« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Did Obama Just Throw the Gay Community Under the Bus?

The Leading Congressional Opponent of Don't Ask Don't Tell Just Got a Promotion

President Obama is reportedly set to nominate California Representative Ellen Tauscher for the post of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

If you consult Ms. Tauscher’s biography, her work on arms control and non-proliferation makes its first appearance in the 12th paragraph (in a bio with 14 paragraphs overall). Her work in this area is apparently not as important as her work on Wall Street, her leadership on the Transportation Committee (including getting funding for a tunnel in her district), or her work on public school funding – all of which get prominent mention before non-proliferation issues.

Ms. Tauscher’s qualifications for the State Department position seem to include her chairmanship of an unrelated subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee (for 2 years) and her introduction of several pieces of legislation on the subject. In Washington, that certainly qualifies her for the job, but it would be a stretch to say she’s the most qualified. It’s also interesting that while Tauscher chaired a subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, she is not being nominated to an appropriate position at the Defense Department; instead, she’s headed to State Department.

There’s another interesting thing about Ms. Tauscher: she is the sponsor of legislation to undo the military’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy. She reintroduced the legislation on March 3 — about two weeks before her nomination was announced. It has 134 cosponsors as of today – nearly one-third of the House, just a few weeks after introduction. When she introduced the bill, she planned to hold hearings to educate the public, and suggested that Secretary Powell could lead the effort to sell repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It seems as if Ms. Tauscher had done a good job of laying the groundwork for an effort to repeal the measure in the House.

So why did Barack Obama choose to elevate a leader for repealing the ban on gays in the military, to a position where she would lose all influence over the matter?

On a related note, The Advocate wonders who will be the next leader in the House on the issue; it seems there’s no clear favorite to take up the mantle. They also point out that due to Senator Kennedy’s health issues, there is currently no leader in the Senate. And Lawrence Korb says it may take some time for Tauscher’s ‘successor’ on the issue to emerge, since her confirmation process is likely to take months. So for the foreseeable future, the White House has sidelined the debate on repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

If I had supported Barack Obama because he promised to allow gays to serve openly in the military, I sure would be disappointed today. It’s a shame they couldn’t pick someone other than Ms. Tauscher for such an important post.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • robmikpet

    has been less than stellar. She opposed the RRW and the Nuclear Advanced Concepts Initiative as well as delivery system modernization. She is a head in the clouds advocate of total disarmement. She is a naive optomist who should not be sitting across from the Russians at the negotiating table.

  • RJD

    She is a naive optomist who should not be sitting across from the Russians at the negotiating table.

    Doesn’t that describe most, if not all, of the Obama administration, top-down?

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    to step in and fill her place on DADT matters. Tammy is the only lesbian serving openly in congress.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    She is the only lesbian serving openly in congress.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    for the double post

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    Obama will gain more friends in the gay community for his promotion of Tauscher, than Michael Steele did with his remarks against the LCR’s.

  • SecularRepublican

    If I had supported Barack Obama because he promised to allow gays to serve openly in the military, I sure would be disappointed today.

    I think the above is quite a stretch, as is the title of the post. Yes, Tauscher was leading a charge against DADT, but there is obviously lots of support to repeal that stance as evidenced by the numerous co-sponsors. I doubt moving Tauscher to State will have any effect on if DADT is repealed or not.

    On a related note, I think it’s shameful that our military won’t allow somebody to fight for their country if they’re gay/lesbian. If you’re willing to die for the USA, I don’t care if you’re gay/lesbian/bi-sexual or whatever.

    • Martin Knight
      • SecularRepublican

        …I voted for John McCain. I was just trying to quote text from the original post. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to make it show up in that little blue box as I’m still new to posting at RS.

        • Martin Knight
          • SecularRepublican

            but no thanks. Would you change your screen name because *I* thought it was annoying?

          • Martin Knight

            Yours does.

            And yes, most of everyone here who sees your screen name would get a bad first impression of you – it’s not just me. It’s like going to a Democratic website and signing up as “ReasonableDemocrat.”

