Fox's Chris Wallace Hits Santorum from Left on Gays in Military
On today's Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace devoted the last five minutes of a 13-minute interview to sparring with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, as the Fox host challenged the former Pennsylvania Senator for his opposition to gays serving openly in the military.
After playing a clip of Santorum from a recent debate arguing against the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Wallace began the exchange:
Senator, you say sexual activity has no place in the military. Heterosexuals have been openly heterosexual for centuries in the military without any problems, and you talk about gays not being given or that they shouldn't be given special privilege. All that Don't Ask, Don't Tell or the repeal of it does is say that they are given the same rights as everybody else has had forever.
Some back and forth ensued, and, after Santorum made the argument that allowing gays to serve openly could hurt the morale of the military, Wallace tried to discredit Santorum by reading a quote from the 1940s that made a similar argument against racial integration of the military:
You say, Senator, if I may follow up because we really are running out of time, and it's continuing this conversation, you say don't inject social policy into the military, their job is to fight and defend, and not a social experiment. I want to put up a quote for you:
The Army is not a sociologial laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in a time of war, would pose a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.
Does that sound about right, sir?
Wallace did not reveal that the quote was a reference to racial segregation until after Santorum had agreed that such a quote could be applied to the current situation on gays in the military. After Santorum contended that ethnicity and sexuality are different, Wallace continued:
Senator, I read Colonel Householder's comments yesterday. Everything that you said, living in close proximity, sharing bunks and showers, being in close proximity. He used exactly the same arguments you use to argue against racial integration of the military in the 1940s.
Below is a transcript of the last five minutes of Wallace's interview with Santorum from the October 9, Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE: In the couple of minutes we have left, I want to get into one last issue with you, and that is I want to discuss the last Fox debate in which a gay soldier got up at the debate on video and asked whether or not as President you would reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Here is what you said to him.
RICK SANTORUM, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, DURING DEBATE: Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military, and the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege and removing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I think tries to inject social policy into the military-
WALLACE: Senator, you say sexual activity has no place in the military. Heterosexuals have been openly heterosexual for centuries in the military without any problems, and you talk about gays not being given or that they shouldn't be given special privilege. All that Don't Ask, Don't Tell or the repeal of it does is say that they are given the same rights as everybody else has had forever.
SANTORUM: Well, the problem is, is that sexual activity with people who you are in close quarters with and who happen to be the same sex is different than having a discussion and being open about your sexual activity where there is, you're not in that same situation. So you're talking about injecting, as I said before, something-
WALLACE: But wait a minute, are you saying you think that homosexual gay soldiers are going to sit there and go after their male counterparts in the barracks?
SANTORUM: I didn't, I didn't suggest that.
WALLACE: But you said they're in close activity, uh, close proximity.
SANTORUM: They're in close, they're in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people, the whole kinds of, all of the things that are involved in living in a barracks or living out in the field, those are issues that, again, some people, you're not talking about that individual person, but you're talking about the ability for people to be able to have that unit cohesion, to be able to work together in an efficient fighting way and obviously - and also, by the way, the effect on retention and recruitment of people to live in that environment. And, yes, there are people who would feel uncomfortable in that environment, and, as a result, it could hurt our ability to retain and recruit and to put the best fighting force in place.
WALLACE: Senator, you-
SANTORUM: As I said before, Chris, that has no-
WALLACE: You say, Senator, if I may follow up because we really are running out of time, and it's continuing this conversation, you say don't inject social policy into the military, their job is to fight and defend, and not a social experiment. I want to put up a quote for you:
"The Army is not a sociologial laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in a time of war, would pose a
danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat."
Does that sound about right, sir?
SANTORUM: Roughly, yes.
WALLACE: That's a quote from Colonel Eugene Householder, who was in the Army general's office in 1941 arguing against racial integration of the military.
SANTORUM: I figured, I've heard similar quotes. That's very, very different. I mean, we're talking about people who are, you know, simply different because of the color of their skin, not because of activities that would cause problems for people living in those, quote, closed quarters.
