Will Obama end Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[BVS]

Poor John, he can't do anything right...

[martha]

Didn't he call her a bitch during the campaign?

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

The Republican senator from Arizona has spearheaded opposition to legislative repeal of the military's ban on openly gay servicemembers in the upper chamber, vowing to filibuster if necessary a bill similar to the one that passed the House earlier this year.

Filibustering against civil rights has a long, proud tradition in the Republican party.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

Filibustering against civil rights has a long, proud tradition in the Republican party.

They've got to cater to their base...

[martha]

The base of Abraham Lincoln, you socialist!

[MrsSpringsteen]

Oh well, that didn't last long

Cindy McCain Reverses Course On 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Cindy McCain has apparently sharply reversed course on her position on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the span of just several days. Having blasted the policy that bars gays from openly serving in the military on Wednesday, the wife of Senator McCain now says she supports her husband's stance on the issue.

On November 10, Cindy McCain appeared in an ad for the NOH8 campaign, an organization formed as a response to California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. In the video, McCain says that "our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future." Later, she adds that "they can't serve our country openly."

On Friday, however, Cindy McCain clarified her stance, tweeting that she supports her husband's position on DADT. "I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband's stance on DADT."

Four years ago, John McCain said that he would be open to eliminating DADT if the military were in favor of repealing the policy, but he has grown more hostile to repeal over time.

In February, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended getting rid of DADT, but McCain has not adhered to his prior position. Less than one month ago he vowed to filibuster any attempt to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

[Moonlit_Angel]

*Puts face in hands, sighs*

Am I seriously crazy for thinking that THIS SHOULD NOT BE THAT COMPLICATED AN ISSUE TO RESOLVE? Good lord, people, repeal it and move on already. Why do we need to go through all this insanity?

Angela

[Canadiens1131]

Considering the U.S. military has more pressing issues regarding its internal culture (dey rapin' all the female soldiers up in here, that and psych issues being for sissies) I don't think Don't Ask Don't Tell should be the controversy it is currently.

[deep]

Obama , the Democrats and the left have already paid the price for repealing this. the people that are so up in arms about it give zero support and vote against anyone they think is sympathetic to this issue. What have they got to lose?
they're doin the time, might as well commit the crime.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131

Considering the U.S. military has more pressing issues regarding its internal culture (dey rapin' all the female soldiers up in here, that and psych issues being for sissies) I don't think Don't Ask Don't Tell should be the controversy it is currently.

Exactly.

But hey, that's what always happens when people are confronted with real problems that they should deal with but for some reason can't or won't. They focus on trivial matters instead and make them a big issue.

The macho culture is certainly something that bothers me immensely about the military. It always amazes me that people freak out about this supposed fear that there'll be an outbreak of gays hitting on people and forcing them into sexual situations or some such nonsense; apparently nobody seems to care too much when guys are doing that very thing to girls, though, I guess.

Angela

[yolland]

New York Times, Dec. 2

Senator John McCain stuck to his tough position against repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, telling the military’s leaders that many combat troops foresaw problems if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly. Citing the results of a Pentagon survey of 115,000 active duty and reserve service members, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said that 58% of Marines in combat units and 48% of Army combat troops thought repealing the 17-year-old law would have either a negative or a very negative impact on the ability of their units to work together. “I remain concerned, as I have in the past, and as demonstrated in this study, that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ should be repealed,” Mr. McCain said at a Senate hearing. “These views should not be considered lightly, especially considering how much combat our forces face.”

Mr. McCain’s views were in striking contrast to those expressed by an array of the nation’s top defense and military officials, who appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to urge repeal of the law, which requires gay men and women in the military to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge. The officials also pressed on the committee the larger conclusions of the survey, which found that 70% of all service members responded that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military “would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.”

At one point, Mr. McCain sharply asked Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, whose testimony led off the Pentagon’s position, if he was not concerned that so many combat forces were concerned about repeal of the law. Mr. Gates replied that many of those in combat are in their early 20s, have also never served with women and have a focused, limited experience in the military. “With time and adequate preparation, we can mitigate their concerns,” Mr. Gates said.