            Let me ask; what makes you different, or makes you especially “secular” as compared to a typical Republican?

          • exitsfunnel

            I’ve been reading RedState for a long time and I’ve seen just about every possible permutation of christian this or christian that used as a screen name and I don’t ever recall any objection on your part.

            The “Reasonable Democrat” analogy is particularly strange as it only holds if religion, for you, has negative connotations, which I assume it doesn’t. There is absolutely nothing offensive about the screen name “Secular Republican”.

            -exits

          • Martin Knight

            The Left has invested a great deal of effort in portraying Republicans as theocrats who want to force religion down everyone’s throat.

            A guy who signs in, especially given our experience with mobies, with a name that seems to play on that falsehood about the GOP and Republicans will elicit a visceral reaction.

          • janis

            If that’s the same guy, he’s no more fun to be around there than he seems to be here.

          • exitsfunnel

            The word ‘theocrat’ is probably offensive, but you’re the only one in the thread who has used it. That kind of hyperbole aside, the GOP has over the last decade and a half moved towards an explicitly religious identity. We can argue over how pronounced the shift has been or whether it’s been a good thing or a bad thing, but I don’t see how you can argue honestly that it’s not a true thing.

            It’s why there are sites like secularright.org and users with user names like “Secular Republican.” If the GOP has really moved to a place where the mere existence of a secular conservatives is offensive then that’s a shame.

            -exits

          • SecularRepublican

            only represents me, not any other Republican. I’m not too worried that my name would give others “a bad first impression” of me, either. I used the word secular in my screen name because I’m a non-believer; I don’t believe in a god. I’ve been a Republican all my life because I’m fiscally conservative or “pro-business”. On social issues, however, I’d probably be considered more liberal. Most of all, I’m happy that the screen name I picked in ten seconds provided enough fodder for you to comment on it several times.

    • robmikpet

      Obviously you are selective in who you think should serve, why? The other argument is of course if you are SO PATRIOTIC WHY DOES SOMEONE’S HOMESEXUALITY COME FIRST OVER SERVICE IN THE MILITARY?

      I think it would be easy to just shut up and serve if that was the most important thing to you.

      And by the way I am in the Gen. Patton school of partriotism to paraphrase “A patriot does not die for his country he make the other SOB die for his!”

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        I do believe gays should be allowed to if they so choose. They should be allowed to have their loved one at their awards banquets or at their promotion ceremonies. And God forbid they get injured in action, they should be allowed to have their loved one visit them in the hospital. Speaking from experience, it is tremendously difficult to just play along and hide who you are no matter what is most important to you. I’ve experienced this in office work. Utah is predominately Mormon, and very unfriendly towards the gay community. When all of the other girls in the break room are laughing and talking about guys, I hate to have to just play along so that they won’t hate me.

      • grdred944

        One thing that has always disturbed me about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is that we place a burden on our gay and lesbian military members to censor themselves for the sake of the narrow-minded. True, I also find it disturbing when anyone throws their sexuality out there as a some sort of measuring stick for their persona but we do live in a country where we can discuss and identify ourselves as we see fit. As it relates to sexuality, the military should be able to as well. They sure have earned that right.

        Countless times during my nine years of service I and other heteros had details about wives and husbands and significant others voiced with no concern of bigotry or phobias. By enacting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Bill Clinton took the cowards way out.

        As for Ellen Tauscher, who really cares? Obama threw gays under the bus months ago when he sided with those against gay marriage.

        • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

          Because I am the lowest person on the totem pole where I work. I am still in college working towards my degree and doing temp clerical work to make ends meet. My boss is a Mormon woman. So is her boss. If I was open about what I am really thinking when they are talking about sex with men (yuck!) I don’t think I would have a job much longer.

          • aarongardner

            Seriously…just because your boss doesn’t believe in gay marriage you think She would fire you…..so who exactly is the bigot in this scenario?

          • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

            she believes that gays are an “abomination” and that if you are gay/lesbian you cannot be Christian. Although I was born and raised in a Taoist family, I became Christian at age 16. But in her mind lesbian = evil. And she would not have to “fire” me. They could justlet the temp agency know I was no longer needed.

