Primary Fallout
We have learned a few things from the Republican primary, but it raises even more questions:
Rigell, the Republican establishment candidate and presumptive nominee endorsed by Gov. McDonnell only had the full support of 40% of the Republican voters. Will the majority of Republicans who voted against him in the primary vote for him in the general election?
Loyola, the candidate officially endorsed by the board of the Hampton Roads Tea Party and the president of the Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance lost badly. A low turnout primary election like this is supposed to favor highly-motivated activists like the Tea Party is supposed to be. Only 9% of registered voters showed up at the polls, and only 27% of those voted for Loyola, a minority within a minority.
The Hampton Roads Tea Party reportedly has 825 individuals on facebook and 975 registered on their website, but their leader Hurd claims a total of 2,000 people on their mailing list. There are about 1.7 million people in Hampton Roads and 498,434 registered voters in the 2nd district. Even if all 2,000 of the people on their mailing list live in the 2nd district, they would represent only 0.4% of registered voters. They make a lot of noise and get a lot of press attention, but they don’t seem to have nearly as much “clout” as they think they do.
Hurd said “We feel the Republican political machine in Hampton Roads needs to be defeated” (a quote I’m not going to let them forget). What will they do now? Suck it up, reverse themselves and embrace Rigell, or vote for independent candidate Golden, or just stay home in November?
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
June 9th, 2010 at 4:10 am
As Lowell at Blue Virginia writes… “the Hampton Roads Tea Party Chair called the bottom three candidates – Scott Taylor, Ed Maulbeck and Jessica Sandlin – ’selfish’ for not dropping out and throwing their support to Loyola. Way to unify the party heading into the General Election! ”
Bwaaaaa!!!!!
June 9th, 2010 at 6:53 am
I would encourage all democrats to take a good look at Kenny’s positions and ask yourself if he would make a better Congressman than Glenn Nye. Although he is a fiscal conservative, he isn’t a social extremist like other Republicans.
He is pro choice and he supports gay civil unions.
He supports Obama’s moratorium on new drilling and advocates a plan to make the safety and operations of a drilling facility on par with that of a nuclear power plant. 3 levels of safetys and failsafes, rigourous inspections, etc..
He wants to expand rail in Virginia to move not just people, but goods and services to take trucks off the roads to reduce pollution and help the environment.
He wants to turn Hampton Roads in the manufacturing center of the east coast. We have the biggest port in the world, access to all the raw materials we need, a skilled workforce, plenty of schools for R&D and exporting our goods would be simple.
He wants to turn Hampton Roads into the education center of the east coast as well. We have something like 38 institutions of higher learning in Hampton Roads. He thinks all those campuses should be linked together and programs created to foster cross-enrollment. We can make this the world center for learning and research and development.
If these ideas wouldn’t be considered progressive than I don’t know what would.
June 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Ditto Mustanger// Golden was a fically conservative pro choice social moderate when he was the chair of the republican party of VaBeach. The average members like him but the far right fringe gop-ers treat Golden who is a highly decorated active duty military officer with zero tolerance for his moderate positions in spite of a growing right of center gop membership that identifies with tea partiers. I was also surprised to hear Golden does not hesitate to take on the pious religious right wingers. Golden is no gilded lilly for Nye’s campaign to ignore the way Riggel will when it comes to appearing together for town hall debates. Glenn would be avoid attending any debate with Golden so he can concentrate on Riggel.
Not sure if it is a rumor but Glenn was or is dating Goldens daughter.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
There is nothing on Golden’s website that indicates his support for gay civil unions.
There is nothing on his website to indicate that he is pro-choice. However, his proposed legislation includes forbidding any federal subsidies for health care from going to any entity that performs abortions (which would effectively ban abortion).
There is nothing to indicate that he supports President Obama’s moratorium on new drilling. However, his proposed legislation includes allowing Virginia to receive 75% of royalties from offshore drilling. That seems to be a pro-offshore drilling position.
His proposed legislative agenda also includes repealing the 16th amendment (income tax) and mandating 2% annual budget cuts on each department except Defense and Homeland Security.
Not much there to appeal to Democrats. Nice try, though.
June 9th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
He may not have it on his website, but go ask him his stance on abortion and he will tell you he is pro choice. Ask anyone who is a Republican and they will tell you he won election as the chair on that issue something like 224-4.
Did you read the energy section of his website?