WALLACE: Senator, Colonel Householder, and I read his-
SANTORUM: It's a very different thing, a behavior versus an act.
WALLACE: Senator, I read Colonel Householder's comments yesterday. Everything that you said, living in close proximity, sharing bunks and showers, being in close proximity. He used exactly the same arguments you use to argue against racial integration of the military in the 1940s.
SANTORUM: Yeah, I understand that, and I know the whole gay community is trying to make this the new civil rights act. It's not. It is not the same.You are black by the color of your skin. You are not, you know, homosexual necessarily by obviously by the color of your skin or anything else.
WALLACE: No, but you are by-
SANTORUM: It's by a variety of-
WALLACE: I mean, it is a fact of your bio-, it is a fact of your biology. Obviously, it is one thing if somebody, you know is, coming on to somebody in a room, but the sheer fact that somebody is a homosexual, are you saying, I mean, these are all volunteers, they're all defending to serve, protect our country, sir.
SANTORUM: That's exactly the point, Chris. They are all volunteers and they don't have to join in a place where they don't feel comfortable serving with people because of that issue, and that's the problem, Chris. And, look, the idea that somehow or another that this is the equivalent, that, you know, being black and being gay is the same, is simply not true. There are all sorts of studies out there that suggest just the contrary and there are people who were gay and lived a gay lifestyle and aren't anymore. I don't know if that's the similar situation. I don't think that's the case with anybody that's black. So it's not the same and I know people try to make it the same but it is not. It is behavioral issue as opposed to a color of the skin issue, and that makes it all the difference when it comes to serving in the military.
WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there, Senator Santorum. I want to thank you so much for talking with us today. Safe travels on the campaign trail, sir.
SANTORUM: Thank you.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Fox should realize
Submitted by Indie Dude on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 10:58pm.
That Left leaning media types like a Chris Wallace is why most News watchers skip CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC. If they want to put people like Wallace out front with Left talking points, then what's the point to tuning into FOX?
I am starting to feel the same way!
Submitted by gailannr on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:51pm.
Now that Chris seems to be firmly entrenched at Fox News, he seems to be able to say anything he wants. It's one thing to feel/think differently than someone else, but things like this example of lunacy and "Are you a flake?" lunacy, lead me to believe that Chris is a closet liberal lunatic!
Come on Chris, do us all a favor and do what's right! Get it?
Watching this disgraceful
Submitted by Captain Repus on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:26pm.
Watching this disgraceful segment makes me wonder why I bother watching Fox news any more. With O'Reilly's endless self-promotion and faux 'no spin' talking over every guest and two wasted hours a day with Shemp the wierdo wasting my time I think I am going to turn to the cartoon channel.
I think 15 years is quite enough.
Captain......Although Fox News is still more fair and balanced
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 1:45am.
than the other networks, I have reduced my viewing of Fox News for the reasons you outlined. O'Reilly (or as Rush Limbaugh calls him, Ted Baxter,) is a pompous blowhard, and Shep Smith, who I refuse to watch, is not a journalist but a far out leftist.
For those who question whether Shepard Smith shows his leftist bias on Fox News, watch this VIDEO of Smith discussing the Wisconsin union protests.with Lefty Juan Williams (whose stupid banalities always force me to change channels). Notice that Smith brings up the conservative Koch brothers, a hated target, like Sarah Palin, of the Left.
As for registered Democrat Chris Wallace, his interview with Rick Santorum only reaffirms my belief that Chris Wallace is a FLAKE!
Finally, as I have mentioned before in other posts, what we need is a Conservative, Libertarian Cable News (CLCN) network. No Lefties or RINO guests like McCain Allowed. If Conservative Talk Radio can succeed, why not a similar television network?
Disgraceful.
Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:38pm.
Sen. Santorum is running for president and gays in the military was what Wallace wanted to discuss...? Maybe the next time he interviews him he can ask him what does he think about the circumcision ban in San Francisco.
Why are you letting gays dictate the future of your descendants?
Submitted by humanzee on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:45pm.
Gays are an extreme minority. Most of them are genetic dead ends. They will not pass on their genes, they will not procreate. They have NO FUTURE!