“I couldn’t disagree more,” Mr. McCain shot back. “We send these young people into combat, we think they’re mature enough to fight and die. I think they’re mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness.” Mr. McCain, a naval aviator in the Vietnam War who was shot down and imprisoned in Hanoi, then added: “Mr. Secretary, I speak from personal experience.”

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared alongside Mr. Gates and made a personal appeal to the panel. “I’ve been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career,” he said. “I went to war with them aboard a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam. I knew they were there. They knew I knew it. We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target.” Admiral Mullen added: “Should repeal occur, some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some may even quit the service. We’ll deal with that.”

Repeal faces uncertain prospects in the Senate. It is unclear if there are enough Republicans willing to vote for it, and also if there is enough time in the lame-duck Senate before the end of the year.

Both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen made the argument to the committee that the Senate should vote in the next few weeks because delaying would result in a wave of lawsuits and the potential for repeal to be ordered by what Mr. Gates called "judicial fiat”--meaning, he said, that the military would have no time to prepare for the change. "Those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts,” Mr. Gates said.

Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen also spoke against the argument of "not now," voiced by many of the surveyed combat troops, that a time of two wars was not the right moment to impose social change on the force. Admiral Mullen told the committee that he had no expectation that "challenges to our national security are going to diminish in the near future, such that a more convenient time will appear.” Mr. Gates said: "If not now, when? When we’re out of Afghanistan? But who’s to say, as I look ahead in the world, I don’t see the world getting to be a safer, easier place to live in, where our troops are necessarily under less stress.”

The two appeared to be heading off the arguments that are also expected to be advanced in testimony before the panel on Friday by the chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Navy, and the commandant of the Marine Corps. All have expressed reluctance about repeal.

Mr. Gates and Mr. Mullen appeared with the co-authors of a just-released Pentagon report on the effects of repeal on the military: Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the US Army in Europe. The defense and military officials were frequently pressed by Republicans whether it was a good idea to push for repeal when the survey revealed so much resistance among the surveyed combat forces. Mr. Gates at one point bristled at those questions and said that although the military’s opinions were important, it did not get a vote. "I can’t think of a single precedent in American history of doing a referendum of the American armed forces on a policy issue,” Mr. Gates told the panel. "Are you going to ask them if they want 15-month tours? Are you going to ask them if they want to be part of the surge in Iraq? That’s not the way our civilian-led military has ever worked in our entire history. The ‘should’ question is to be decided by the Congress.” When Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, kept pushing the issue, Mr. Gates responded, "I think that in effect doing a referendum of the armed forces on a policy matter is a very dangerous path.”

As usual, no acknowledgment from the opposition of the policy's effects on the morale of gay and lesbian servicemembers, whose service apparently doesn't give them a comparable right to having their "concerns" addressed. The only "real" soldier is a straight male, and everything else is just an extraneous debate about what kind of straight male you wanna be.

Is this McCain, the old man, failing to come to terms with the reality that the culture--even in the military--has changed since his day, or is this McCain, the cynical politician, jockeying for a continued leadership role in the GOP?

[Moonlit_Angel]

I really, truly think McCain needs to just shut up and retire and live his life in Arizona now. I'm so sick to death of hearing his continued "digging in his heels" spheel on this issue. First he needed to know the brass was okay with it. Then he needed a study for proof the soldiers were okay with it. Then the study may be too "biased", whatever that means, so we need to redo it. What's next, McCain? What will it take to finally convince you? Sheesh.

I've been seeing clips of the hearings on TV. It's just completely insane to me that we even have to go through this song and dance to decide something that should not be that hard to decide. Do they want to serve? Do they have the physical/mental qualifications necessary to serve? Yes? THEN LET THEM FUCKING SERVE.

(Pardon my language. Just ticks me off a wee bit)

Angela

[deep]

Scott Brown comes out in favor of DADT repeal
By Greg Sargent

This is potentially important. The statement just out from Senator Scott Brown's office:

"I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. As a legislator, I have spent a significant amount of time on military issues. During my time of service, I have visited our injured troops at Walter Reed and have attended funerals of our fallen heroes. When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.

"I pledged to keep an open mind about the present policy on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary's recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed."

