Oh my: Scott Brown and Susan Collins to vote yes on repealing DADT

posted at 5:33 pm on December 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

That makes 60 votes for cloture, assuming Reid can keep the entire Democratic caucus in line. I’m not aware of any defectors yet but Tester, McCaskill, Ben Nelson and a few other red-state Dems who are up in 2012 will be thinking awfully hard about this vote, needless to say.

Two big qualifiers, though. Collins, at least, is sticking by the GOP’s plan to vote no on everything until a deal is reached on the Bush tax cuts. Brown’s statement doesn’t address the subject, but since he also signed the Republican pledge to make the tax cuts top priority, presumably he’s on the same page. Until something happens on taxes, then, this is all meaningless. Which brings us to the second qualifier: Will there be any time left in the lame duck to address DADT even after a deal on taxes is reached? Durbin announced just within the past hour or so that he expects they’ll bring the DREAM Act to the floor next week. (Gird your loins.) GOP opposition to the START treaty has been softening too, so no doubt Reid’s going to try to take advantage by adding that to the calendar. Between tax cuts, DREAM, and START, will there be any time to take up DADT? If not, and given the fact that DREAM has much less of a chance of passing than the DADT repeal does, doesn’t that mean that Democrats will have completely sold out their last, best chance at achieving a key goal of their gay base for nothing more than a token gesture to Latinos? Rush should talk that up next week. Operation Chaos II!

In the interest of equal time after last night’s post, here’s vid of Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos politely disagreeing with Gates and Mullen about repealing DADT right now. Emphasis on “right now”: He accepts repeal as a fait accompli, he just wants it on hold until the services aren’t under the strain of combat. (See Levin’s response to that.) The heads of the Army and Air Force agree with him, in fact; the only service branch head who favors immediate repeal of DADT is, er, the Navy’s. Exit question: Isn’t the real debate here whether DADT will be lifted by Congress or the courts, not whether it’ll be lifted at all? The Pentagon sure seems to think so.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But committee’s are all that matter.

ClassicCon on December 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM

That makes 60 votes for cloture, assuming Reid can keep the entire Democratic caucus in line. I’m not aware of any defectors yet but Tester, McCaskill, Ben Nelson and a few other red-state Dems who are up in 2012 will be thinking awfully hard about this vote, needless to say.

Judas better just say no. In any event, he won’t be reelected.

OmahaConservative on December 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Ironic, considering the Navy is where it would be most difficult to adapt the new conditions.

But fire away, ‘rats, smash the American people in the face a last few times on your way out the door.

Bishop on December 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM

You know, when we fire people at work… we don’t give em’ important new projects to work on as we escort them out the door. Maybe that’s just a private sector thing.

VastRightWingConspirator on December 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM

the only service branch head who favors immediate repeal of DADT is, er, the Navy’

Apologies to my USN friends, but the jokes just write themeselves…

beancounter on December 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Scott Brown is from MA and should we expect something different?

Kermit on December 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Exit question: Isn’t the real debate here whether DADT will be lifted by Congress or the courts, not whether it’ll be lifted at all?

I think you answered your own question.

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 5:41 PM

the only service branch head who favors immediate repeal of DADT is, er, the Navy’

I’m doing everything in my power to persuade my girlfriend NOT to join the Navy. Any other branch I’d be very supportive. They eat their own, and they’re more politically correct than all the other branches.

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM

She is going to do what she wants to do. Either way, you said she was a liberal… this will knock some conservative in her. In a good way, of course.

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Has anyone else noticed he increase in apocalypse books and movies, and the revival in survivalist web pages? hhh…wonder why that is.

Skandia Recluse on December 3, 2010 at 5:43 PM

So, the Navy is on board. Makes me think of the Village People.

Mason on December 3, 2010 at 5:43 PM

I’m sorry, Mr. CEO, that you have been fired. Please, take two months to totally restructure the entire company before you actually leave…

This is nuts!

UnderstandingisPower on December 3, 2010 at 5:44 PM

the only service branch head who favors immediate repeal of DADT is, er, the Navy’

The Village People agree.

