>On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
>
> Didn't Bill Clinton make his promise to allow same-sexers into the
> military before an audience of rich G/Ls? They got out their
> checkbooks and ended up with a stupid policy and more actual
> expulsions than before. I detect a pattern.
Yes, a pattern of fulfilling part of promises, which is better than none.
Discrimination against gays in all civilian areas of the government, including the CIA and civilian military personnel, has been abolished throughout the federal government. That the GOP and conservative Dems like Sam Nunn were going to vote for a complete ban on gays in the military forced the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a compromise.
Again, on an issue where Clinton actually tried to keep a promise nearly on the first day of his administration, you blame him rather than the GOP-led opposition that blocked the reform.
Clinton has plenty of sins on his own plate. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is the fault of the anti-gay opposition, not Clinton's.
And like your disdain for the intelligence of labor leaders, black leaders, and environmental leaders who have endorsed Gore (or Bradley in a few cases), you have to assume that the gay rights groups that have endorsed Gore are also idiots who cannot balance gains and failures to make a rational endorsement.
As for Clinton's labor policy, he appointed very good pro-labor folks to the National Labor Relations Board, vetoed the TEAM Act which would have legalized company unions, used FCC appointees to assist union organizing of the Bell companies, and by executive decision banned any company which had used replacement workers from qualifying for a federal contract.
The latter decision would have been a significant indirect implementation of the legislative ban on replacement workers; unfortunately, the courts struck the decision down as beyond executive power.
The administration returned to the issue last fall with more closely written regulations to create discretion under existing law for government agencies to bar companies with any history of environmental or labor law violations from bidding on particular government contracts. While not as broad as the original directive, it would create some real sanction in the law for corporate violators of labor law - something essentially lacking today.
It's only ideological cant that ignores the real differences between Clinton's policies and GOP policies on gays, affirmative action, abortion rights, labor and a range of other issues.
-- Nathan Newman