The Plum Line - Scott Brown comes out in favor of DADT repeal

[MrsSpringsteen]

He's for the repeal when they take up tax cuts and the budget-and vote the way he wants them too I guess


Sen. Scott Brown’s ‘seismic’ shift on gays

By Hillary Chabot | Saturday, December 4, 2010 | Home - BostonHerald.com


One of Scott Brown’s earliest and staunchest conservative backers in his long-shot Senate campaign erupted in outrage yesterday after the Republican unexpectedly announced he would support allowing gay troops to serve openly in the military.

“We had a little bit of a seismic shock here today,” said a “disappointed” Massachusetts Family Institute director Kris Mineau, a well-known fixture on Brown’s campaign bus.

Brown, who’s been under pressure from gay rights groups, said he won’t vote to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” until the Senate takes up tax cuts and the budget.

But that qualifier did little to comfort Mineau, who hinted that he’s reconsidering his support of the Wrentham resident.

“Our discussions and communications are continuing, particularly on this issue,” Mineau said. “When Sen. Brown ran for election, he said he would support the current policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ and we agree with that position.”

Brown’s spokeswoman, Gail Gitcho, said Brown changed his tune after President Obama ordered the Pentagon to review the policy. At that point, Brown said he would keep an open mind to its finding, which came out this week.

The Pentagon study found a small minority of troops — about 30 percent — predicted problems if the policy was repealed. The repeal is backed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, the military’s top uniformed officer, and Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

Brown said in a statement yesterday that he came to his decision after speaking with active and retired military service members and meeting privately with Gates.

“When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight,” Brown wrote. “My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.”

The statement marked the first time Brown has publicly expressed support for repeal of the 1993 law.

Brown has faced increasing political pressure on the hot-button topic as Bay State Democrats ramp up for the 2012 election.

“Certainly Sen. Brown has to consider the fact that he’s running again in two years, but I don’t believe this issue should have any bearing on that decision,” Mineau said.

Gay groups yesterday rallied behind Brown.

“We are pleased that Sen. Brown has joined a super-majority of Americans, Massachusetts residents and service members who support an end to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” said Kara Suffredini, executive director of Mass Equality.

“Our position is that this law needs to be repealed not despite the fact that we’re at war, but because of it. Our national security requires all the talent the military can get.”

But even Suffredini was unsure whether she would back Brown come 2012.

“We’ll be looking at many issues, not just ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ when making a decision,” she said.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Brown, who’s been under pressure from gay rights groups, said he won’t vote to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” until the Senate takes up tax cuts and the budget.

Alongside campaign finance reform and term limits, another issue we desperately need to tackle is this incessant need to tack one issue onto bills for something else entirely. First the talk of possibly putting the extension of unemployment benefits onto any legislation that also will extend the tax cuts, now this. It's a trap method, and it's a horrible way to get legislation passed. Why can't the issues be dealt with separately?

Angela

[Bad Ronald]

i don't really have a problem with gays in the military...however most of the military builds on the old foundations of machoism (as well they should, i have 2 sons in the USMC, one currently in Afghanistan)

it is unfortunate this mindset is fostered, i have the utmost respect for anyone who chooses to serve their country, especially in this time of danger and sacrafice......and yet i can see the disruption and problems that could be created at this, a critical time for many

[mobvok]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Alongside campaign finance reform and term limits, another issue we desperately need to tackle is this incessant need to tack one issue onto bills for something else entirely. First the talk of possibly putting the extension of unemployment benefits onto any legislation that also will extend the tax cuts, now this. It's a trap method, and it's a horrible way to get legislation passed. Why can't the issues be dealt with separately?

Angela

Scott Brown is perfectly just to conclude that he won't vote for one issue unless another one is dealt with.

And I am free to judge him for his willingness to continue a policy that he agrees harms the American military, unless the wealthiest Americans have their taxes cut.

Some Democrats apparently believe that in a recession, we shouldn't allow the wealthiest Americans to get massive tax cuts unless the neediest unemployed Americans get relief, too. Some also believe we shouldn't blow up the deficit/debt by extending the Bush tax cuts; without also extracting concessions from Republicans that they won't hold raising the debt ceiling hostage in a few months.

Do you think the problem is with the principle of logrolling, or with which issues certain Senators choose to draw the line on? This Democratic logrolling is aimed at extracting ideological consistency from Republicans. If we end up rewarding the wealthiest, hurting the neediest, and indiscriminately slash government spending by tackling the tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and debt ceiling independently of one another, one should probably stop and consider whether this is actually a worthy principle in the first place.