Where can you find pleasure
Search the world for treasure
Learn science technology
Where can you begin to make your dreams all come true
On the land or on the sea
Where can you learn to fly
Play in sports and skin dive
Study oceanography
Sign up for the big band
Or sit in the grandstand
When your team and others meet

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can’t you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

portlandon on December 3, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Skandia Recluse on December 3, 2010 at 5:43 PM

err… I don’t know./// But I can now tie a niffty rope in 50 different knots!

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 5:45 PM

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Ok I should clarify. I’m not being unsupportive if she joins the Navy. If she goes Navy I’ll back her, but I’m trying to talk up the other branches a lot more than that freaking branch. The idea of being in the Navy gives me the willies. Navy brass seems to be the worst brass.

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Everyone seems to assume the Dream Act won’t pass, but what are the new numbers? Who should we be calling?

LASue on December 3, 2010 at 5:48 PM

And the nightmare continues with these a$$hats in DC. Do any of them actually think they should be doing right by the country and say, do a budget?

bluemarlin on December 3, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I heard Manchin is a no.

The logistics of all this are interesting. There is simnply too much on the table and not enough time. I actually dont mind teh DREAM Act vote because its a waste of time. Its not going to pass and kills calender time.

The GOP leaders should drag out the tax debate for no other reason then running days off the calender.

swamp_yankee on December 3, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Ok, if it’s stuck in my head all night I’m not going to be the only one who suffers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

milwife88 on December 3, 2010 at 5:49 PM

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Every branch has it PC element. Unfortunately, it is rampant in all the services. Yeah, maybe more so in the Navy, but you get my point.

What does she want to do? If she wants to spend a lot of time away, then the Navy would be the place. Most Navy fields spend a lot of time at sea. Duh, I know.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Navy brass seems to be the worst brass.

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:45 PM

It seems to go in cycles. When I was in the Army, the brass was grabbing at anyone or anything that could get them to the next level. The Airforce had it’s cycle, when I got out. The Navy seems to be having a longer then usual cycle that seems to be coming to an end…. it will be the Marines next.

Either way, she is going to have to figure it out with any brass.

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Doesn’t Joe Lieberman usually split town a week early for the Jewish holidays?

Why would Dems like Webb, Pryor and Nelson want to stick around for all this crap. I hope one or two splits early too.

swamp_yankee on December 3, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Regardless how it gets repealed, via courts or congress, anybody else want to take a guess on how long before we congress has to appropriate about $100 gazillion bucks to retrofit all the living/showers/bathroom quarters? Here’s a hint, it’ll be shortly after the all lawsuits pop up from both gay soldiers lawyers and non gay soldiers lawyers.

They’re gonna have literally thousands of pages of new conduct/response/accomodation/sensitivity/ rules to fight over too.

Should cluster fark things up enough we won’t have to worry about fighting another war.

What could possibly go wrong?

Tim Zank on December 3, 2010 at 5:51 PM

err… I don’t know./// But I can now tie a niffty rope in 50 different knots!

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 5:45 PM

macramé?

Skandia Recluse on December 3, 2010 at 5:51 PM

You know, when we fire people at work… we don’t give em’ important new projects to work on as we escort them out the door. Maybe that’s just a private sector thing.

VastRightWingConspirator on December 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM

You said it.

Hey, everything can be fixed. We only need the right people who are willing to do the fixing.

JellyToast on December 3, 2010 at 5:52 PM

These people just won`t quit, they could care less what the people want. Someone said it above, when you get fired you are not allowed to hang out and keep working, we are absolutely crazy to let these people still vote on anything!

bluemarlin on December 3, 2010 at 5:53 PM

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:45 PM

My husband is working with the Navy and Marines right now on the F35. He is Air Force and is blown away by all the politics in that specific branch. It’s bad in all branches but he sees it on a daily basis. It’s a nightmare.

milwife88 on December 3, 2010 at 5:54 PM

macramé?

Skandia Recluse on December 3, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Oh come on I am not Conan O’Brien! I didn’t go to India!

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Tim Zank on December 3, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Didn’t the report out the other day, or maybe it was from the Mullen thing yesterday; didn’t they say they weren’t going to worry about all of that? Mulllen said “they’d deal with it”. Pretty vague.

But as you say, the lawsuits won’t end with repeal. That will just be the beginning of all the bullspit.