” In light of the new developments regarding the Gulf Oil Spill, I have changed my position on offshore drilling. Clearly the large oil companies have misled the government and the American people into believing that they are capable of properly maintaining and protecting their current oil rigs. While I firmly believe the technology exists to drill safely for oil off our shores, this recent disaster has shown that the large oil companies cannot be trusted to use best management practices and the latest safety procedures. I therefore propose that prior to any further construction of offshore oil platforms we;
* Conduct a thorough inspection of all existing oil platforms to take stock of where each stands in regards to implementation of the newest technology and safety measures
* Commit the resources necessary to ensure all oil platforms are operating in the safest possible manner
* Create nationwide standards for oil rig safety and operation that reflect the newest advancements in drilling and safety technology”
He doesn’t support stopping all drilling, but he does support not expanding it until we get our act together. He used to be a nuclear weapons specialist in the Navy, so I think he knows a thing or two about adequate safety procedures.
There is nothing on his website about civil unions, but again, go ask the man yourself like I did. When I asked him this was the answer I got;
“My brother Al is gay and I love him to death and I totally understand what he wants when it comes to gay marriage. If his partner is hospitalized, he wants to be able to visit him and make decisions regarding his health and stuff like that. There is absolutely no reason we should deny those rights to people of any sexuality for any reason. I prefer to not call it marriage, but they can call it whatever they want. So long as they have equal rights under the law, that is all that matters”
I paraphrased a little, but that was the jist of it.
Like it or not our budget must be cut or we will be bankrupt by 2013 according to recent CBO estimates, instead of cutting programs, 2% reductions forces the government to prioritize. Congress doesn’t always know best, but if the departments know they will be getting less money next year instead of more, they will prioritize.
The constitution initially forbid an income tax, the 16th amendment changed that. We have some of the highest tax rates in the world. If you read the FairTax book, you will see that it is revenue neutral and will simply a tax code that the IRS gets right only 60% of the time. If you tax consumption you get the underground economy and everyone pays their fair share. Right now lobbyists get a 220 to 1 return on investment for lobbying congress regarding the taxcode. Go to a FairTax and all that goes away.
June 10th, 2010 at 5:47 am
I see. Golden is pro-choice and in favor of civil unions for gays, but he is unwilling to put it on his website because he knows it will cost him Republican votes.
He is still in favor of offshore drilling, but with more government regulation (which, otherwise, he is philosophically opposed to).
What is his position on climate change legislation? He doesn’t say.
What is his position on immigration reform? He doesn’t say.
He calls President Obama’s health reform “a government takeover of our health care system.” Does he favor repeal? He doesn’t say.
Mandatory annual 2% budget reductions are dangerously simplistic.
Actually, U.S. taxes are among the lowest in the world (especially compared to all those “socialist” countries). Taxes are currently at the lowest level in 60 years. Most Americans already think their taxes are “fair” (including about 66% of Democrats, about 60% of Republicans and independents, and even 52% of Tea Party supporters).
The so-called “Fair Tax” is just another tax cut for the rich. It would increase the tax burden on the middle class (not politically popular). It would drive more of the economy underground, because it would be much easier to avoid a 30% sales tax buying stuff on the black market than it is to avoid payroll deductions and reporting. Do you really believe it will make Congressional lobbying “go away?”
Independent candidates are rarely successful. Golden may get the votes of a few disaffected Republicans, independents, and Tea Party people who don’t like Rigell, but he is unlikely to attract many Democrats. Like I said, nice try but no sale.
June 10th, 2010 at 6:11 am
Here’s a preliminary answer to the question in my original post: the Tea Party refuses to endorse Rigell. We’ll have to wait and see whether they will stand by their uncompromising principles against the Republican establishment or whether they will end up voting for Rigell anyway.
June 10th, 2010 at 7:02 am
David, Climate change legislation is more poisonous than BP. People need jobs and they worry about putting clothes on themselves and feeding their families. I won’t be cast as an outsider for saying this but I don’t think we can legislate sunspots and solar flares which rational scientists are proving to be the dominant indication of future climate change, not man made pollution.
My buddy and I walked over to Mr. Goldens shoppong center office at holland plaza and had some small talk about the environment. The man took me seriously, listened to my friends questions about why we need better cars and local green jobs then answered my questions logically and directly, not what expected from the former Mr gop. There was nothing Obama bashing or pc going on about the man at all and he seemed to agree with the president on a few healthcare issues. When I met Glenn Nye a few weeks ago he was not busy yet he could not look me in the eye or offer me enough time to let me ask simple small talk questions and he left me asking who or what does he stand for. Mr. Golden said he has worked around nuclear reactors and weapons and I take him at his word when he stated the safety record the navy maintains is no accident. If the oil companies were required to maintain comparable safety protocols for operating that the nuclear industry has to the cost increase would be nil due to less clean up and our grandkids would not have to deal with future situations that we are witnesses to. I spent about half the time in the navy that Mr. Golden did and he sure seems to be the real deal. I wish he was the democrat though since Glenn seems so inexperienced in comparison.