Of course, I don't know your politics, so you might prefer some of those things.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by mobvok

Scott Brown is perfectly just to conclude that he won't vote for one issue unless another one is dealt with.

And I am free to judge him for his willingness to continue a policy that he agrees harms the American military, unless the wealthiest Americans have their taxes cut.

Some Democrats apparently believe that in a recession, we shouldn't allow the wealthiest Americans to get massive tax cuts unless the neediest unemployed Americans get relief, too. Some also believe we shouldn't blow up the deficit/debt by extending the Bush tax cuts; without also extracting concessions from Republicans that they won't hold raising the debt ceiling hostage in a few months.

This is pretty much how I feel.

Originally Posted by mobvok

Do you think the problem is with the principle of logrolling, or with which issues certain Senators choose to draw the line on? This Democratic logrolling is aimed at extracting ideological consistency from Republicans. If we end up rewarding the wealthiest, hurting the neediest, and indiscriminately slash government spending by tackling the tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and debt ceiling independently of one another, one should probably stop and consider whether this is actually a worthy principle in the first place.

Of course, I don't know your politics, so you might prefer some of those things.

Heh, well, hey, feel free to take a glance around at some of the threads here, then . I'd personally say it's the principle itself. I'm not fond of the idea of using certain issues as part of a game to get what you want from the other side. Like unemployment benefits, how they might get added on to a tax cut extension bill so that the Republicans will be more willing to allow the benefits to extend if it means they'll get their tax cut like they wanted. I hate this because of the fact that it's people's unemployment on the line, and I think it sucks that people's struggles are being used as bait and ploys to let people get what they want. Especially when it means letting the rich get richer (if the Democrats had any backbone they'd say that if the Republicans want people to stop staying on unemployment, further draining the economy, they'd better get their rich buddies to start investing their money into creating jobs here in the U.S., or paying more in taxes so that that money can go into the government and they'll have enough to afford to provide help to those who truly need it. Those are their only choices; should they not comply, then the Democrats will push forward without them), and especially since the Republicans, once they get what they want, will probably find some other reason to cut the benefits down the line again, and we'll have to go through this whole mess again.

And then of course that's something to consider when it comes to attack ads: "Candidate X voted to cut spending for our military". Did they really? Or did they vote for a bill that had something else they wanted, and some defense spending thing was tacked on to it, so by voting for the first part, they unfortunately inadvertently wound up supporting the part that cut the military stuff. If that makes any sense.

I understand the motivation behind such tactics, and sometimes, it can force people to consider what they're voting for or against. But I just hate how it's constantly coming off as a blackmail of sorts, or a, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". It doesn't seem like this tactic does anything for the American people at large, it's just another example of the give and take between the politicians in Washington. The average citizen doesn't have time to sit here and watch politicians play their silly games. They can't afford it.

Angela

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bad Ronald

i don't really have a problem with gays in the military...however most of the military builds on the old foundations of machoism (as well they should, i have 2 sons in the USMC, one currently in Afghanistan)

you should come out with me on a Friday evening in DC, and i'll introduce you to some very macho gay guys who've been marines.

“We Have A Gay Guy. He’s Big, He’s Mean, And He Kills Lots Of Bad Guys. No One Cared That He Was Gay.”

Gays should be able to serve openly says new report

.and yet i can see the disruption and problems that could be created at this, a critical time for many

the overwhelming majority of the military doesn't. perhaps they're tougher than you give them credit for. especially in a time of war. everyone's got something else to worry about. this is the best time for it.

and what no one seems to understand is that many gay soldiers will choose to remain closeted. what this does is remove the knife from their backs whereby someone won't be discharged because he writes a letter to his partner from the field.

[Bad Ronald]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you should come out with me on a Friday evening in DC, and i'll introduce you to some very macho gay guys who've been marines

well i didn't say there weren't macho gay guys.....i said the marine base philosophy doesn't really allow for the acceptance of it.....once again......i have two sons in the marines....one in afghanistan even as we speak...so i get the program

that being said.....if you lure me to the "ramrod' for drinks you're buyin

and who knows.......6 or 8 rum and cokes later.........i might even let you blow me