About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Several conservative media figures support repeal of DADT

February 03, 2010 5:17 pm ET — 5 Comments

In the wake of Obama's State of the Union pledge to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy which bans gay men and lesbians from openly serving in the military, conservative media figures including syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes, Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover, and American Spectator columnist Phillip Klein have all come out in support of Obama's call to repeal the ban.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Conservative media figures say DADT is "discrimination" that "outlived its usefulness," repeal a "no-brainer"

Krauthammer: DADT is a "form of discrimination," repeal a "good idea." On the February 2 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer expressed support for repealing DADT, a policy he called "a form of discrimination that sort of outlived itself": 

BAIER: A hearing designated to talk the president's wish to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law -- essentially, that the military prevents gays from serving openly in the military. Will this happen? What will the timeframe be, and is it a good idea or not? We're back with the panel. Start with Charles.

KRAUTHAMMER: I think it is a good idea, and I think the administration's approach, which is a gradual approach, is the right one, which is to study how to do it over a year and then to implement it over years.

Remember when the armed forces were racially integrated in '48, it was over five years. Now, I don't think that these are equivalent entities, but in terms of adaptation, I think you're going to want a period of time. But look, the mores in the country have changed, certainly in the last 16 years, and certainly among the young. I think it's a form of discrimination that's sort of outlived itself.

The British and Australian and Canadians, who have serious armies, have already done this. I think we ought to study how it should be done in the most reasonable way, but I think it's a good idea to get it under way and get it started.

Hayes: DADT "is a policy that outlived its usefulness." On the February 2 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes remarked that DADT "is a policy that outlived its usefulness":

HAYES: And I also think personally that this is a policy that's outlived its usefulness. I don't think there is a reason a proud, patriotic gay or lesbian American shouldn't be able to serve, shouldn't be able to choose to put his or her life at risk in order to defend the country.

American Spectator's Klein: "It's a no-brainer that sexual orientation shouldn't make a difference" when determining who can serve in the military. In a February 3 post at The American Spectator, Phillip Klein argued that "it's a no-brainer" that gays and lesbians should be allowed to openly serve in the military:

Part of the difficulty of debating the issue is that that for those opposed to allowing homosexuals to serve openly, it's self-evident why this would cause problems for the military, while for those who support open service (as I do), it's a no-brainer that sexual orientation shouldn't make a difference.

[...]

To me, it's hard to see what the fuss is about. This isn't about lowering the standards of the military, because everybody would still have to meet all of the physical and other requirements necessary for military service. And it isn't as if the military will, for the first time, be admitting gays. Homosexuals are already serving in the military. Straight soldiers already have to assume that anybody in their unit could be gay, and likely already have an idea of who is and isn't. So the only change we're talking about is whether we should continue to force those gay soldiers who are currently serving our nation honorably to continue to live a lie, and face ejection from the military not for anything having to do with their own service, but simply on the basis of whether they're attracted to boys or girls.

Hoover: "The one dearth we have is people who actually speak Arabic, and you're kicking out Arabic translators" because of their sexual orientation. Fox News analyst and former Bush appointee Margaret Hoover spoke against DADT, noting that several U.S. allies allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their militaries and pointing out the harmful effect on the U.S. military of "kicking out Arabic translators" when "the one dearth we have is people who can actually speak Arabic."

From the January 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Does anybody care about "don't ask, don't tell" anymore, do you think?

HOOVER: Wow. I'm so psyched you just phrased it that way. When you have Australia, the United Kingdom and Israel all allowing gays to serve openly in their military, I think you're right. I think that the issue has been acculturated so differently with folks in my generation as opposed to in 1960s when my dad enlisted in the Army.

CHERYL CASONE (Fox Business anchor): But these are people -- these are people that are willing to protect me, stop terrorists from coming into my backyard and coming after me. And you're going to kick them out because they say they're gay? Give me a break.

HOOVER: Yes. And translating Arabic, by the way. The one dearth we have is people who actually speak Arabic, and you're kicking out Arabic translators.[retrieved from the Nexis database]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by westla (February 03, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
         
      Thank you MMFA, for showing us that there are reasonable conservatives who realize the issues of honor, integrity and honesty in the military should extend to its service members as well as its policies.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jose2 (February 04, 2010 7:43 am ET)
           
        DADT was a huge compromise. If a military person cannot restrain their perversion, they should be dishonorably discharged.

        We live in an age when there is outrage over religious symbols on weapons and how are trials are held for political prisoners.

        Why provide a source of propaganda to the enemy that our army is filled with gay pride?










        Report Abuse
        • Author by ConstanceRifleII (February 04, 2010 3:10 pm ET)
             
          Don't we need as many able-bodied men and women in our armed forces as possible? BTW Jose, there are currently over 60,000 men and women serving who are gay, according to a military study.

          And calling it a "perversion" just shows how bigoted you are.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jose2 (February 04, 2010 6:27 pm ET)
               
            There is no way you are going to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghans by sending gay soldiers into their neighborhood. In general, they view homosexuality as offensive to their way of life.

            If I used the word offensive instead of perverse, would that have made me a bigot?

            If you are persistent in your belief that we gain anything with gay soldiers in the military, then you are the bigot.


            Report Abuse
            • Author by jose2 (February 04, 2010 7:19 pm ET)
                 
              And as far as policy goes, if the gays keep a low profile DADT, then the Afghans don't know they're surrounded by gays and the military can go about doing their job in a professional manner.

              Report Abuse