Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Christine O’Donnell Compares DADT Repeal to Adulterous Affairs

Jim Burroway

October 14th, 2010

The Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, appeared on a debate yesterday in which she expressed her opinion that the U.S. military is a law unto itself outside of civilian control, and that the courts have no role to play in enforcing the U.S. Constitution. She also said that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be like telling the military that they should endorse adulterous affairs among married personnel.

YouTube Preview Image

“A federal judge recently ruled that we have to overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. There are a couple of things we need to say about that. First of all, judges should not be legislating from the bench. Second of all, it’s up to the military to set the policy that the military believes is in the best interest of unit cohesiveness and military readiness. The military already regulates personal behavior in that it doesn’t allow affairs to go on within your chain of command. It does not allow it you are married to have an adulterous affair within the military. So the military already regulates personal behavior because it feels that it is in the best interest of our military readiness. I don’t think that Congress should be forcing a social agenda on to our military. I think we should leave that to the military.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Richard W. Fitch
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

This women could not pass a Jr Hi Civics examine. How can she be allowed to become a member of the US Senate?

Timothy Kincaid
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

“Vote for me, I’m like you… Okay, maybe more like your Uncle Burt. I have no idea what I’m talking about but I have opinions and I’m not afraid of sharing them.”

DN
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

I’ll give her supporters the benefit of the doubt when they say that her stances on issues in the 1990s are no longer relevant. Fine.

But here she is, in the middle of a campaign, saying ridiculous crap. She absolutely deserves to be held to account for this.

The rest of the debate is worth a watch, too. It’s what the Arizona gubernatorial debate might have looked like if Jan Brewer had finished Public Speaking 101 – a lot of eloquent non-answers.

Richard Rush
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

It’s comforting that O’Donnell is trailing in polls by roughly 20 percentage points. But at the same time it is frightening to realize that roughly 40% are saying to themselves, “yes, I want Christine to be my senator.”

Maybe it’s just one of my quirks, but I prefer to vote for candidates who I believe are much smarter and more knowledgeable than me.

But I’ve always had the impression that supporters of people such as Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin want to vote for candidates who are just as stupid and ignorant as they are. So, Christine’s use of “I’m you” in her TV ads ties into to that idea quite nicely.

Lucrece
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

I’m mad as hell nobody in the debate stopped her to remind her that DADT IS NOT MILITARY POLICY. Congress enacted it. Congress set the social anti-gay agenda.

Franck
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

Nah, repealing DADT isn’t the same as adulterous affairs. Because, see, most of them nutcases aren’t pushing for repeal of DADT in private while condemning it in public. Adulterous affairs on the other side…

Regan DuCasse
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

She’s such a lying ding a ling…but she’s cute.
Sarah Palin is a lying climber, but she’s cute.
No way, would the GOP have bothered with her, but for the fact that she upped their sexy quotient.
Since they NEVER have anyone who can do that.

Telegenics count more than actual qualifications.
UGH.

Scooter J
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

I loved her tap dance around the whole Constitution question. As a Tea-Bagger she is suuposed to be a strict Constitutionalist, but like most Tea-Baggers, she is not able to define exactly what that means, or at what point in time was the Constitution the one she pledges her allegiances to.

And “cute”???. . . cute perhaps like a pug, but no where near as cute as Palin. Anyone know where I can get my “Hotties of the Constitution” 2011 calender?

Priya Lynn
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

She may be advancing an evil agenda but that doesn’t change the reality that she is cute.

Jason D
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

government shouldn’t be advancing a social agenda in the military…

where have I heard that before?

Oh, right, when they racially integrated the military…

You know, if they’re going to accuse us of stealing the civil rights movement, they’d make a better case if they weren’t using the same flawed arguments of those who were against the civil rights movement.

chaoticGRRL
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

Oh, you mean like “The Family” condones Adultery. Love how they so conveniently forget that little bit of information.

MJC
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

Ignorance in action. Disgusting. And I agree: the media have failed to serve the common good in that when someone states something that is so factually wrong as Ms. O’Dimwit did here, she should be corrected. Too often in the interest of either being “fair” or a misguided attempt to let it all hang out so the “voters can decide,” they foment confusion and false notions about our Constitution. Otherwise, why have news personalities conduct these interviews? Part of their job is to inform the public. Otherwise, a computer could moderate the debate just as well.

Kevin
October 14th, 2010 | LINK

MJC. I’m not so benevolent about the media’s motives. If she had said something equally as erroneous and offensive about women or African Americans, they would have pounced. The fact they haven’t shows their homophobia.

Erin
October 15th, 2010 | LINK

I love how her premises support the opposite of her conclusion. She says there are already separate rules for conduct in the military. Yes, Christine, that means DADT is at the very least unnecessary, not the other way around. DADT does not regulate conduct. Soldiers get discharged when they are found out to be gay. If it is gay behavior that threatens unit cohesion, then well, you said yourself, there are rules of conduct in place to cover that. How many gay soldiers have played by the rules and kept their mouths shut, but got outed some other way, and now have lost their jobs?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.