          • aarongardner

            And if they did let you go after you outed yourself you would have a lawsuit to file….whether fired or not.

            Quit being a victim.

          • janis

            or, really anyone in a job environment. It’s called “being a professional.” You don’t wear inappropriate clothing, use bad language, reel off lots of stuff about your sex life no matter what sex you are doing it with, or start a lot of office gossip. Do your job, be pleasant and keep the personal stuff for your personal life.

            And guess what? We don’t care to hear about your sex life here either, nor your opinion of having relations with the opposite sex. Nor, I’m sure, would you care to hear what many of us here think of the idea of having sex with the same sex. Hint: We think it’s perverted.

          • Achance

            and an employer who hasn’t figured out how today’s world works. Or, in the alternative, you could just be lying to make a point or make yourself seem a victim.

            Anyway, any employer which has remotely approached the 21st Century has policies in place about employees talking about sex with males, females, or goats that get you one warning and then fired. So, either you have some “Employees Gone Wild” and you didn’t report them because, yuck factor aside, you want to be one of the girls or you’re lying. My money is on YOU’RE LYING.

    • Vegas_Rick

      Tough noogies.

      If you had ever served, you would know why this will not work. The logistics alone are incredible.

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        and admirals come out in favor of repealing DADT. I know there are a lot of troops who oppose it. There were many troops that opposed allowing women and blacks serve. Also, other countries allow gay soldiers to serve openly. Our troops are often co-located with those troops as well. They already serve alongside gay soldiers – just not from our country.

        • aarongardner

          Sorry but you opted out of the discussion when you showed that you have no dog in the fight other than your own sexuality.

          I say have a referendum within the military itself and let them decide.

          And as for the other countries and their homosexual soldiers….well I have actually had to serve with those guys…and some of the stuff that occurs is not pretty. Like the Greek, Turk and the Korean Armies….all are known for hazing their recruits in sexual ways, I won’t go into any further detail.

          • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

            have served or are planning to serve get to discuss DADT? I thought America was a government by ALL of the people and they we ALL had in equal vote on ALL of the issues. My most important issue is abortion – although I will never get pregnant. I still feel the need to fight for the unborn.

            If we had a referendum among the military in 1907 and asked them if they wanted to allow blacks in, what would they have said?

          • aarongardner

            and yes I would leave it up to the military to decide since they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences and since you have no intention of ever joining the military I don’t think you have a right to dictate what they must and mustn’t do.

            As far as gov’t by all the people goes….well that isn’t really how our nation is set up…we are not a direct democracy and we never should aspire to be one…we are a Republic.

        • grdred944

          It is narrow-minded to believe that someone not wanting to serve in the military should not have their opinion counted. Some of us prefer perspectives from different points-of-view and not just the lockstep mentality that pervades so many of these sites. Everyone has a dog in this fight.

          You fail to understand military structure, leadership and discipline if you feel the military should have a referendum on this. We are doomed if we set a precedent to let the troops set policy. I say this as someone who served and as someone who understands the need for leaders and for followers.

          What the military needs to do is deal with the issue head-on. If gays have to listen to me carry on about my wife and kids they should have the right, the right they have also fought for, to carry on about their partners.

          Inappropriate behavior — be it PDA from straights or gays and discrimination by anyone, needs to be dealt with and offenders punished. That is how you deal with the problem. The same way they dealt with those who could not be accepting of minorities and women in their ranks.

          • aarongardner

            And for that I will try my best not to be to harsh here.

            I gave you a different perspective and you implied I was nothing more than some drone with a lockstep mentality….do you see the inherent flaw in your own statement…if not we are done here.

      • Gyorc Nacain

        can you explain the logistics thing for people who have not ever served (aka me?)