And to use the Navy vernacular, the Pentagon should tell the Courts to take a long walk off a short pier. They do not dictate military policy.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 5:56 PM

milwife88 on December 3, 2010 at 5:54 PM

the village people started it. When you have them to back you up for spokesmen, you get a little PC crazy too.

I KID!

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 5:56 PM

milwife88 on December 3, 2010 at 5:54 PM

I’ll admit I’m biased. My dad flew for the USAF and I always remember hearing over the last few years:

The AF sticks by their own!

Then I see the way the Navy treated their soldiers in various “scandals” and I began to synthesize and understand that statement.

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Spineless weasels.

jawkneemusic on December 3, 2010 at 5:57 PM

The only reason the brass are afraid of the courts interfering is because the courts don’t fund the military. I just don’t believe that there is not some outside powerful influence driving the debate over DADT.

fourdeucer on December 3, 2010 at 6:02 PM

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:57 PM

The AF has it’s problems, don’t get me wrong. The problem we face right now in our situation is the blended services. My husband is AF, he has 13 Marines working for him. His commander is a Marine. He also works with the Navy members that are here as well. Three different variants of jets and 3 very different ways of doing things. It’s awful. The Marine commander expects everyone to do things the Marine way and the Navy guys are just glad to be on dry land. It’s a constant battle and Navy Brass has always been Navy Brass, that will not change.

milwife88 on December 3, 2010 at 6:03 PM

I’m proud of the Marine Corps Commandant. Makes me proud that the one that has enough guts not to play the PC game is a fellow Marine.

He isn’t there waiting for a pat on the head by a left-wing media. He is politely telling what he believes is best for his troops.

Semper Fi.

TiminPhx on December 3, 2010 at 6:04 PM

in fact; the only service branch head who favors immediate repeal of DADT is, er, the Navy’s

Which just recently put women on submarines.

BTW, Why are women banned from combat?

Here is a guy at Frum Forum saying that ban should be ended…

http://www.frumforum.com/drop-the-ban-on-women-in-combat

And here is the UK keeping the ban on women being on the frontline of combat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/29/women-combat-ban-remains

ninjapirate on December 3, 2010 at 6:04 PM

I’m glad the Senate has taken up this issue at this time as this is the most pressing issue facing this nation at the moment.

/s

PS: Anybody really surprised by this vote?

mankai on December 3, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Exit question: Isn’t the real debate here whether DADT will be lifted by Congress or the courts, not whether it’ll be lifted at all? The Pentagon sure seems to think so.

Absolutely. DADT most certainly will be repealed…either now, or in a few years tops. And it’s about time. Our military will be able to handle it just like all the other militaries in the world where gays can serve openly.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Don’t care who votes for or against it. Nobody’s winning or losing an election on a vote on DADT.

jimmy the notable on December 3, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Then I see the way the Navy treated their soldiers in various “scandals” and I began to synthesize and understand that statement.

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Believe it. We call it “eating their young,” when referring to SWOs. With the exception of naval aviation, the “shoe” mentality reigns.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Believe it. We call it “eating their young,” w

took the phrase right out me mouth

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 6:08 PM

ninjapirate on December 3, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Yeah, nothing like pointing out the illusion of equality. And it is an illusion, at least in the military.

Females have separate standards for everything, including exemption from combat service.

But we must repeal DADT to be inclusive and give gays the equality they deserve.

All or none. I’m for it! Sh!t or get off the pot as I’ve been saying. One standard or no standard. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Our military will be able to handle it just like all the other militaries in the world where gays can serve openly.

We should also drop the women in combat ban.

http://www.frumforum.com/drop-the-ban-on-women-in-combat

ninjapirate on December 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Has anyone else noticed he increase in apocalypse books and movies, and the revival in survivalist web pages? hhh…wonder why that is.

Skandia Recluse on December 3, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Because of gay people?

tneloms on December 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM

BTW, Israel, Denmark and the Netherlands allow women in combat… we should to.

ninjapirate on December 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Does this really warrant an “oh my?” They are from Massachusetts and Maine respectively. How else would they vote?

This vote really is not a pressing matter IMO. A fat lot of good it will do to have repealed it (or not) if the country collapses into the ash heap of history. These people need to keep their collective eye on the big debt ball.

