No to Nunn

There are some situations so obvious that you almost feel you don't have to comment upon them. Then you wake up one morning and realize not only should you have expressed your opinion but you should have done it loudly and resoundingly and repeatedly. The odious concept of former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn serving on a ticket with Senator Obama is one of those situations.

Over the last week or two, we all have seen his name mentioned by some very progressive activists as an ideal running mate for the Illinois Senator. The conventional logic is that he is very conservative, could help us take some Southern states (especially Georgia) and would provide needed balance to the ticket. On the superficial face of that evaluation, I suppose they might be correct. However, upon closer consideration, this is a classic case of decision-making based on crass politics without regard to reality. Sam Nunn might bring us Georgia and maybe even another Southern state but, in my opinion, at an unacceptable cost to our principles and to the concept of change that has stirred millions to rise and work for Barack Obama.

Sam Nunn would be a disaster as a running mate and a total anathema to millions of Americans. His presence would totally diminish the power of the Obama campaign notion of change. Nunn on the ticket would show that 'Politics As Usual' has supplanted the 'Change In Politics' mantra. More importantly for some of us, it would place a man on the ticket who has an execrable record on civil rights - especially LGBT rights.

Over the years, categorically, Nunn has made all the wrong decisions when it comes to equal rights. He was a strong supporter of Lester Maddox for Governor, a rabid segregationist who handed out axe handles to highlight his 'whites only' policy. In addition, Nunn was a supporter of George Wallace in his ill-fated campaign for President. The former Senator has opposed every advancement for the LGBT community and vigorously took the lead in the opposition to gays and lesbians in the military. Along with former President Bill Clinton, we have Sam Nunn to thank for the sorry debacle of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Can you imagine anyone who opposed equal rights for blacks, Jews or women being granted such a place of honor? Clearly former Senator Nunn's positions on equal rights for the LGBT community should be reason enough to keep him off the ticket.

www.davidmixner.com

Comments

[FearlessFreep]

Also, he supported Reagan's terrorist war against Nicaragua.

[JBS]

If yer' lookin' for a former Georgia Senator to balance the ticket, why not Max Cleland?

[ramal]

Absolutely! Anyone who even proposed Nunn's name has no political savvy what so ever. Why would you want to add a lackluster, homophobe who hasn't been on the political scene in over a decade? Nunn isn't even that well regarded in him home state of Georgia. Biden or Webb would be a much better choice.

[KeysDan]

There are probably worse choices than Nunn, but off hand, I can not think of one. Nunn is really a right-winger masquerading as a conservative Democrat. President Clinton, shortly after his inauguration proposed that gay men and women be permitted to serve openly in the military. The change in policy was to be accomplished by presidential order, much in the same way that President Truman ordered the desegregation of the military 40-years earlier. However, the proposal hit a buzz-saw brandished by Sam Nunn, in his role as Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. His committee hearings constituted a circus marked by "testimony" that gay men only wanted to serve so as to oogle fit young men. Televised trips were made by Nunn to submarines to demonstrate the close quarters. It was pay-back time for Nunn. Clinton denied Nunn his ambition of being named Secretary of State owing to objections from human rights groups. Nunn was known to be a homophobe and had recently fired a gay staffer. Nunn, abetted by the JCS, with a starring role by its Chair, Colin Powell, lead an insurrection that jeopardized the new Clinton administration on all fronts. DADT was, with Nunn's leadership, formulated as a federal statute (from an executive order)and passed, as a "compromise". It is unfair, in my view, to conflate the actions of Clinton and Nunn in this matter, the former tried to do the best he could; the latter, achieved the worst he could.

[jdkjdk]

The "South" is electoral dead-end for Democrats. It has been for some time. Clinton won because of Perot. But there is no Perot running. Gore couldn't even win his home state. Edwards added nothing electorally. Nunn ads nothing to the ticket.

Until South is really Reconstructed by immigration from outside US and migration from North, a North/South Coalition is not possible for Democrats.

If you start with 2004 performance, swap Iowa for NH, then battleground states become NV, CO, NM, VA, and a district in NE all of which are more like the Midwest, Northeast and West Coast (more urban, "ethnic", catholic) than like the South/Appa­lachia/Oza­rks (more WASPy and rural). At that point OH/FL are not nearly as relevant nor electorally polarizing.

Fighting over SouthernOhio and NorthernFlorida is to replay a "southern/­appalachia­" strategy which is unlikely to work, backward-looking, and emphasizes a redux of cultural and civil rights wars. For goodness sakes lets, start acting like we've "overcome" or at least almost "overcome". To fight over NV, CO, NM, VA and maybe a district in NE, is forward-looking and about a new vision that is pluralistic not dualistic.

We're ready for President who's a non-WASP with vowel on end of name. When Obama gets the nomination he should pick a VP that is also foward-looking. That ain't Nunn, Webb, or Clinton.

[MsLiz]

One of the problems Democrats have in the deep South is that Democrats are perceived to be looking down their noses on us. I am hoping we won't have to be invaded by Yankees and Mexicans in order to get a fighting chance in elections.

A few decades ago, Greene County, Alabama elected a Black sheriff, Thomas Gilmore. In his youth he was a member of SNCC. My WASP grandparents came to appreciate and respect Gilmore as a sheriff, and he won re-election with white support, if I recall correctly.