        • Gyorc Nacain

          since you’re being ganged up on here and I don’t wanna contribute…

          • Gyorc Nacain
    • Jeff Weimer

      The military DOES allow homosexuals to serve – and have officially since 1993. Before that, it was a required question to all recruits upon induction – “are you gay?” If they lied, and it was later found out that the member was gay, they were dumped for breach of contract (I know, not effectively different in practice than now). If we were to repeal DADT, it logically follows we would return to that old order. That is not what they want, they want to further remove restrictions. DADT was a compromise in the direction away from that. Gays can serve, they just have to keep it away from work, which is difficult to do if you are in the military – you’re a Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman/Coastie 24/7. The compromise had to do with concerns, within the military and outside, that openly gay servicemembers would pose an unreasonable risk to good order and discipline – a fundamental requirement for an effective fighting force. Is that true? Now THAT is debatable. Is is right to require them to officially “be in the closet?” That’s been the debate before and since 1993. Legally, is DADT a mutually agreed condition of employment and thus enforceable? Yes, it is.

    • Doc Holliday

      in the military or not. but hey, if this stirs up any lib, then itwas worth it.

      BTW, my opinion on this issue is that all opinions matter. However, the military is not place for social experimentation. Our military should decide what to do on the subject not some civilian trying to make a social point. Our military is there to kill people and break things, not promote social agendas. Also, if something is working and on the back burner, leave it alone and let our great troops fight and let’s stop screwing with them. out.

  • SecularRepublican

    To put it simply, any able-bodied person who fits within the ages that the military sets wanting to serve should be able to do so. No rules on sexual preference. I also disagree that it would be easy “to just shut up and serve”. If all other members of a person’s brigade can freely talk about their opposite-sex spouse, why would a gay member have to stay quiet or risk being discharged? I just think DADT is an outdated, silly law. I think we as a society, thankfully, have made great strides in accepting people for who they are regardless of sexual preference and most would support openly gay persons serving in the military.

    • Michael Dugas

      But being male and a veteran of two branches of the service I can tell you that it’s unreasonable in today’s reality. The bonding required, particularly in the combat squad, would rarely accept open homosexuality. Would you expect 6 women not too feel uncomfortable showering and changing with a guy present? How do you think 6 combat trained Marines will feel showering, changing and sleeping with a 7th who is known to be gay and attracted to men?
      This would be inviting conflict. If you are going to allow gays to serve that DADT is probably the best way to deal with a huge majority of
      soldiers NOT comfortable with the idea.

    • Wayne

      person CAN serve. It’s not so much a matter of a rule on sexual preference, it’s an order, the Military won’t ask, the service member won’t tell. And it’s not up to “most” finally, it’s up to the people in the tank, ship, aircraft and foxhole. Should we care that you think DADT is silly and outdated? Not really, as your thoughts on this have no impact on the operations of the military. It seems to be working just fine right now, see Iraq, today. Your argument that this adversely impacts those who can’t discuss their same-sex spouse is about the most specious I’ve yet seen on the issue.
      The military and other successful places have an axiom, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Right now it ain’t, so don’t mess with it.

    • robmikpet

      to restrict people by setting an arbitrary AGE limit. So even though someone is able to serve you are restricting their rights.

      What you are saying without knowing it is that there ARE THINGS MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUST “WANTING” to serve. Things like combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, etc.

      And like many other posters here have said they can serve now. If serving in the military was the most important thing to me in life because that is the commitment our soldiers make – than I would even say I VOTED FOR OBAMA to serve this nation.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    I don’t see why gays should be excluded. At least the gay/lesbian community doesn’t walk into embassies strapped with explosives when they don’t get their way.

    • aarongardner

      What about the brownshirt activity that came about after the Prop 8 vote.

      Also another thing I would like to point out is that the military restricts soldiers from displaying their religion while in uniform….this is far worse than DADT as it actually is an affront to the 1st Amendment.

      But yeah…lets worry about DADT….sheesh!!

    • janis

      You equate being gay with someone else’s religious preference? Seriously? As far as gays/lesbians not being suicide bombers, maybe not, but they’ve surely engaged in their own forms of terrorism. How about all the things done and said to the Mormons after the Prop 8 vote last year? How about all the deranged screeching that goes on every single time gays/ lesbians don’t get what they want from governments ranging from school boards to the feds? How about the perfectly disgusting displays of perversion that take place regularly on the streets of San Francisco when they do their celebrating of the gay lifestyle?

