’s right up ^^ there.

By Abomi Nation

July 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Link to this

RW…”Cotton Gin,

My father is dead.”

Lighten up RW,. Without a little hyperbole what fun would these blogs be.

By N-GA

July 8, 2008 6:22 PM | Link to this

RW,

Actually I strongly agree with you. It’s not probable that anyone will ever get 100% of any voting bloc. And going with Nunn will not cause any large change in the gay vote. Now Lieberman hooking up with McCain could have a big overall impact. (different topic, different day)

That said, Obama seems to be pulling in close to 90% of the black vote in most of the primaries (for all the wrong reasons, I’m afraid). It not out of the realm of possibility that similar results could occur with other voting blocs like Jews and gays. But that would only occur as a result of big mistake by one candidate as opposed to a politically-motivated position.

It is also unfortunate that so many voters seem to vote on a single issue. For example, I can’t believe that any Pro-Life supporter thinks that a candidate will try to get Roe v Wade overturned. Bush certainly didn’t take that issue on once elected. So why toss your (figurative) vote that way for that reason alone?

Has Paul posted locally today?

By RW-(the original)

July 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

I haven’t seen any post from Paul. I think he said he might check out Wooten’s but this is a lot better over here with the topics changing so frequently that there isn’t so much garbage to wade through. Like the ankle biter at 6:18. At least he’s brief.

Democrats generally get 90% of the black vote in a Presidential election anyway so the raw percentage doesn’t mean much, but the turnout might. I just read that a black themed network called TV One is going to have full coverage of the Democratic convention and none of the Republican one.

By RW-(the original)

July 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Link to this

Jay’s brother,

In the summer of 1988 Dukakis had a much larger lead in the polls than Obama has right now.

Then there was this

By GodHatesTrash

July 8, 2008 7:13 PM | Link to this

Poor Mike.

Instead of that silly headgear, though, If he had stuffed a sock in his pants, he would have got a lot more Republicans to vote for him - they really liked Dumbya in the flight suit - the Larry Craig Republicans (which are perhaps the majority) just lapped that up.

Pun intended.

By RGG

July 8, 2008 8:03 PM | Link to this

I worked on the Hill in the seventies and eighties. Nunn forced out employees whom he found to be gay. A good friend who worked there had to use female pronouns when speaking on the phone about his partner of eight years. Nunn wasn’t just opposed to equality for gay people, he saw them as disgusting (his word). Now, how can I vote for him, no matter what he says now?

By Patrick ONeill

July 8, 2008 8:45 PM | Link to this

Nunn is a notorious homophobic bigot that has seriously hurt the careers of thousands of patriotic servicemen and women over the last 15 years.

And it is disingenuous to claim that he has changed in any way - he has certainly never apologised and still defends what he did, it is simply that with his name under consideration he is now saying that it “might” be time to “re-evaluate”.

The very idea that he is under consideration should be greeted by any decent person, straight or gay, with the same horror as if Lester Maddox was under consideration to offer “balance” - they could also pass out pickaxes

By Lee

July 8, 2008 9:14 PM | Link to this

Nunn hasn’t said that he has changed his opinion on gays in the military; he has said only that he is willing to “review” the issue — hardly a volte-face.

Moreover, he voted for numerous other anti-gay pieces of legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act, and he was the deciding vote against the pro-gay Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in 1996. See Atomic Gay Wonk

By cary

July 8, 2008 9:25 PM | Link to this

Kind of deceptive head! Is he or is he not a “gay-hating” Nunn? Didn’t see the clarification in the actual story. Yellow journalism much?

By Max

July 8, 2008 10:16 PM | Link to this

“Holding a grudge against people for opinions they no longer hold doesn’t make much sense, especially on an issue in which public sentiment has swung so far so quickly. The winners can afford to be magnanimous.”

Where do you see Nunn recanting his position? All he says, according to Alter, is that he thanks “the gays” for their service and is willing to consider, maybe, one day, changing the policy he demanded.

Thank ya, Ma’sa Sam. We’ll keep on shufflin’.

If, as you say, people have become so enlightened, then what excuse is there for not positively supporting an end to DADT? Nunn isn’t doing that and I don’t need anyone to tell me I should face his new but no less oily rhetoric with a magnanimous smile.

Do you have any clue how much suffering DADT has caused to thousands and thousands of soldiers and their families???

