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

I’ve answered JetBoy’s question at least a dozen times, but will do so once more. The reason it won’t work to have open homosexuals in the US military is that in the US, gay advocacy groups can and will use that as a foot in the door to sue over a laundry list of contrived social-grievance situations, most of which will be politicized misrepresentations of reality.

Try that in the militaries of virtually every other country and you’ll get no traction and no hearing. Just as one example: of COURSE homosexuality is a different discipline problem from heterosexuality. Heterosexuals don’t bunk and shower together. Military commanders should, of COURSE, be able to subject homosexual indiscipline to different, perfectly realistic rules. Circumstances demand it.

But it’s 100% guaranteed that gay advocacy groups will be slapping lawsuits on the military for unequal application of the rules because of this common-sense reality. And as Judge Phillips just demonstrated a few weeks ago, lawsuits like this will get a hearing in federal court.

Military leaders, if allowed to do their jobs, could handle a good 98% of the problems that might arise. But they will have the courts — and therefore the top-level civilians in the Pentagon — breathing down their necks on every unit-discipline issue. They will also have the joy of dealing with a list of social-policy issues they are spared from having to spend time on now. All of this will detract from military readiness without conferring any net benefit on it.

I have also said repeatedly that most gays don’t want to be star plaintiffs in idiotic lawsuits. But it only takes a few. The advocacy groups are already preparing the lawsuits. There is zero utility in saying we should somehow figure out a way to prevent the lawsuits, but we must, simply must, go ahead with repealing DADT. Figure out how to prevent the lawsuits first. Then repeal DADT.

J.E. Dyer on December 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

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

Yes.

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 8:00 PM

@J.E. Dyer well I’ll give you that your fears are very loud, but not very realistic. If you had followed any of the DADT cases you wold have found that the bar simply for bringing the cases was incredibly high and each were rejected out of the door for several reasons, it was only after proving both standing and pressing civil rights abuse that the cases were allowed to proceed. So no civil rights cases will not flood the courts and officers will not be worried about treating gays differently. In fact the whole purpose of this change is that right now gays doing the same job with distinction are be treated differently at great cost of time, money and personal to the military as a whole. Gay military members (and I have known many) just want the witch hunts, the forced outings, and the constant suspicion to end. Gays learn very quickly that dating or hitting on straights is doomed (that’s one of the reasons that gay bars exists, it’s nice to go somewhere in which people can meet where you don’t have to wonder the whole if they are gay)
The social problems that each commander deals with isn’t lessened by keeping DADT in fact it exacerbates them by not allowing them to get the bottom of problems with members of their staff or unit. IF you can’t ask someone what is going on, it’s a lot harder to help them!
Gays are not predators by nature, they are no different than you, I played the silly pronoun game for years switching he for she, letting people believe what they wanted, but the problems and joys i faced were EXACTLY THE SAME! my coworkers are always laughing when i tell them my dating woes, because they’ve been there, they think it’s hilarious that we all have to deal with the same problems despite who we love.
So I ask you as a fellow citizen, please help ease the burden on the brave men and women who volunteer to fight and die for us, and let them have the simple dignity of truth. Let them call their loved ones, let them put their spouses on their notification forms, let them not have to hide in the shadows wearing a mask so that others can pretend they don’t exist. It’s not right, it’s not fair, it’s not moral and it goes against the simple principals of liberty and truth they fight for.

Zekecorlain on December 3, 2010 at 8:17 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


Umm, that would be the marines. Pogey sounded like the Chinese word for prostitute, and the marines would use the candy from their rations to “negotiate” with “merchants”.

mauioriginal on December 3, 2010 at 8:23 PM

JetBoy,

Israel has 5 million citizens with about 1 billion people trying to kill them. They have no choice but to allow women, gays and anyone else with a pulse and the ability to shoot a gun serve. They don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing like we do.

angryed on December 3, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Zekecorlain on December 3, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Drama much? You clearly have no idea what is really happening in the services and are only spouting the gay agenda talking points. Gays being discharged other than honorably have failed as service members, and not solely as a result of their sexual orientation. Believing this is to believe the testimony of every defendant over every prosecutor.

BKeyser on December 3, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Jet Blue flight attendant come to mind?

Dingbat63 on December 3, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Zekecorlain on December 3, 2010 at 8:17 PM

You could substitute adulterer or thief or even murderer for your comment and all of it would fit. Which is the problem with it – it’s based on talking point babble and myth.

Witch hunts? Really? Where? Under DADT homosexuals are not targeted. They can only be prosecuted for violating the law, as anyone else who violates the law is prosecuted.

Forced outings? Where? How is the military forcing anyone out – of the service or the closet? The military isn’t looking for you! If you out yourself, then how is that the military’s fault? And if you get booted for violating the law, how is that unfair?