      You folks that comprise may 5% of the population are dead set on forcing the other 95% of us to not only accept you but hoist you up as examples of freedom. Not. On. My. Worst. Day.

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        was committed by Muslims. Every. Single. One.

        And as far as acts of perversion – have you ever been to Mardi Gras and seen what the heteros are doing there?

        And, no I am not one of those that expects to be “hoisted up.” I don’t want gay sex ed taught in schools and I don’t want cops wearing pink uniforms. But I would like the same rights and privileges that everyone else gets. That’s all.

        • Gyorc Nacain

          I don’t believe he was Muslim. Also the unabomber, also the anthrax guy (Bruce Ivins, at least if you believe it was him, apparently some do not).

          • Gyorc Nacain

            …on DADT and gay marriage. Since you’re being ganged up on I don’t wanna contribute to it.

          • janis

            If she comes here and expresses her opinion, as she has every right to, then she gets our opinions right back–as we have every right to. We don’t march in lockstep, we all have our views, but they seem to breaking along the same lines regardless.

            One thing you don’t do here: Play the victim and expect us to kiss your boo-boos. You’re more likely to get the admonition to “man up!”

            Which can be said to either gender.

        • janis

          You’ve already said you have no intention of serving in the military. Who is holding you back in any other area or are you just repeating the stuff you hear on your campus?

          As to every single terrorist attack committed on American soil being done by Muslims, you’re wrong. Every hear of Timothy McVeigh?

          Nope, never gone to Mardi Gras. I’m not a fan of drinking, feathers, plastic beads or parades, much less public displays of strangers having sex no matter their preference of partners.

        • grdred944

          Plain and simple. I could care less if gays get married or not but the point is that they should have the right to. As proud as I am to be on the right side of the political spectrum one of the biggest hypocrisies is when the Right cries about the nanny state and “keep your government hands off my church” yet refers to the Bible and claims to know what God’s thinking is when it comes to issues such as gay marriage.

          Government should not be involved in these issues. If the decision is made to allow adults to make the decision as to who they want to be married to, this should apply to all adults regardless of gender. Denying gays the right to marriage is on par with denying women and minorities the right to vote.

          • aarongardner

            Gay is not a race, gay is not a gender….their is no right to marriage for either the heterosexual or the homosexual.

            You want to talk about hypocrisy…then you should be saying that no marriages should be recognized by the govt…not pushing for more govt involvement in our lives via non-existent rights.

          • janis

            can be equated with denying women or minorities the right to vote. Gay issues are all about making the rest of us conform to their notion of what’s right and wrong, it’s a way of denying that there IS right and wrong. As to where I get my notions of right and wrong, in this area I can quote biology. Two women cannot make a baby. Two men cannot make a baby. If nature intended it to be otherwise, then it would be. And gay rights are not civil rights no matter how many times you and others try to make it such.

            Let the them have civil unions if they must and have contracts that will permit them the same rights as married couples with regard to inheriting property, hospital visits, etc.

          • Martin Knight

            Why not regardless of number?

            Why not regardless of familial relationship?

            If John, Jake and Jim (all adults) want to get married all to each other – note that John and Jim are brothers – by your logic, they should be allowed to do so and be issued a marriage license.

            What makes the gender restriction more “wrong” than the restriction on numbers and familial relationships between the marrying parties?

            And by the way, no matter how often you say this; “Denying gays the right to marriage is on par with denying women and minorities the right to vote …” it doesn’t get any truer.

        • Jeff Weimer

          Weather Underground

          Heck, John Brown and his group if you want to go that far back.

          We’ve had exactly…two specifically by Muslims. The 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11. Now, the last one was spectacular and by far overwhelms everything else before, since, and (God willing) into the future. Now if you include our interests (and consider embassies, military installations, and Navy ships “American soil”, then the number jumps to about 7. But acts of terror against America are not wholly a Muslim thing.

          I have been to Mardi Gras, and it was equal opportunity, gay or straight. For me it was a little unsettling for a guy to say to me “I’ll give you these beads if…”

  • Andrew_D

    The Gay Rights movements deserves no special treatment or privileges.

    Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that deserves no societal protection beyond the right to privacy extended to all consenting adults.

    Years of shoddy, biased, and dishonest research attempting to isolate the “gay” gene still have not offered conclusive proof that someone is “gay” from birth.

    When the GOP surrenders to the homosexuals, we have died as a party and a nation. The nuclear family and the idea of natural law that extends back to the dawn of time itself, cries out for morality.

    To all those who would be Republicans, and demand rights for Gays, I have one message. We don’t need you, and we don’t want you!

    Equating the Gay Rights Movement with the struggle for Black civil rights, slavery, or equality for women is ludicrous and a vicious insult to those who have really suffered.

    No one makes a person be “gay.”

    And yes, I am a Christian. And yes, I am a traditionalist. And yes, the GOP is full of people like me, and no, we aren’t going away.

    The party can choose to bend to the angry shouts of a tiny minority, or it can stand for faith, family, and freedom.

    You make the call. We’ve already made ours.

    FYI, I’m not homophobic, I’ve had a number of gay friends. I will say this, most of them are very honest about the chosen nature of their lifestyle in a personal conversation. It is usually only in the political arena that it becomes some kind of movement. Besides, homophobic is a silly ploy anyway. It is homosexuals who are heterophobic. They changed established societal rules in the first place.

  • Andrew_D

    The following groups have been charged with acts of terrorism committed on American soil:

    1. Ecoterrorists

    2. The Weather Underground

    3. KKK

    4. Labor Unions

    5. Black Panthers

    There are many more dating back to the 19th century. BTW, have you ever heard of the OKC bombing? I lived there when it happened, most of us considered that to be terrorism. Maybe you have another name for it……

    The victim’s families think it was terrorism…..

    Also, ever heard of Centennial Park at the 96 Olympics in Atlanta?

    Here’s a couple examples of Gay “terrorism.” Of course, its not terrorism, but it IS criminal and vicious behavior. Please don’t hide and pretend that your movement is not dominated by radicals.

    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=6584961

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObJ1EkWGsA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA&feature=related

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Hamilton_Square_Baptist_Church_Riot

  • SteveLA

    I voted for Prop 8, not because of the social issues but because as a core principle I beleive in: the ballot box and the will of “We the People” being paramount over the views of judges.

    Prop 8 restored the will of the people expressed in Prop 22, and overturned by a slim majority in the California Supreme court to a establish a “right” to gay marriage that I can’t find. In short Kings in Black robes overrode the will of “We the People”, told us we were a bunch of stupid bigots.

    I also suspect that at some point in the future the issue will be put to the voters of California as a simple vote on the issue, then “We the people” will decide the matter. When this next vote comes up, I will look at the argument, look at what I think about the matter and vote accordingly, without a King in a Black Robe telling me what to think.

    As a real conservative value, I’m all for Democracy and people voting on this issue or any of the other contentious issues that define our society.

    • Martin Knight

      … then there are times I wish he was the template upon which all Republican “moderates” were built, instead of personifications of uselessness like Ahnuld.

      Steve, you may consider yourself a “moderate” and perhaps you are in the real sense – but you’re substantially different from the Specters, Snowes and Chafees. They have no principles to speak of and only stand strong on the battlefield if there’s a gun to their backs.

      You’re not the same and I simply can’t see why you feel the need to defend them as if they and you have anything in common.

      • Jack_Savage

        There is a huge difference between Steve LA and what are so often referred to as “moderates”. Snowe, Collins and Specter infuriated me because fiscal responsiblity is the absolute MINIMUM requirement of a Republican, and they couldn’t even manage that. “They have no principles to speak of and only stand strong on the battlefield if there?s a gun to their backs.” Exactly.

        I’ll give another example. Many of my friends and loves ones were against the war, not because of some knee-jerk reaction to George Bush but because of deeply held pacifist views. They would happily go to jail or die rather than compromise their principles. I cannot tell you how much I disagree with them, but I respect the fact that their views are based on principle, not what MSNBC tells them to think.

        Anyway, well said Martin.