NoLeftTurn on December 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM

ninjapirate on December 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM

One question… what do you do when they are menstrating?

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM

But as you say, the lawsuits won’t end with repeal. That will just be the beginning of all the bullspit.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Oh it’ll be a game changer. This isn’t like just “accepting” the fact some of your fellow soldiers might be gay. The gay “community” (pardon the pun that follows) is going to make a full blown “production” of it.
This will not be a “quiet” melding of cultures, it’s going to be a loud and proud extravaganza. You’ll see things pop up like the “Gay Military Caucus” and other special designations etc….

Not to mention the running joke about all branches (as you’ll note the giggles about the navy & the village people)will be if you’re gay, it’s the place to be. It’s gonna do wonders for morale too.

Mark my words, this is fraught with lots and lots of unintended consequences.

Tim Zank on December 3, 2010 at 6:15 PM

ninjapirate on December 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM

One question… what do you do when they are menstrating?

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Who cares?

Its time all of this social engineering claptrap got thrown back in the faces of the progressives.

Woman can do anything a man can as they say, so remove the combat restrictions. It’s that time of the month? To damn bad.

I don’t mean to be crass, but i’m sick of this crap.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Well that promise came with an expiration didn’t it.

Yes it’s crap, dishonorable crap weasels.

tarpon on December 3, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Not to mention the running joke about all branches (as you’ll note the giggles about the navy & the village people)will be if you’re gay, it’s the place to be. It’s gonna do wonders for morale too.

Mark my words, this is fraught with lots and lots of unintended consequences.

Tim Zank on December 3, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Making a joke containing the Village people and any snickers about the Navy and ‘gayness’ will also be verboten.

We get a kick out of it now. Hell, we did when I was in the service. But once the change is made, those kinds of things will be grounds for an EEO complaint from someone with a chip on their shoulder.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:18 PM

It’s that time of the month? To damn bad.

I don’t mean to be crass, but i’m sick of this crap.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:15 PM

LOL. This is a problem even in the israeli army. Not horribly bad, but can become that way.

Unless you want to hand over a shirt because someone forgot to bring something in for that “time”. I know that was wrong.. but I don’t care.

Just like cigarettes in the sand box.

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 6:20 PM

But once the change is made, those kinds of things will be grounds for an EEO complaint from someone with a chip on their shoulder.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:18 PM

You said it. One unattended wince when you see a couple holding hands and stand by for the investigation.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:20 PM

ninjapirate on December 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM

If you have women on the frontline, casualties will rise because everybody will be trying to defend them (even if they don’t need defending).

portlandon on December 3, 2010 at 6:21 PM

DREAM

START

DADT

= Nightmare

but we’ll se which squishy Republicans cave, and need to be replaced.

pseudonominus on December 3, 2010 at 6:21 PM

You said it. One unattended wince when you see a couple holding hands and stand by for the investigation.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:20 PM

This is based on…what exactly? It’s highly doubtful that a gay serviceman, who volunteers to fight and possible die for his country he loves, would use a repeal of DADT to file complaints.

Come on now.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:24 PM

portlandon on December 3, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Physically, women aren’t built to carry the same loads as men.

Men’s strength is in their shoulders, chests, abs, and backs.

Women? Hips and legs. Call me sexist, do it!

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 6:25 PM

This is based on…what exactly?

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:24 PM

It’s based on experience, JB.

One time I had to officiate an investigation because some dumbass cracked a joke about sending someone to the “back of the bus.” He never intended the comment as a racial slur, but we had to investigate it anyway.

I’m not looking forward to any of this.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Not to beat a dead horse:

Once a female becomes pregnant, they are pretty much ineffective for most military duties for upwards of twelve months. They can’t deploy. They can’t do most day to day stuff. Around the second trimester, they get light duty prescribed by the docs and can’t be counted on for day to day duty rotations, even for administrative stuff. Once they it the third trimester, forget it. They can’t be used for most stuff and are on half-days by this time.

If we’re talking about equality, then a pregnant female should be placed before a discharge board. I saw many a guy go before them due to problems with injuries sustained in the line of duty and subsequent surgeries.