By Hillbilly Deluxe

July 8, 2008 11:25 PM | Link to this

I never base my vote on who is the Vice Presidential candiate. I base my Presidential vote on who is the lesser of the two evils.

By chris

July 9, 2008 1:01 AM | Link to this

Since when were gay people considered “winners” in our society? Or am I just missing obvious sarcasm?

Just last month the 1st Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to DADT (Cook v. Gates), just as 4 other federal circuit courts have. That doesn’t sound like winning to me.

I wish declaring lesbian and gay soldiers “winners” would make it true, but instead it’s just a sweeping generalization with no factual basis.

By Copyleft

July 9, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

Chris, the “winners” comment means the liberal perspective, which invariably triumphs in the end.

In this case, it means the view that gay-hating is silly and outdated nonsense. America has embraced gay rights and equal treatment for gays, and the losers like Nunn who tried to stir up hate and fear about gays have LOST. Get it?

By K

July 9, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

Who says Nunn’s opinions have changed? Are you assuming they have, simply because he says it would be okay to “review” DA/DT again?

You may have forgotten Nunn’s viciousness back then, but those of us who were harmed have not. If Nunn truly has changed his mind, then a very big apology would be in order.

By Not Going

July 9, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

If they draft I am showing up in the biggest d** attire that I own with a giant poster - I am a lesbian!

Soldiers are lieing and saying they are gay to get out of Iraq. Their superiors are ignoring them.

By SaveOurRepublic

July 9, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

Like “Bacrock Obuma”, Sam Nunn is just another Globalist puppet masquerading as a “liebral”. He’s a CFR member and totally in-line with the Internationalist agenda that smacks against the very grain of our Constitutional Republic.

BTW, homosexuals (the word “gay” was hijacked by the Pink Mafia…as was “rights” and the rainbow) have NO business openly serving in the military. The current policy (at least) should stand. Enough with the (Globalist Elite funded) sodomite agenda to trash American values!

By hillbilly ragger

July 9, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

And we have our first loon of the morning, “SaveOurRepublic” @ 8.32

I’m thinking he’s probably, secretly, gay as f##k.

But never mind that. Jay, my problem with Nunn and his DADT stupidity wasn’t just that it was a terrible policy. It was also a terrible political move that damaged his own party’s President very early in the term.

If memory serves, “gays in the military” was one of the first issues of debate, it was a fight that the GOP had picked (it wasn’t a major issue of the 1992 campaign at all). Clinton was already vulnerable to any intra-party weakness, and along comes Nunn with his half-@ssed compromise that pleased nobody.

It was a time for party solidarity, to show some damn backbone, and Nunn helped the GOP make the new President appear weak.

That’s something I find very, very hard to forgive. Even more so than how he betrayed his gay and lesbian constituents, although that’s bad enough.

If Nunn really is on the short list for Veep, he’ll have some serious ‘splainin’ to do. And given Obama’s keen political sense, I’m sure he’s already gone over this bit of political history.

By hillbilly ragger

July 9, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Having posted as I just did, I’ve actually gone and read the Alter piece Jay’s linked to. Kind of hard to argue with the case for Nunn presented there.

Of course, Alter has glossed over the political blunder (IMO, anyway) of how the DA/DT policy was handled, and focused, understandably, on the here-and-now issue of how Obama will be perceived should he select Nunn.

But I guess at the end of the day, one serious blunder doesn’t a political career make.

By Common Sense

July 9, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

SaveOurRepublic - I think a third world country is in need of your services. And don’t let the door hit your paranoid a** on the way out! I would like to hear Sam Nunn speak on this issue before drawing conclusions. It could be he has had a change of heart but hearing from him would certainly remove any doubts as to where he stands. If he only wants to “review” the issue vs reversing DADT, it would mean he is not the best fit for VP.

By ron

July 9, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

Good morning,Sam Nunn?Probably Nott.Sam will be 71 ,I think,in November.Hardly the age for Obama’s change.

Openly gay soldiers?Is this going to include sex in the latrine and soldiers sleeping together in the barraks?

The incidence of aids is rising among young gay men.Perhaps they need to concentrate their efforts on this problem and a little less on insisting that I know they’re gay.

A heterosexual pride parade?Never heard of one.

By JackLeg

July 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

Why not have an openly gay battalion, then pit them against “straight” soldiers in war games. That would be fun war games; we would see who comes out on top, gay or straight?