June 10th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Climate change legislation will create jobs and move us toward a sustainable economy.
Climate scientists are aware of and have taken into account sunspots and solar flares. Solar radiation has actually decreased over the past 35 years. The scientific consensus is that global warming is primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions and there are thousands of peer-reviewed studies to back up that claim.
Like Golden, I’m in favor of more government regulation of offshore oil drilling (although, unlike Golden, my opinion on this is not new). Like the Navy, I remain opposed to drilling offshore Virginia.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:49 am
I hear the tea party may support nye. why not. he always votes against pelosi & obama. as for me, i may have to vote for rigell. glenn nye is an embarassment. let the republicans have 2 years in the VA02 seat. i am far left fiscally, and center-right socially. so my views are never represented.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Let rigell have it, mess up, & in 2012 re-elect Obama with a left winger from VA02. it’s always easier for a president to win re-election running against congress.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Remember when at the Bill Fleming rally, Yvonne Miller bashed Nye from the left.. I cannot support Glenn Nye. He is not a liberal lion. 2010 is screwed. Let’s get a liberal to represent us in 2012.
June 10th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Don’t be ridiculous. The Tea Party will never support Nye and no liberal would vote for Rigell.
Nye is no liberal, but he actually voted with Pelosi and Obama 84.2% of the time, including key votes in favor of the stimulus bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell,” and financial reform (but against climate change and health reform). His LCV score is 64% in favor of the environment. Rigell really would always vote against Pelosi and Obama.
A “liberal lion” isn’t electable in the 2nd district. If you think I’m wrong about that, a more liberal candidate could have challenged Nye in a Democratic primary (and could do so in 2012). That’s the right way to do it.
Deliberately losing a general election isn’t sound political strategy. (Why not let Palin beat Obama in 2012 so we can come back strong in 2016?) Electing a conservative like Rigell would not advance liberal issues in any way. With a little creative redistricting, Rigell could end up being the incumbent for the next 20 years. If the Republicans gain a majority in the House, Pelosi won’t even be Speaker, liberals won’t be committee chairmen, and Obama won’t be able to get anything done.
The Tea Party demands 100% ideological purity, and they are killing the Republican party. Liberals should not make the same mistake.
June 11th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Where are Rigel and Golden on “dont ask”?
June 11th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Rep. Nye voted to repeal DADT.
Rigell’s position is clear:
According to Rigell, gays are not “everyday Americans.”
Golden’s position is less clear. His website is silent on DADT, but he appears to be against repeal based on what he is reported to have said:
Note: According to Golden, discharging qualified service members just for being gay is not “denying anyone their civil rights.”
June 11th, 2010 at 10:14 am
A more liberal candidate could have & would have beat Nye. Nye was elected on Obama’s coat tails to pass HCR. Nye sold us all out by voting against HCR. Those who gave blood, sweat & tears to see Obama elected. Nye must go at all costs.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Nye would be dead on arrival if he voted for health care. At least now he has a minuscule chance. We saw what happens when your voting record is too liberal for a conservative district ie Joe Bouchard. Obama did win this district because of heavy turnout, especially among African Americans, but with the 2nd the marquee race this fall he will be unable to replicate that and albeit he only won by a slender margin. Nye better start RIGHT NOW because he’s going to need time to get his name out and people barely know who he is.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Terry: Our blood, sweat,and tears paid off. We won! Obama was elected and health reform did pass (despite Nye’s vote). Other significant Democratic legislation also passed with Nye’s help.
If it is true that a more liberal candidate could have beaten Nye in a Democratic primary, maybe one should have run. I would have supported him. However, I’m still not convinced that a liberal could even win a Democratic primary (much less a general election) in this swing district that Obama won 51%-49% and Nye won 52%-47% two years ago. This ain’t Kucinich country.
At this point, the only alternatives to Democrat Nye are independent Golden (who called health reform “a government takeover of health care”) and Republican Rigell (who would like to repeal it and has vowed to “work for a targeted, strategic defunding” of health reform). But I suppose you would prefer that, since you are so liberal and care so much about health reform.