Hell, I had to go before one when I was diagnosed with melanoma back in 1998. I had a small 5cm tumor removed from my left leg. It took three months to get past all the paperwork, boards and what not. A female gets pregnant and is basically day-to-day ineffective for upwards of a year and – crickets.

I don’t mean to belabor the point, but all this talk of standards and what not has just got me riled up.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:28 PM

volunteers to fight and possible die for his country he loves, would use a repeal of DADT to file complaints.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:24 PM

By the way, you might just have a smidgen of rosy-colored glasses when it comes to what a junior enlisted guy will or will not do, regardless of his or her “patriotism.”

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM

It’s based on experience, JB.

One time I had to officiate an investigation because some dumbass cracked a joke about sending someone to the “back of the bus.” He never intended the comment as a racial slur, but we had to investigate it anyway.

I’m not looking forward to any of this.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Perhaps…but race and sexual orientation are two different things.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM

…just like all the other militaries in the world where gays can serve openly.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Remind me… which of these military powers have a military like the US?

Not that I care too much about DADT, but pointing to the world’s sorry military forces… especially to the military shells in Europe… isn’t much of an argument.

mankai on December 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM

All branches of the service have a large degree of PC crap nowadays. I left the Navy in ’92 and my wife left a few years later. Around ’95 the decline in all branches began.

My brother-in-law is almost at 20 in the Army and he will tell you that DADT would be tough for them. The Navy? Not so much AFAIK. When I was in, everyone knew gays. We just didn’t talk about it. I met very, very few homophobes.

BierManVA on December 3, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Women? Hips and legs. Call me sexist, do it!

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 6:25 PM

why? it’s true.

Husband hate it too. *grins*

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Perhaps…but race and sexual orientation are two different things.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Ah. Now we’re getting somewhere…

People are people, JB. If they think they can “get one over on the man” they certainly will try, or at least my experience has shown me such.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM

I don’t mean to belabor the point, but all this talk of standards and what not has just got me riled up.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:28 PM

cat, don’t freak. I agree.. pregnancy should be avoided. But than you have those types. Ugh.

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Trannies next.

slickwillie2001 on December 3, 2010 at 6:35 PM

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 6:33 PM

the things i could turn that into

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM

This is based on…what exactly?

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:24 PM

It’s based on experience, JB.

One time I had to officiate an investigation because some dumbass cracked a joke about sending someone to the “back of the bus.” He never intended the comment as a racial slur, but we had to investigate it anyway.

I’m not looking forward to any of this.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:27 PM

I was investigated for telling a African-American subordinate to go home and change their uniform since they had to much ‘product’ in their hair and it had dripped onto and effective soaked their blue shirt collar. I brought it to the attention of my supervisor and superintendent who concurred. I was charged with being racially insensitive.

I was pulled before my First Sgt and Commander, told what the deal was and had to spend a majority of the next week at the EEO office, writing statements, answering questions, taking surveys, etc. My supervisor (a GS-10 who was black) and my superintendent (a Senior Master Sergeant, E8) had to step in (with top cover from my CO and 1st Sgt) to end the stupidity

I don’t make these statements lightly.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Since both Brown and Collins served in the military, I’ll respect their opinions.

tgillian on December 3, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Perhaps…but race and sexual orientation are two different things.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Yes. Perhaps someone should advise many DADT repeal advocates of that and quite using civil rights as a justification.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:39 PM

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM

I just don’t think I could deal with that in the military. Then again, I’m looking for employment at intel agencies, and they are NOT any better. Hell, they might be worse.

Maybe I’ll finish up my business and go translate for Blackwater instead.

blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 6:40 PM

I don’t make these statements lightly.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM

I was the EO officer at my first command as a zero, catm – I get it.

For what it’s worth, those things wer epainful for me, too, especially when you could tell it was BS.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:41 PM

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:05 PM

The “just like other countries” argument doesn’t hold. Name one other country that allows gays to serve openly that doesn’t rely on the US to augment it’s own defense?

It’s one thing to have a military as a show pony, and another thing to be the world’s protector.