By zeke

July 9, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

ANYONE WHO HAS GOTTEN CONFORTABLE WITH THE IMMORAL GAY RIGHTS INITIATIVE DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE IN ANY ELECTED POSITION!! IMMORAL IS IMMORAL, PERIOD!!

By CJ

July 9, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Jay, as a gay American, I feel that actions speak louder than words. I have not seen Nunn reach out to the gay community in writings or speeches. Until he demonstrates an effort to reach out to my community, I feel he’s just another flip-flopper. Those of us in the gay community are grateful for how perceptions of us are changing. The nation is a lot more accepting now than it was 10 years ago when I came out after high school. We still have a long way to go, but the fact that you even posted such a progressive blog topic illustrates that we are making progress! Thank you.

By middleoftheroadman

July 9, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Okay, despite all the silliness and hyperbole, Obama really wouldn’t be helping himself by choosing Nunn. It really doesn’t matter what Nunn’s stance is now on DADT, because he really adds nothing to Obama’s campaign.

“Change that we can believe in” would be a complete sham if he chose some old war-horse that is off the radar. I’d respect Obama more if he was able to get Colin Powell (the only voice of reason in the Bush Reich) - now THAT would be astounding - and the Pubs still like ole Colin.

By BoneHead

July 9, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

I would like to have a coming out party, I am a male lesbian, and hey lets have a parade. All male lesbians please come walk in my parade, and make some floats.

By Huac

July 9, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

I want Jay’s job. He can throw out anything and this bunch runs with it…that lamer the better. He used to enlighten with his editorials. Now his mission is to provoke, and he doesn’t even have to do much of that. What a gig. I want Jay’s job.

By CJ

July 9, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Here is the real reason gays cannot openly serve in the military: Gays Too Precious to Risk in Combat

By hillbilly ragger

July 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Huac @ 10.26, you want Jay’s job, I want Jim’s.

I could lazily toss out regurgitated right-wing talking points I’d heard from Limbaugh and Hannity and tone ‘em down a notch and call myself “common sense.” I’d play up my decrepit white-guy cred by griping incessantly about that uppity colored guy running for President.

And I wouldn’t have to do it nearly as often as Jay manages in a typical day.

By Abomi Nation

July 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

As a youngster the soon to be Senator Larry Craig (Republican) was sitting down waiting to be called for his required physical for the Idaho Army National guard.

Tap,,, tap,,, tap,,, tap,,, tap,,, tap,,, tap,,, tap,,, tap,,, tap,,, was the sound his right shoe made as it touched the floor as he patiently waited to be called.

Then a nurse came in to take the future Republican Senators temperature and told him after she was through Craig was to strip naked and join the other men in line as they waited their turn to see the doctor.

Tappity-tappity-taptaptaptap-tappitytappity-taptaptap- taptaptaptaptap raced both of Craigs shoes in anticipation as he sat there and waited for the nurse to finish.

By clayton

July 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Jay, When I heard the Nunn rumor I was a little p**. I was thinking — but this guy is a hater. I was looking for comments supporting my position when I found your article this morning. I think I had my first adult epiphany— a sudden realization that I’m almost as bad as the bad guys. Maybe not as bad as the bad guys but it is true. Holding a grudge against people for opinions they no longer hold doesn’t make much sense. Just like family that rejected me twenty years ago when I was dealing with my homosexuality, I resent Sam Nunn. I remember the ignorance spewed at the dont ask/dont tell hearings. I remember friends and family saying all kinds of ignorant things. I labeled them as bad guys and haters. But you’re right. If they no longer think the same way, I should no longer think the same way. Duh. Maybe I’ve grown up a little.

I just reread my comment and it sounds like sarcasm or bull s** but it isn’t. I apprecaite your thoughts. Thanks Jay.

By GodHatesTrash

July 9, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Let’s face it - gaybashing is a great way to get elected in a state like Georgia, with a majority knuckledragger population. Sam didn’t have to worry about losing his seat when he engaged in the DADT circus or fired gay staff - in Georgia, his homophobia and hatred is shared by the vast majority of the population.

Nationally, it’s a little different. He could certainly run as a Repug and gaybash - those yokels love love love that sort of stuff, that is when they aren’t in the airport mens room doing what they love love love to do, too.

But if Sam wants to be the Democratic Party (where less knuckledraggers have a say) nominee for VP - he needs “come out” and say - “look, people Sam Nunn was flat out wrong on gays in the military” - none of this “incrementalism” and half-hearted weasel-word apology.