Why are they winning? Why are they allowed to win? People who hold marriage and procreation sacred will outnumber them always. They will have more children, they will have more descendants.
Gays will have no bloodlines, no dynasties. They spring up randomly in the melange of humanity. Why are the elites wasting our time with these people?
Let them live but don't give them the future where they will have no descendants.
Uncle Sam wants you! (but not as much as the trooper over there)
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:44pm.
But what does being 'openly Gay' mean? Surely the military will have some standards when it comes to Gays. or will Gays be allowed to set their own standards as they do in many cities with their disgusting and hedonistic displays that are called Gay Pride parades.
Wallace is awesome
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:50pm.
he does not give softball interviews
can't see straight
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 12:17am.
WALLACE: Senator, you say sexual activity has no place in the military. Heterosexuals have been openly heterosexual for centuries in the military without any problems,.....
Openly heterosexual for centuries without any problems? That is an absurd observation. Comparing of hetero and Gay behavior as being equal but different is a false equivalency. Being heterosexual is being biologically normal. Gayness is an aberration and biologically a dead end.
OK so why not let the military do a real challenge and make up a large unit of just Gays, no watering down the effects of Gays in the military by sprinkling them among straight troops. Then we will see if the Gay troops can keep their military discipline and professionalism.
Interesting idea. When I was
Submitted by Captain Repus on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 12:55am.
Interesting idea. When I was in the service there was a sprinkling of obvious homosexuals in our group. Open communal showers and toilet facilites were extremely uncomfortable for all of us and I can assure you unit cohesion was definitely negatively impacted. In my opinion, your concept of an all-gay unit would quickly open the eyes of our liberal friends as to the insanity of this absurd integration concept.
Kudos to Chris for putting
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 2:47am.
Kudos to Chris for putting this bigot in his place
So, someone who doesn't think like you ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 5:21am.
do, or agree with you, is a bigot, eh?
How enlightening.
MD
Not at all. Someone like
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 6:20am.
Not at all. Someone like Santorum, who's main goal in life is to deny gays their civil liberties makes him a bigot. He just can't seem to keep his mouth shut. He lost his Senate seat by nearly 20% because of vitriol. TWENTY PERCENT!! That's humiliating. It was the largest defeat for an incumbent since 1980.
Bit of a reach for anyone to say---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 7:31am.
with any certainty what Santorum has in mind as his main goal in life.
Especially a liberal.
Case in point - if Santorum had been as humiliated as you would like to believe, I doubt he would be showing his face in public.
Also, the possessive is whose.
No charge.
MD
Well, the man talks about
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 8:14am.
Well, the man talks about gays non-stop. He couldn't even win re-election and he honestly expects to become President?
Only in your biased opinion, gw89---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 8:52pm.
but then, you have your own agenda reference gays.
While I doubt Santorum has any chance at all to obtain residency in the White House, his take on homosexuality is outrageous only to those who think as you do.
MD
Chris Wallace took a side
Submitted by Fredy on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 11:09am.
The problem that Wallace had in this interview was simply one of taking a side.
Unfortunatly, what Santorum needed to do was to attack the plan of the questioner! This is not usually a good tactic with an honest questioner and Rick was not prepared for the biased attack.
Rick should have asked Wallace if he ALSO supported placing men and women into the same barracks? Then the absurdity of debating the subject with Wallace would have been apparent.
So What!!!!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 11:53am.
"The Army is not a sociological laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in a time of war, would pose a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat."
(“That's a quote from Colonel Eugene Householder, who was in the Army general's office in 1941 arguing against racial integration of the military.”)”
……..
It is a sad historical fact that our military wasn’t racially integrated long before the end of WWII – But it is still a fact, and Col. Householder got it right at the time. Why Wallace and other libs cannot grasp that the focus of our efforts in WWII was to defeat the Axis powers - not to implement social experimentation - is a failure of historical comprehension.
Harry Truman did this country a huge service when, after the fighting was over, he RACIALLY integrated the military. But he did not try to integrate the military based on “Behavioral conditions” - and neither should we.
- Grump :o)