BKeyser on December 3, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Trannies next.

slickwillie2001 on December 3, 2010 at 6:35 PM

I chuckled at that for about a second, but you know it’ll be the next natural step. And I’ll guarantee the taxpayers will have to pay for sex change operations for transgender soldiers. (I assume you meant trans-sexuals not transvestites)

Tim Zank on December 3, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Then again, I’m looking for employment at intel agencies, and they are NOT any better. Hell, they might be worse.
blatantblue on December 3, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Haliburton, Sperry Sun (a div of Hali), ENI and Chevron are always looking for translators for their companies. Just a thought.

upinak on December 3, 2010 at 6:43 PM

how about a brigade of lesbians in flannel? that would make a grown man die of fright (see if this posts)

right4life on December 3, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:41 PM

I know. One of the EO folks knew it was BS. But that’s part of the problem with the system. No one can make a judgement call.

Everyone from my CO on down knew this was BS. The EEO knew it was BS. The subordinate making the claim knew it was BS. But Instead of things being the way they ‘used’ to be, no one just told the subordinate just trying to make waves to stuff it.

Of course this was a result of “the good ole boy system” where people took care of things and did sweep legitimate issues under the rug at points in the past. but the military STILL has not found much of a happy medium in this area IMO.

The same thing will happen with homosexuals. It will. Wishing it won’t isn’t an argument and saying it won’t contrary to much of the experience of many of us who spent decades in the military isn’t logical.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:49 PM

The “just like other countries” argument doesn’t hold. Name one other country that allows gays to serve openly that doesn’t rely on the US to augment it’s own defense?

Israel.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:51 PM

As far as standards go (and I’m being a bit cheeky with this one):

What type of standards will be given to an effeminate male? Male or female?

Yes, there are effeminate men now, but they don’t have an ‘excuse’. Once the ban is lifted and DADT is repealed, then what? What if the man tells his bosses he’s really a woman trapped in a mans body and it wouldn’t be fair to hold him to male standards?

And the transexual bit isn’t a joke, it will happen too. Then what?

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 6:55 PM

They can’t do most day to day stuff. Around the second trimester, they get light duty prescribed by the docs and can’t be counted on for day to day duty rotations, even for administrative stuff. Once they it the third trimester, forget it. They can’t be used for most stuff and are on half-days by this time.

Wow, they treat them that easy? Where I worked I was on “light duty” in my civilian manual labor job, but I was still doing food prep, dishwashing, driving, and record keeping for 8+ hours/day until the day I went into labor. Never missed a day of work except when I had the flu.

juliesa on December 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM

no one just told the subordinate just trying to make waves to stuff it.

And this, JetBoy, is one of the unintended consequences of repeal. This isn’t even one of the potentially violent issues we’ll have to deal with, either.

But, once again, instead of authority being delegated to lower levels, we’ll have rules from on high which will preclude decision-making and authority being granted at the proper levels.

Interesting how this mirrors conservative thought and our shared concerns about government intervention in our lives, no?

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Fail.

Israel’s military is conscripted. Are you suggesting the US follow that policy?

BKeyser on December 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM

People are people, JB. If they think they can “get one over on the man” they certainly will try, or at least my experience has shown me such.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Don’t you see what you’re doing?

You’re saying that gays will bring up frivolous complaints, leading to investigation, based on your experience with another group of people entirely.

What needs to be done is to find a way to reduce or eliminate these ridiculous complaints, not to keep gays in the closet.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Israel.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:51 PM

We may find out soon enough how much Israel actually depends on the US for defense.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 7:00 PM

And are some of you’s really suggesting that other “lesser” militaries in the world are “second rate” because they allow gays to serve openly?

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 7:02 PM

What needs to be done is to find a way to reduce or eliminate these ridiculous complaints, not to keep gays in the closet.

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:59 PM

While I agree with you, I’m certain that this change in policy will not reduce frivolous complaint. On the contrary, I’m convinced we’ll see more frivolous complaints, in addition to the potential violent issues we’ll have to deal with.

Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 7:03 PM

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 7:02 PM

I’m suggesting that the lesser militaries of the world can be more cavalier with their discipline considering they don’t rely on their own military to defend their nation- they rely on the professionalism and strength of the United States Military.