Then he’d be a great candidate and also be doing a great thing for his country, even if he’s never nominated or elected.

If he’s unwilling to do that, kick him to the curb. Nominate someone who wants to take the USA in the 21st century, not someone stuck in the 19th.

By Steve

July 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was not Sam Nunn’s preferred policy in 1992. He wanted to keep the total Reagan-era ban, and he indulged in a fit of outrageous gay-bashing in defense of his positvely bigoted attitudes in 1993 — that in addition to firing more than one staffer upon discovering that he was gay.

I See NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Nunn is anything other than the same UNRECONSTRUCTED BIGOT now that he was in 1993. I’m certainly not convinced by an extremely anemic and highly opportunitistic deathbed suggestion of that the policy be “reviewed” for eventual” elimination. How stupid does he — and Bookman — think we are?

Mr. Bookman can shove his condescending lecture about so-called grudes up his @$$!

By Geetee

July 9, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

I agree with Lily Toad. I was around when Nunn ramped up his own personal early 90’s campaign against GLBT’s in the service. To succeecd, necessarily, he had to be insulting and disrespectful, and lean on the support of animals like Helms and Santorum. He succeeded; and now donaters like me have put their check books away, while watching to see if the Democrats stab us in the back. Stop holding a grudge against Nunn? F that.

By Major707

July 9, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

Nunn did plently of damage to many men and women in the service. During his rant to obstruct Clinton and bring the spotlight on himself, he set off a “witch hunt” in the military for gays. I was there and it was not pretty. He not only hurt gays but created a climate of open hostility against Clinton among Officers. As a field grade officer during this period I had to remind officers that they had a constitutional obligation to support, respect (the office) and carry out the orders of the civilian President.

And for those that say the Vice President is not important….does the name Johnson come to mind. This individual is just a “heart beat” away from being President.

I will remove my support from the Democratic party if Nunn is chosen as the VP.

By Steve

July 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

Geetee is exactly right, and he hit upon an overlooked problem with the Nunn idea: the Democratic Party’s quadrenniel reliance on gay supporters to serve as ATM machines. My own partner and I separately contributed about $3,200 to Obama during the primaries. While I might tightly hold my nose and vote for Obama-Nunn, my checkbook would slam shut.

We aren’t the same as pro-choicers, whose obsessive focus is on preserving one 40-year-old Supreme Court victory by electing a president to appoint new justices. The gay community made great advances around the country at the state level even during eight years of the Bush Administration’s raging homophobia. While it would be nice to have a Democratic president for a chance, it’s no such an urgent need that we have to subsidize that bigot Sam Nunn for it.

By Steve

July 9, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Major707 is right.

In Nunn’s mind, people like gay sailor Alan Schindler are themselves too blame when they are murdered and multilated beyond recognition by a few degenerate shipmates.

By Geetee

July 9, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

I just thought of something else: American politics must occasionally pivot on payback. Voting blocs don’t maintian their power by voting for politicians who show an edge in opposing their interests; especically if the edge had a vicious tint to it. Either we deal with Nunn by blocking him from the ticket, or we pay the price by being perceived as powerless. For this reason, Jay Bookman’s column is advice for fools.

By Steve

July 9, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

Again, Geetee has a point.

Personally, the most empowering vote I ever cast was in Chicago in the late 1990s, when I swung over and voted for a moderate, gay-friendly GOP candidate for Illinois governor (the one who went on to commute all Illinois death sentences to life after a dozen death row inmates turned out to be innocent).

The Democratic leader in the state house had thrown the gay community under the bus on a civil rights bill, and the downstate Democratic candidate for governor was a complete disaster on gay rights (and abortion) and was unapologetic about it. The entire Democratic machine tried to force feed him to us, which sealed my decision to vote GOP that year.

When the returns came in on election night, the Democrat lost in an extremely close race, and he lost solely because the GOP candidate won overwhelmingly in three heavily gay and very Democratic precints in Chicago. We flipped that election, and Illinois Dems were a lot less flippant about gay-rights issues after that.

A problem for Dems with respect to the gay community this year is that McCain does not appear to be the bigot-coddling homophobe that Bush is. Obama would be far better, but McCain is not that scary. If there’s a close state we could threaten to flip in the presidential race (PA, OH, FL?), that gives us leverage that we shouldn’t hesitate to use.