June 11th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Does Rigel support the 3rd crossing from Hampton? Which candidate supports incentives to move better paying jobs closer to where we live and penalizing imports from countries who undercut our employment and environmental regs?
June 11th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
You miss the point David.
DADT was put in place to stop discrimination against gays. Golden has been a ships captain, he is the only one running who has actually used DADT to have people removed and according to him it was only done 5 times during his 12 years in command of a ship. 3 of them were people who just said they were gay to get sent home and the other two were caught in homosexual activities while on duty.
You need to face the facts, when you join the military, you sign away 99% of your civil rights. You can’t have sex on base with a women and get caught without being disciplined. Same with a man. You can’t make sexual comments in front of an officer without being disciplined.
Golden does support ending the 3rd party rule. This means that unless you do something outwardly homosexual on duty you cannot be kicked out. If someone sees you doing “gay” things off duty and off base, Golden says you should not be punished in anyway. It is only when you break discipline on duty that you should be punished.
GNProgressive made the best argument on this board that I have seen, I will copy and paste it below;
“What would happen if a straight sailor makes a sexual comment regarding females in the presence of a female officer? Or about a female enlisted in the presence of a male officer?
I think you know as well as I do that there would be at least some form of punishment resulting from any combination of those actions. Now think about if the men and women in the equation were off varying sexualities.
A gay officer makes a sexual comment about males in the presence of other female service members…
What happens here? Does the fact that the offender is gay mean that he cannot be punished or verbally reprimanded? There are tons of other complications that will arise from situations like these, ship birthing, etc..
Imagine going into see a recruiter and asking what DADT meant? The answer you should get, “We don’t ask you if you’re gay, you don’t tell us if your gay. Be a good soldier, work hard and you won’t have any problems.”
Without DADT; “Why is there a sexual preference question on this application?” “Because we have to know where you will be sleeping, gender isn’t specific enough anymore”
Which one is more contrary to gay rights? Would gay rights activists argue that gays should be treated the same as men and birthed in the same quarters?
This is a complicated issue, I don’t think we should be rushing headfirst into it”
I am sure this is the way Golden feels as he has spent more time in the military and in command than Nye and Rigell combined.
June 13th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Kenny Golden would have made a great Republican candidate if he had won the Republican primary. But he did not.
Glenn Nye still gets my vote.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Mustanger: This is getting a little off-topic from the original post, but here goes:
DADT was an ineffective compromise that did not “stop discrimination against gays.” A 2005 GAO report found that more than 750 military personnel who were discharged in the first 10 years of the policy possessed critical skills, including expertise in Arabic and other languages. In the past 10 years, 10,500 otherwise fully-qualified service members were discharged solely for being gay, at an estimated cost of $363.8 million.
Sexual assault or other sexual misconduct on duty (by heterosexuals or homosexuals) will continue to be subject to disciplinary action. Sexual comments in the presence of an officer are inappropriate regardless who says them or who else hears them.
It will be up to the Pentagon to work out implementation details, but I don’t see why there would be any need for a sexual preference question on the application or why they would be segregated. It may come as a shock to you, but gays are currently showering and sleeping next to straights in the military without a problem.
It is really not that complicated. Military service in most countries (including 22 of 26 NATO members) does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If they can implement it, so can we.
A large majority (78%) of Americans are in favor of gays openly serving in the military, including nearly 60% of Republicans.
In 1993 (when DADT was first instituted) the National Defense Research Institute prepared a study for the Office of the Secretary of Defense that concluded that “circumstances could exist under which the ban on homosexuals could be lifted with little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention.” Ending 17 years of a failed policy is hardly “rushing headfirst.” The repeal will only take effect after the Pentagon completes its review in December and the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sign off on the plan.
June 14th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Golden has virtually no chance of being elected in November, but he may siphon off some votes that would otherwise have gone to Rigell and therefore may help Nye be re-elected.
June 14th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
David, again you miss the point entirely.
They WILL have to berthed separately, that is how the military works. Maybe if you spent some time in it you would know that. Maintaining discipline trumps everything, including civil rights. They will have to disclose their sexuality if DADT is repealed. What do you think the “Don’t Ask” portion meant?
In the past 10 years more than twice that number of otherwise qualified people have been discharged for flat feet. The military discriminates on tons of things that affect their ability to kill people; weight, eyesight, etc..
10,500 people out of a force of over 2 million? Over those 10 years at least 5-6 million have served, so that number is an infinitesimal amount. I assure you, we have lost more money discharging people for unforeseen medical issues, training injuries, and mental problems than from kicking out gay people.
