When the H.O.U.A.C. trials were going on many decades ago, one of the Speakers was Ronald W. Reagan. One of the statements he made was in reality one of the most accurate as applying to the Ultra-Right Wing Extremists in this decade. Reagan was speaking in reference to the Communist Menace thought to be taking over the entertainment industry.
His statement was something to the effect of: "They come in and take over a large majority with a very small and well organized minority."
The threat of communism has been replaced several times. In all cases, the individuals trying to manipulate (let's call them special interest groups though this is an over-simplification) have to gain power. They gain this power by posing constant threats, and even if necessary, creating a false panic. To answer this threat, those same special interests fund extremist political candidates that they the extremists can manipulate in order to have gain be it power or financial gain. The extremists tell you that they and they alone can take care of the problem or problems.
The problem is not Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are opposed by those who would stand to lose either power or financial wealth if they (Reid and Pelosi) were to stay in office.
As is always the case, follow the money, and see who it is that is making all the noise against or for a political cause. Remember that finding out who is actually throwing out the political contribution may not be as simple as it looks. Sometimes there are corporations layered upon each other, and, these then operate foundations also layered to channel money to causes or candidates that they support.
This is not nuclear missile science here. The information is out there, but it is very well buried and is not always easy to dig out.
There are many political candidates that I am not fond of from both sides of the 2 party system, yet, at the same time, even on rare occasion, I may hear a single idea from a politician who has earned zero respect from me that in and of itself, that idea, may have some foundation in truth or merit.
Often, in politics, laws governing common people are suspended and we tend to ignore this fact. This is particularly true of political campaigns.
Many of the charges we are right now being subjected to in television campaign advertising, are in fact, libelous and slanderous, and, were they to happen outside a political campaign, litigation would be guaranteed. It seems that when we listen to the advertising of political candidates, we no longer hear about what this candidate would do to make the world, (or in this case the country as it would relate to the people he/she represents) a better place for those people. Most of the advertising now relates to charges of corruption or personal, moral, financial, or other charges against the opponent.
What is the reason for this? The reason is simple in that the two opposing candidates no longer have a clue as to what they even "can" do. What's left? Well, they've got to say something, so, they take statements and other incomplete articles,, or incomplete investigations, from different news media sources, and, quote these investigations as if the candidate they oppose were in fact "convicted" of any and or all offenses under consideration. The quotes come from various sources, and, are in fact, a statement of life for politicians on both sides of the coin. What is wrong, is that accusations or investigations in and of themselves are not convictions, but the campaign advertising implies otherwise.
When we come to the point of allowing all opinions to be heard, here is what tends to happen.
The speakers brought in by the various entities in question would be the same individuals who have railed on and on and taking credit as "experts". Your "experts" would be the same people who have already testified for example against the repeal of DADT all over the place. These would be very old, hard-line military people, members of the religious right who could profit by keeping DADT, and others with similar track records. This takes place, because each side considers these people to be the "experts". If you allow one side, in essence we then have to give speaking time to those supporting the repeal of DADT. What this causes is exactly the same debate (as a broken record) again and again and again. What does this do? It costs taxpayers to have their elected representatives listen endlessly to the same people making the same repeated statements, with the only thing changing being the venue and the supposed people to whom they are speaking. Your elected officials have endless transcripts of other testimony available from other locations available to review.
Right now, with the two warring parties and their attitudes, one could create a three year debate and disaster if somebody stood up and read the entire telephone directory from Baltimore, Maryland.
There are also times where boring people to death has political advantages. Get a politician mad enough, and make him/her hear the same argument over and over and over again, and, what you are going to get are votes to "table" depending on the body. This would serve the Republicans at this time, because if something is "tabled", it could be delayed until they can get the conservative votes to overturn it completely.
Depending on many factors which we may not know, what you may have is a delaying tactic to stop something that would benefit one side or the other, if mid-term elections could cause a total defeat of these same measures. In this case, the conservative side actually does not want DADT. What they want is far more heinous and give them enough power and time and they will have what they want. If they can get something delayed by adding additional discussion, they look like the good-guys, and they may have the ability to delay a vote in some manner which they would lose right now, but, could win later.