The point is, Obama can teach my fellow Alabamians to be Al Obamanians.

[Doofus]

Cute, but too hard to say.
It's gonna come out 'Al Obama-nanians'.
How about 'Alobamians'?

[deecee22]

First of all, what the hell is LGBT? obviously those who are throwing around the Nunn name haven't done their homework. Thank you for this truth.

[faust2001]

If Obama's running mate were the Grand Wizard of the KKK, that also might help Obama take Georgia.

[detriangulation]

Wow, may be better to make him secretary of state or national security adviser.

[mazlow01]

Sam Nunn would bring two things to the ticket. International credentials and experience that Obama sorely needs and the possibility of putting GA in the Obama camp. Of course the fact that those credentials are no longer relavent in a post cold war world and the fact that Sam Nunn could no more deliver Ga than Gore could deliver Tenn shouldn't prevent people from talking about it.

I am an undecided independent from GA, attended the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at GA Tech(one of the best in the nation, Go Jackets!) and having Sam Nunn wouldn't sway me to vote for Obama. Only Obama can do that. The importance of the VP on the ticket is so over rated its gotten ridiculous. It only matters to the Washington insiders and DNC cronies.

[Marlyn]

"some very progressive activists" ???

I always wonder about the term "progressive". I'm a liberal, and from my viewpoint way out here on the left, these people look like Republicans to me, conservatives who are fed up with the GOP, and now are trying to take over the Democratic Party.

Anyway, Sam Nunn with Obama? NEVER!

But what about Wes Clark? He is someone we can trust.

[coloradosiren]

What would Wes Clark bring to the ticket?

[deecee22]

HILLARY AND BILL

[MsLiz]

Good hair.

[Kencleanersystem]

Regarding Wes Clarke, I can't abide anyone still blindly supporting Hillary Clinton at this late point. Richardson is still the best choice for the New Math of taking the Rockies.

[Zhonni]

No to Was Clark as well! My first choice right now is Gov. Kaine (VA) and second is Gov. Sebelius (KS).

Jim Webb and Nunn are part of my top 5 but I think Nunn is getting too old, unless he would serve one term as V.P. Sen. Webb may be better off in the Senate because we want to keep his seat.

[havisham]

Yes--"the whole notion of change"--well, that could mean just about ANYTHING couldn't it?

[StephenDedalus82]

Obama never had a problem ignoring the gay constituency in the past, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he'd continue doing so by choosing Nunn.

[Marlyn]

Barack Obama supports the gay community.

[gadfly55]

Ah, special interest groups with axes to grind already flexing their vocal cords. How sad! The capability of Sam Nunn to enhance the operation of the administration in several substantial aspects outside of the experience of Obama are primary in the consideration of him, along with others at this point. Score settling does not provide a sufficient basis for discrediting a person who has considerable relevant capability, and in any event cannot further influence policy regarding this group. Democrats have to get away from special pleading for their particular faction, that has been the problem for 40 years. Move on to consensus dealing with the substantial public issues at the core of this election.

[havisham]

actually, gadfly, only a cynic or an imbecile would see concerns about Nunn as pandering to special interests. in theory, the democtatic party stands for improving the lives of those who have been given the short end of the stick historically. this is about ideals--that everyone deserves the same chances for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it is not pandering. republicans, on the other hand, stand for the opposite: denying opportunity, maintaining social inequality, cynically calling concern for people's civil rights "pandering." which party to you align yourself with?

[MsLiz]

Add a few drops of realism to your idealism.

[Marlyn]

It is hard to imagine racist Nunn on Barack Obama's ticket.

[colleen2]

I've never liked or trusted Sam Nunn. He would be almost as bad for the ticket as Hillary Clinton or Lieberman.
The folks suggesting him are the same folks who feel that the ticket needs to have at least one member of the DLC on the ticket.

[Liam617]

As a gay man, why ought I be scared of Nunn as VP? His role in DADT was not stellar, but in an odd way it was a first step toward having gay folks serve in the military. (Let's not forget, it was Bill who signed it into law -- yet why does Hillary have a large gay following?) People like Mixner who believed institutions like the military were going to welcome gays with open arms just don't understand that such institutions sometimes take generations to change. We're much closer to having gays serve openly today than we were in 1993.

My fear is that the various parts of the Dem coalition will always have some beef with the VP choice. Webb is too anti-woman, Nunn is anti-gay, etc.

That said, I can see both good and bad in Obama's picking Nunn. First, I'm not sure Nunn is the ideal VP candidate -- I recall him as kind of dour and not the best speaker. But with Barr (GA) siphoning off some of Georgia's small government-minded voters as the Libertarian candidate and with some evangelical disaffection for McCain, having Nunn on the ticket could allow the Dems to appeal to AA and moderate white suburbanites and the Dems could unexpectedly snatch GA's electoral votes. At a minimum, with Nunn on the ticket the GOP will need to spend more resources protecting its southern flank -- resources that might otherwise be spent in places like Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania.

[Doofus]

Hey, it's a Big Tent. Room for lots of squabbling. NOBODY is ideal.

Nunn should be considered, as a statesman. Also, Bob Graham.
Both are old, but as they say, '70 is the new 50', right?

[Marlyn]

"why does Hillary have a large gay following?"

Gay men just love strong tough women. It breaks the stereotype of gender roles.