You act like the military is there to ensure equal rights for its members. WRONG. It is there to ensure freedom for Americans and that necessarily means military members must give up nearly all of their rights. If it could possibly split a unit apart or cause tension, it doesn’t get done. That is how the military works.
Unit cohesion is far more important than the civil rights of a minority. Now I totally agree with you that the 3rd party rule needs to be done away with. If someone gets spotted holding hands with a guy while off duty, nothing should happen. But by no means should a gay soldier be on duty and talking about his sexuality. We don’t allow that for straight sailors, why should we allow it for gay ones?
DADT was never about discrimination. If you were around before the rule was in place, you would know how horribly discriminated against gays were in the military. You can’t end prejudice and when it comes to the military in the middle of two wars, forcing the issue is a bad idea. DADT ended the issue by saying no one gets asked about it and no one talks about it. You do your job, keep your mouth shut about your sexual escapades, and our enemies die. Simple as that.
June 15th, 2010 at 5:04 am
I don’t know how the Pentagon will resolve it, but it doesn’t make any sense to me to segregate gays in separate berths. That may actually encourage sexual behavior (it would be like putting heterosexual men and women together). Gays and straights are already living and working together side-by-side in the U.S. military with no problem. Our NATO allies don’t segregate gays.
Discharges for medical reasons occur because the service member is unable to perform the job. What does being gay have to do with the ability to perform the job? Nothing. It is irrelevant. Well-qualified military personnel are being discharged. That is a waste of valuable resources.
Repealing DADT will eliminate the 3rd party rule. That’s all it will do. It will not allow gays to talk about their “sexual escapades” on duty. It will simply allow them to do their jobs without fear of being discharged for non-work-related off-duty behavior.
What it all boils down to is prejudice and discrimination. “Maintaining discipline trumps everything, including civil rights…Unit cohesion is far more important than the civil rights of a minority.” Not so long ago, the very same arguments were made about black service members. Those arguments are no more valid today.
June 15th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
David Campbell,
I think you are naive. The end of DADT will allow homosexuals to talk about their sexual escapades while off duty. Heterosexual men get away with it now and with the end of DADT homosexuals will be allowed to do so as well.
How many of our citizens from the 42% of our nation that identify themselves as conservative will refuse to serve under these conditions? Has a price tag been put on this? Some homosexuals have been discharged under DADT, but how many fewer initial volunteers in our all volunteer military will be available with the end of DADT?
I am in favor of the end of DADT but I am waiting to hear what the military leadership says how they will go about ending it. If there needs to be separate berthing compartments for the sexes then, yes, there might need to be separate berthing compartments according to sexual preference. Are you suggesting those berthed in homosexual only berthing compartments will be unable to control themselves? Seems to me you are only pointing out one of the problems associated with the end of DADT.
June 15th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Service members are allowed to talk about sex or even engage in sex while off duty. They are not allowed to talk about sex or engage in sex while on duty. The same rules will apply equally to gays and straights.
How many racists refused to serve when blacks were integrated into the military? Was that a good reason not to integrate the military?
There is seperate berthing for men and women to discourage them from having sex with each other. Gays and straights are not interested in having sex with each other. They are currently berthed together in the U.S. military without a problem. They are openly berthed together in most other militaries without a problem. Why is this a problem?
June 15th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
They are not allowed to talk about sex while on duty? Do you think those who serve in the military are robots? Of course they talk about sex. The end of DADT will allow gays to talk about their sex off duty while on duty just like heterosexuals do.
If modesty is not a problem when it comes to homosexuals then why should it be a problem with heterosexuals? Let’s eliminate discrimination and insist women should bunk with men. I’m all for that, I would have enjoyed watching that girl in her bra and panties.
June 15th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
The rules of sexual misconduct on duty will remain in place and apply equally to all.
Throughout history, gays and straights in the U.S. military have slept in bunks next to each other, and may or may not have been aware of it. After repeal of DADT, gays and straights in the U.S. military will continue to sleep in bunks next to each other and may or may not be aware of it. What’s the difference? The only difference is that being gay won’t be cause for discharge.
June 15th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
David, being gay isn’t cause for discharge under DADT. Advertising that you’re gay is the cause for discharge. That’s the whole point. Take your blinders off.
June 16th, 2010 at 4:04 am
Unlike most western democracies, the U.S. still bans gays from the military. The current policy prohibits anyone who “demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” from serving in the armed forces. If the military becomes aware (from any source of information) that a service member is gay, he is discharged solely for being gay.
