Reason Writers Around Town: Matt Welch in the Los Angeles Times on John McCain's Opposition to Don't Ask Don't Tell
Writing in the L.A. Times, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch argues that the Arizona Senator's intransigence on DADT is neither surprising nor new:
On Sept. 22, 2001, as a wounded nation ached for emotional leadership, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered one of the most beautiful speeches you'll ever hear from a politician. It was a eulogy in San Francisco for Mark Bingham, one of the passengers who helped bring down United Airlines Flight 93 on the foul morning of Sept. 11 rather than let terrorists fly the jet into, perhaps, the United States Capitol building. Bingham, a former rugby player who had been a McCain supporter and an active member of the Log Cabin Republicans, was gay. […]
So as McCain has become the public face of the opposition to repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, drawing thinly veiled rebukes even from his wife and noisiest daughter, many people began asking, with a perhaps overdue cynicism: Why is he flip-flopping now?
But this time, he's not.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
sugarfreeing
Your blog sucks.
lol you original bastard...and stop sending me pictures of your penis. Shit I forgot about DADT
Your blog sucks so bad that you're reduced to fishing at H&R for readers.
and catching them too my little bitch...blog on fire again
It doesn't mean you're the top dog just because your ass is bleeding.
Your blog is terrible, you stupid whore. If I were capable of pity, you'd be getting mine. Moron.
Your right Warty-your site is better
What are you, 17? Your low-quality insults are the most embarrassing part of you. Just stop posting if you have any self-respect at all.
"Your blog is terrible, you stupid whore"....that would make you 12
wait was that foreplay? 🙂
Hello. My friend
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
thank you !!!
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
Hello. My friend
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
thank you !!!
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
I have to agree with Matt that praising a gay person for their heroic actions does not imply in any way that you support a gay rights agenda, so opposing that agenda is not a flip-flop.
You may resume your juvenile flame-war now.
If I were Episiarch, I'd say, "Concern troll is concerned," but that's just stupid. Besides, this place is an anarchy. Nothing meaningful ever gets done in an anarchy. But you know that.
McCain is nobody's bigot.
Well, except he is, even in, especially in the context you describe (and with which I agree) as being TR's intellectual heir to the American Empire.
Is American exceptionalism on its own bigotry? (Not T.R.'s version, which definitely was, but McCain's.) I can see an argument for that, but not necessarily a convincing one. Certainly an interesting question.
That is an interesting question, and I also think the answer is no, mostly because I hold a small spark from the torch of American exceptionalism myself.
It is also more interesting than what I was trying to say - which was simply that John McCain's actions in this specific matter, regardless of whatever else you think about the man, are the dictionary definition of 'bigotry'
(that last 'you' in the 'whatever else you think' should be read in the impersonal sense, like the French 'on')
Why does the reporting on this always talk about a repeal of DADT? It's the ban on gays serving in the military that needs to be repealed, not DADT (which could be eliminated via executive order, IIRC, although that would reinstate the blanket ban on gays serving).
Yeah, it's odd to me that what's often lost in the legitimate criticism of DADT was that it actually was an improvement on the status quo at the time.
The right for gays to serve in the military is another example of the dangers of "pure democracy," the upper end estimation of the number of gay citizens in the country is about 10%, and that of course leaves them completely at the mercy of the populace in a "pure democracy." This sort of thing shouldn't be up for a vote.
You don't recall correctly. The executive does not have the authority to undo acts of Congress apart from the veto power.
How does Matt keep getting gigs at the LA Times when the closest thing to a compliment he's paid to them in the last two years was calling the editorial board pedophile authoritarians who prefer instant grits to the real thing?
Like many authoritarians, the editorial board are secret SM submissives to Matt's dom?
Only thing that makes sense really - Occam's razor and all that.
Because even they can actually recognize good writing, even if they can't produce it?
"who prefer instant grits to the real thing?"
Oh man, that's harsh, he should take that part back.
'Course the rest of that sentence is true.
OMG, the people on Flight 93 were not heroes! They weren't trying to prevent an attack they were trying to save their own asses!
McCain's core principle is getting elected to the highest political office he can.
He's never flip-flopped on that principle.