It’s all the Republicans’ fault because they hate gays (or so the media would have us believe)

The media is very disappointed that a defense spending bill went down in flames, not over the question of spending, but over the issue of DADT.  The headline at Politico says it all:

Senate Republicans block ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal.

You see, Republicans hate gay people.  Really, really hate them.  Or at least that’s the message the media wants to leave with Americans, the vast majority of whom don’t hate gay people.

But it’s never as simple as the media would have a credulous public believe.  Yes, it’s true that Senate Republicans solidly refused to allow cloture on the bill.  Except that the headline above hides a c0uple of balls:

1.  The most obvious hidden point is that Senate Republicans can’t do diddly-squat without Democratic complicity.  Recall, if you will, that Democrats currently hold a strong majority in the Senate.  What made the bill fail is that two Democrats — Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor — both sided with the Republicans.  Even Harry Reid voted against the bill, although he did so on procedural grounds.

2.  The other little thing that the Politico article that I linked to above entirely ignores is that what should have been a straightforward spending bill to support our troops also included the DREAM Act, which would have given automatic citizenship to illegal aliens who attend college or join the military. I have huge problems with giving citizenship to illegal alien kids who take up space at American universities.  They’re resource hogs — since American kids are finding it hard to get to college, especially since not just classroom space but also money, goes to illegals — and they shouldn’t get reward for that.

I’m okay with giving citizenship to kids who serve in the military, provided that these children came to the US when they were very small.  Putting that condition on their service and their citizenship separates a dependent child from his parents’ illegal acts.  I think this approach address’s VDH’s concern about the DREAM Act, which is that it sets a horrible precedent by letting achievement in one sphere erase sin in another.  That, of course, is a typical Progressive way of thinking.  Jack Abbott is a perfect example:  Because they liked his writing, Progressives readily forgave him his murders, setting him free so that he could kill again.

In other words, contrary to media spin, evil Republicans didn’t block DADT because they hate gays.  Instead, minority Republicans, joined by Democrats, blocked a bill that would have opened the door to citizenship for illegal aliens.  I’m sure that DADT was a factor for some of the Republicans voting on the bill, but I’d bet my money on the fact that the DREAM Act was an even bigger factor — and I also suspect that, if Americans are paying attention, they’re wouldn’t be so thrilled about the DREAM Act either.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Allen says

    This to me is the fundamental problem in Congress; they fail to be honest about the bills before them. It’s fine with me that they write and debate a bill specifically about repealing DADT. It’s fine with me that they write and debate a bill associated with becoming a citizen via military service. They can’t do that though, it’s always about the riders. Then these poltroons wonder why the American people have no faith in them.

    Any right thinking person should cringe when Congress uses the term “comprehensive.” It has always led to the most egregious legislation, and the biggest mistakes. I would offer as proof the Civil Rights Act from the 60’s, was anyone confused or did they misunderstand? No, simple bills with clear cut designs.

  2. Allen says

    I confused myself on that one. The Civil Rights Act being the right way to do a bill. Sure it was contentious for it’s time but it wasn’t added as a rider it was a stand slone bill. Duly, written, duly debated, duly passed and signed.

  3. Charles Martel says

    The leftist take on this will be to conflate illegal immigrants’ “rights” to help their children to our wealth with homosexuals’ “rights” to make the military bend to their will. Arguments that the bill mixed two objectives that should have been kept separate will a.) fly over most leftists’ heads or else b.) be seen as immaterial because what was at stake was the all-important ability of the marginalized to feel good about themselves.

  4. suek says

    I was under the impression that citizenship could already be earned by serving in the military. Is there a difference in years required to be served, perhaps?? PS…taking 2 – 3 full minutes to load page, plus type is actually large enough to see in the comment section. Last thing to change is the size of the type in the comment section…after which I need 2.5 strength glasses to actually read it! Lower left hand bar says webloggin.com is transferring data. and loading. and loading…..

Leave a Reply