June 16th, 2010 at 7:22 am
David,
If these rules of misconduct are enough protection for those of same sex then they should be enough to protect the opposite sex. If modesty is not a concern with same sex bunking then it should not be a concern when it comes to the opposite sex.
Equal should mean equal. If there is no concern for modesty then everyone should be assigned berthing without regard to sex or sexual preference. If the sexes are going to continue to be segregated due to concerns about modesty then sexual preference should also be grounds for segregation. Equal means equal. If the homosexual gets to see me in my underpants I want a glimpse of the girls in their bra and panties.
June 16th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Once again, gays are already berthed with straights in the military. That won’t change with the repeal of DADT.
June 17th, 2010 at 9:58 am
David,
Thank you for giving me this opening.
Under existing policies in the military homosexuals must keep their sexual preference hidden. With the end of DADT they will allowed to be open. They can smile when they look at a fellow service member in his underpants without fear. Will we prosecute a homosexual for having a tent in his underpants when he sees me in mine?
June 17th, 2010 at 10:36 am
If you are in the military, homosexuals already see you in your underwear. The only difference after the repeal of DADT is that you may or may not become aware that they are homosexual. I don’t know why homophobes always seem to assume that gays are attracted to them.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:46 am
I guess homosexuals are attracted to females? If physical attraction is not a problem then put heterosexual males and females together. Not willing to go that far? Why not?
June 17th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Let me explain it to you one more time. Heterosexual males and heterosexual females have sex with each other. Homosexuals have sex with other homosexuals. Some heterosexuals have an irrational fear that homosexuals want to have sex with them. Of course, sex on duty (of any kind) will still be prohibited and the rules applied equally to all. The only thing that will change with the repeal of DADT is that gays won’t be discharged from the military for being gay.
June 18th, 2010 at 2:19 am
I have had a personal conversation with a homosexual on the CB. He explained to me that he especially enjoyed rocking the world of heterosexual males so that they never went back.
This was not a lone conversation, although most of what I experienced otherwise was listening in and not participating.
I think you are falling for the propaganda of proponents of those with a pro-gay agenda. What they preach does not match my real world experiences. If you listen closely, on Outq on satellite and even on NPR you will hear that the what is preached is more often then not false.
I will accept that my life experiences are not representative of everyone, but I will continue to insist that my life experiences with gays, yes even while in the military, represents the majority.
Now I will also point out a weakness in my own argument. My experiences with lesbians throughout my life has been limited although not bereft. Lesbians tend to attempt to be more discreet and I have never heard a lesbian advertising on the CB calling for all willing mates. Yes there are lesbian truck drivers but they do not seem to get around quite as much as the males.
June 18th, 2010 at 5:04 am
LittleDavid: You don’t really know who you were talking to — that guy may have just been messing with you. I will have to defer to you since I have no direct knowledge of the wild sex lives of interstate truckers. (That sounds like a reality TV show on Fox. Which reminds me – I’ve been meaning to ask you if you have watched “Ice Road Truckers” on the History Channel. I’ve seen it advertised at the movies. I have no idea what it has to do with history or why it is on the History Channel.)
My train of thought got derailed. Back to the previous off-topic: In my personal experience, I have known openly gay co-workers at blue-collar and white-collar jobs I have worked in the past and it was never an issue for anyone.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Working my way back to the original topic of this post, in response to supposedly “liberal” Robert and Terry: Here’s just one example of many possible unintended consquences of Democrats “punishing” Rep. Nye by staying home in November, allowing Rigell to be elected, and helping Republicans obtain a majority in the House: Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) (who just apologized to BP for making them pay to clean up the Gulf Coast) may become the Chairman of the Energy Committee.
June 18th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
It might not have been an issue for you because you always got to go home every night to your private bedroom. What happens when your bedroom every night includes them looking at you which is what happens in the military? Care to share your military experience with us?
Wild sex lives of truckers? You assume something. Actually most truckers are rather conservative. But the gay ones, as few as they are, have a large footprint. None truck driving gay persons put up a CB antenna on their cars searching for the gay truck driver. The gay truck driver has a sleeper berth and a mattress making the liaison very convenient and comfortable.
As a result heterosexual truck drivers have to deal with taunts that all of us truck drivers are gay when we deal with our customers.
July 13th, 2010 at 10:53 am
According to Department of Defense spokesperson Geoff Morrell, the repeal of DADT will not result in segregation:
Just like I said.