The fact is that when gays are allowed to serve openly, a number of gays will enlist that otherwise wouldn’t have. They will enlist because they can put their own personal agenda at a level higher than that of the military’s. They will serve only under a pre-condition and will therefore be lesser soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. They will effectively degrade our Armed Forces to a measurable degree.

Can it be overcome? I suspect that it can, but why? Why enact a policy that will lessen the strength of the world’s greatest force for good? Why create a policy that bows to a vast minority when the effect of the policy will be negative?

BKeyser on December 3, 2010 at 7:12 PM

the only service branch head who favors immediate repeal of DADT is, er, the Navy’

Apologies to my USN friends, but the jokes just write themeselves…

beancounter on December 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Are they really that sold on snorkeling?

onlineanalyst on December 3, 2010 at 7:13 PM

And are some of you’s really suggesting that other “lesser” militaries in the world are “second rate” because they allow gays to serve openly?

JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 7:02 PM

They are second rate cause their troops are garrison soldiers who don’t have difficult and realistic feild exercises in their home countries cause it’s to expensive and rarely deploy.

To be blunt many don’t have our warrior ethos.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/Prep_For_Basic_Training/Prep_for_basic_general_information/the-soldiers-creed.shtml

warren on December 3, 2010 at 7:14 PM

I think the sooner DADT is repealed the better for Republicans. This is not a winning issue and the battle’s essentially lost already with the court ruling from a couple of months ago.

The sooner it’s repealed, the sooner we’ll be able to all rejoice in the inevitable stories that will follow about how wonderfully it’s working out. And who knows? Maybe it will. We’ll certainly never know about it if it doesn’t.

Bennett on December 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Isn’t the real debate here whether DADT will be lifted by Congress or the courts, not whether it’ll be lifted at all?

Begging the question what we have Congress for. It’s a really expensive institution, after all. If the courts are going to make all our laws for us, it seems like we could dispense with the annoyance of “Congress” altogether.

J.E. Dyer on December 3, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Can’t blame Brown and Collins. Their constituencies are pretty much in favor of repeal. It is hard to demand that Congress listen to constituents on health care and taxes but then say ignore them on DADT.

The Opinionator on December 3, 2010 at 7:21 PM

The sooner it’s repealed, the sooner we’ll be able to all rejoice in the inevitable stories that will follow about how wonderfully it’s working out. And who knows? Maybe it will. We’ll certainly never know about it if it doesn’t.

Bennett on December 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM

If the DoD “unexpectedly” starts up Stop Loss in its combat arms units in about a year you will have your answer.

warren on December 3, 2010 at 7:23 PM

the only service branch head who favors immediate repeal of DADT is, er, the Navy’s

Go figure. And just where do you think the expression ‘pogey bait’ came from?

GarandFan on December 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM

People are people, JB. If they think they can “get one over on the man” they certainly will try, or at least my experience has shown me such.
Otis B on December 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Don’t you see what you’re doing?
You’re saying that gays will bring up frivolous complaints, leading to investigation, based on your experience with another group of people entirely.
What needs to be done is to find a way to reduce or eliminate these ridiculous complaints, not to keep gays in the closet.
JetBoy on December 3, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Wasn’t that DADT?

As always 95% of the gays serving will be zero problem

it is the activist mindset that will push the envelope and see how far they can go and when confronted will make a big stink for sure

they equate themselves as some pioneer and see themselves as bigger than what they have joined.

There are limits for good reason

will it be okay to have transvestites wearing opposite sex uniforms?

It all brings about extra costs and politics when the real point is that they are their to defend the US and kill the enemy

unifomity, not individuality is for a reason

Sonosam on December 3, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Begging the question what we have Congress for. It’s a really expensive institution, after all. If the courts are going to make all our laws for us, it seems like we could dispense with the annoyance of “Congress” altogether.

J.E. Dyer on December 3, 2010 at 7:20 PM

right JE.

Have you seen the new Federal Court Medal of Honor? When will the Federal Court issue next years Military Pay schedules? I wonder if BAH will go up, only if the federal court judge rules on it, right?

ted c on December 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Time to buy up the rights to Village People songs since, per the CNO, the Squids and Coasties, are down with repeal. Given the Marine position, could be “interesting” when they are embarked (is that the right terminology>>>>I’m Army).

Dingbat63 on December 3, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2