It is all over that likely 2012 GOP presidential contender Tim Pawlenty supports the reinstatement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. While this is interesting in itself, I want to echo Ron Hill, a columnist at the Frum Forum this morning who asks: “Why’s Pawlenty Courting the Anti-Gay Right?”
Good question. More from Mr. Hill:
Pawlenty made his statement on the radio program of Bryan Fischer from the American Family Association, a smart choice if you want to sell a book to social conservatives. Unfortunately Bryan Fischer also has a long track record of inflammatory and untrue statements. Here is just one claim Bryan Fischer made in a column on May 27, 2010 during the DADT debate:
Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews. Gays in the military is an experiment that has been tried and found disastrously and tragically wanting. Maybe it’s time for Congress to learn a lesson from history.
Mr. Fischer has also argued that Muslims “should be treated just like neo-Nazis’”, that American Muslims should be deported, and that no Muslim should be able to immigrate to the U.S.
I am more concerned about Pawlenty’s judgment in going on Bryan Fischer’s program than I am his call for reinstatement of DADT. If Bryan Fischer had made racist or anti-Semitic statements then no respectable Republican would have appeared on his show. How is this any different?
Like Hill, I am mystified at the poor judgment demonstrated by Pawlenty’s appearance on the show of someone who uses the Holocaust as a way to slander his ideological opponents. I suspect (hope) Bryan Fischer’s fiction will come up in a Q & A somewhere on Pawlenty’s campaign trail.
I agree with both of you on the practical matter but I don’t like it.
David, you are correct that this will only change as it becomes an issue that Christian opinion makers discrediting such things.
ken – I don’t know Pawlenty well enough to know what he might say. He might truthfully say he did not know that Fischer thought that way and distance himself in a big way. After the last election when both sides made every past association relevant, I expect that this will come back. IMO, any candidate that appears with Fischer will see the 6 million dead Jews quote in the general election.
On the serious point, here: Hill’s brief analysis seems ‘spot on’ to me.
I don’t see it as poor judgment. Pawlenty is looking for support (votes) from AFA followers. People who will have heard him say he will re-instate DADT (remember it’s not what he said, but what they heard) and hopefully get some votes. There is a significant number of conservative christians who only seem to care about (denying) gay rights. Pawlenty is looking to tap into their support.
If Fischer’s views do become an issue, Pawlenty can simply say he was merely talking to Fischer’s conservative listeners, and that doesn’t mean he agrees with everything Fischer says and distance himself more if it becomes an issue. The likelihood that Pawlenty will be viewed as being just as extreme (crazy) as Fischer is small. Even if Pawlenty does have to distance himself from Fischer he may still keep the support, if Fischer’s followers believe Pawlenty is only doing it because of “liberal media elite” distortions.
A further point: anyone wishing to defend the repeal of DADT could have a ‘field day’ with the ‘Fischer-link’ (I know I that would if I were a pro-repeal politician).
On DADT (and related matters) itself: here’s an amusing anecdote …
Back in the mid-1960s, when the decriminalisation of consensual homosexual acts was being discussed in the U.K., the son of Lord Wolfenden 9the author of the famous Wolfenden Report) was recruited by British Intelligence. He told the ‘talent-spotter’ that he was gay, to which the talent-spotter allegedly replied, “Oh, don’t worry about that, old boy, some of our best chaps are queer!” Of course, the talent-spotter did go on to say that his new recruit should make sure he didn’t end up in a situation where he might be blackmailed.
On the serious point, here: Hill’s brief analysis seems ‘spot on’ to me.
A further point: anyone wishing to defend the repeal of DADT could have a ‘field day’ with the ‘Fischer-link’ (I know I that would if I were a pro-repeal politician).
On DADT (and related matters) itself: here’s an amusing anecdote …
Back in the mid-1960s, when the decriminalisation of consensual homosexual acts was being discussed in the U.K., the son of Lord Wolfenden 9the author of the famous Wolfenden Report) was recruited by British Intelligence. He told the ‘talent-spotter’ that he was gay, to which the talent-spotter allegedly replied, “Oh, don’t worry about that, old boy, some of our best chaps are queer!” Of course, the talent-spotter did go on to say that his new recruit should make sure he didn’t end up in a situation where he might be blackmailed.
BTW, I entirely agree with Warren that P. has shown poor political judgement … like another P. in the GOP (TP-wing) perhaps!
I love the title of this piece – it is perhaps the ONLY argument for bringing back DADT!
BTW, I entirely agree with Warren that P. has shown poor political judgement … like another P. in the GOP (TP-wing) perhaps!
I agree with both of you on the practical matter but I don’t like it.
David, you are correct that this will only change as it becomes an issue that Christian opinion makers discrediting such things.
ken – I don’t know Pawlenty well enough to know what he might say. He might truthfully say he did not know that Fischer thought that way and distance himself in a big way. After the last election when both sides made every past association relevant, I expect that this will come back. IMO, any candidate that appears with Fischer will see the 6 million dead Jews quote in the general election.
There is no way people like Pawlenty will avoid people like Fischer without more people in the Christian community discrediting the likes of Scott Lively.
Same sentence, end with Paul Cameron.
I love the title of this piece – it is perhaps the ONLY argument for bringing back DADT!
I don’t see it as poor judgment. Pawlenty is looking for support (votes) from AFA followers. People who will have heard him say he will re-instate DADT (remember it’s not what he said, but what they heard) and hopefully get some votes. There is a significant number of conservative christians who only seem to care about (denying) gay rights. Pawlenty is looking to tap into their support.
If Fischer’s views do become an issue, Pawlenty can simply say he was merely talking to Fischer’s conservative listeners, and that doesn’t mean he agrees with everything Fischer says and distance himself more if it becomes an issue. The likelihood that Pawlenty will be viewed as being just as extreme (crazy) as Fischer is small. Even if Pawlenty does have to distance himself from Fischer he may still keep the support, if Fischer’s followers believe Pawlenty is only doing it because of “liberal media elite” distortions.
There is no way people like Pawlenty will avoid people like Fischer without more people in the Christian community discrediting the likes of Scott Lively.
Same sentence, end with Paul Cameron.