By ProfessorVP

July 10, 2008 3:48 AM | Link to this

Remember, when Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, he promised to end the gay ban by executive order, the way Harry Truman ended military segregation. Bill Clinton didn’t promise to ask for Sam Nunn’s opinion and do whatever he says. There’s enough blame to go around for this idiotic policy, but I don’t blame Nunn and I don’t blame Powell. I blame Clinton.

By Wolfgang E. B.

July 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

No one knows for certain how many gay people there are. One conservative estimate I’ve seen is 3% of the U.S. But don’t forget the bisexual and transgender population. Bisexuals may be as many as 5% and transgender people, another 2%. That comes to about 10%. Then there are the friends, family, and other allies of the GLBT community, so all together, we’re a pretty significant voting bloc.

By Allan

July 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

It’s not as if this nation doesn’t have a lot of other possible candidates available. We do. Sam Nunn is not necessary for an Obama victory. He has NOT clearly stated his support for the immediate end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass” (the name as it must be practiced today due to continued pursuit and harassment of military personnel after it became the law).

Any politician can “indicate a willingness” to think about entertaining the possibility some day of eliminating a ban on something they once made happen. Nunn held not just an opinion, he was the leading voice against us. He was the one talking graphically about hets and gays having to share close quarters in submarine berths and barracks showers.

We don’t need him, we don’t need to forgive him, we don’t need to forget. He’s a phony, whose change of opinion is not real or of substantial depth. He has not demonstrated anything of such a change.

We don’t need him to win, Obama doesn’t need the headache of more gay people staying home in November rather than vote for someone who panders to bigots.

By Marc Ferrara

July 11, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman states “Holding a grudge against people for opinions they no longer hold doesn’t make much sense…” but Mr. Nunn’s quasi-conciliatory comments do not per se place him in that number. One can be “grateful to the thousands of gays and lesbians serving today” while still believing that we should serve in silence. Nunn has said the policy should be revisited; he has not stated outright that it should repealed, let alone repudiate and apologize for his prior position and admit the prejudice, arrogance, self-righteousness that led him to his original attacks on GLBT Americans.
America has produced many people who would better help the campaign and serve as vice-president than Sam Nunn. I have informed the Obama campaign that they would receive neither my vote nor my money if he is chosen as the running mate. I will hold any candidate to a higher standard than lip-service followed by hypocrisy.

By Lee Rowan

July 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

I guess Mr Nunn didn’t realize there were so many gay people in America. But he made his choice and he has to live with it. I’m already unhappy with Obama because he caved on FISA and took away citizens’ Constitutional right to petition for redress—civil suits against being spied on. I’ll vote Dem no matter what because four more years of the Cheney administration—and McCain has said he would be willing to put Deadeye Dick in his cabinet—will destroy what’s left of America. But Nunn as VP — No. Sorry.

By Thomas Rogillio

July 11, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman, if you and Mr. Alter don’t understand why gay people hold such resentment toward Sam Nunn, let me explain it to you. His bigoted response to Bill Clinton’s attempt to end the ban on gay people serving openly in our nation’s military is just one reason. Another one, even more important to the lives of everday gay Americans, was his vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 1996. It failed by one vote: Sam Nunn’s.

Senator Nunn does not deserve my support, and he will never get it.

By Scott S

July 12, 2008 8:18 PM | Link to this

Sam held his opinion gays in the military not so long ago. We’re we hardly living in the dark ages then (well, again, we are talking about the South). People, including Senators, need to be held accountable. He made his bed. Now he conveniently changes his mind. Interesting. I don’t buy it.

By openeyes

July 12, 2008 11:28 PM | Link to this

The truth is that the Congress would have voted a total BAN into law in a New York minute; the issue was badly handled, and shouldn’t have been the first thing from the new Administration. Senator Nunn actually helped prevent a much worse policy, but some in the gay community see anyone who is not an advocate as an bigot or enemy — the kind of narrow thinking that has helped hand the WH to the GOP over and over again. Nunn didn’t want gay service members to have to lie to the military, which is what they had to do at the time to serve when they signed. It was perfect, but what would have been voted over any Clinton veto would have been much worse. The fact that he had said the policy should be reviewed is significant, and probably paves the way for reform. Nunn would be a superb choice. Which is why my party won’t ask him.

By openeyes

July 12, 2008 11:32 PM | Link to this

typo in my post, the DADT policy WASN’T perfect, everyone knew that. But it was the ONLY way to prevent a TOTAL ban from being voted into law by both Houses of Congress — by veto proof margins.