Constant suspicion? Where? Are you stating homosexuals are being stalked and specifically targeted? Where? And if they were, then the person/people doing it would also be in violation of the law.

I spent 22 years on the Air Force. I was stationed at five different bases in four different MAJCOMS. I worked in three different career fields in over a dozen different specialties. I was a supervisor, a trainer, a teacher, an instructor, a superintendent, team chief, flight chief. I spent five years in the military prior to DADT and the rest of my time under it. I worked with thousands. I trained tens of thousands of basic trainees. In all of my experience, in all of my time, I only knew one person who was gay.

He was STEP promoted some years back. A few years later, he outed himself because a civilian business opportunity arose. He was not investigated nor were secretive packs of unknown assailants tracking his every move just waiting for the moment to out him and destroy his life. He outed himself. He took a rare STEP promotion, he took the trust of his chain of command and that of his subordinates and stepped all over it for no reason other than personal selfishness. He ended his military career the cowards way, frankly instead of ending his enlistment period honorably

But it didn’t matter to anyone that he was a bit effeminate. I thought his penchant for hand cream was a bit weird, but so what? There was no witch hunt. No secret investigatory homo squads.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If you can’t keep your sexual proclivities to yourself; if your sexual identity is so much a part of who you are that you feel the service must openly accept and endorse it, then perhaps military service isn’t for you anyway. We aren’t looking for people who are that self-centered. You go in the service knowing up front what the standards are. Its no secret. So are homosexuals masochists? If you go in, up front, in fact VOLUNTEER as you yourself stated, knowing what to expect, how the hell can you later cry foul?

catmman on December 3, 2010 at 9:12 PM

‘In The Navy’. Pretty soon they’ll all be known as seafood.

MaiDee on December 3, 2010 at 9:16 PM

The reason it won’t work to have open homosexuals in the US military is that in the US, gay advocacy groups can and will use that as a foot in the door to sue over a laundry list of contrived social-grievance situations, most of which will be politicized misrepresentations of reality.

JE Dyer

yes. i agree.

ted c on December 3, 2010 at 10:02 PM

This is why moderate/RINOs/Rockefeller/Country Club Repubs must go. There is no legitimate reason to replace DADT. Gays can frequent gay bars while on liberty, just the same as heterosexuals can frequent the bordeloes. We all have/had to live with military rules that inconvenienced us personally. That goes with the job. If they don’t like DADT then don’t join.

JimP on December 3, 2010 at 10:05 PM

The Conservative Movement has to rid itself of the out and out Trojan Horses that claim to be on our side and then do everything nearly lock step with the most liberal-minded parts of our society.

hawkdriver on December 3, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Mmm. I’m not military, but things like this – DADT – should be the decision of the military. I don’t know the ins and outs of military combat and what sort of camaraderie works in that situation.

Why’s some schlub like Kay Hagan voting on this? What does she know about being in a foxhole?

Can’t the military just take a vote? I’m not kidding.

citrus on December 3, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Military Science 101

LIFE…

ISN’T…

FAIR…

ebrown2 on December 3, 2010 at 11:29 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

JetBoy, you are such a card! You should really become a professional comedian. How you can say such naive horse-hooey as if you really believe it!

Umm, …wait…

You actually -do- claim to believe it?

Let me put it this way, DADT exists for PRECISELY the reason that you mention, namely to stop barracks lawyers and punk traitors like Bradley Manning from infesting the service.

ebrown2 on December 3, 2010 at 11:30 PM

Hey, isn’t there a rule about voting on controversial issues in the “lame-duck” session of congress?
Does it bother anyone that senators and congressmen have a vote even though they have lost an election? These after election sessions should be canceled, or the new members sworn in immediately after the election.

JeffVader on December 4, 2010 at 2:34 AM

Oh, and I’ll have to add, Glenn Beck was right about this Scott Brown fella! I remember when just about everyone here on HA were saying Brown was our next president! That he was God’s gift to the Republican party! Beck had his reservations and all you folks were ready to crucify Glenn. This vote, FinReg, and FoodReg. Clearly he’s not a conservative. He’s a big government Republican.

JeffVader on December 4, 2010 at 2:47 AM

JeffVader on December 4, 2010 at 2:47 AM

I never expected him to be anything but vote 41 against ObamaCare.

ladyingray on December 4, 2010 at 10:13 AM

To support the gay agenda is to support Marxism. That simple. The gay movement is just like the NAACP, marxist controlled and financed.

Letting the fox in the henhouse again.

True_King on December 4, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Tester can’t think hard.

Kissmygrits on December 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM

There really is compromise to be had on this subject.

Keep DADT for the first hitch. After that, allow homosexuals to “come out”. It’s really the first hitch, when you’re dealing with 18-19 year old, living in close quarter, and learning military discipline where the problems are likely to crop up. After the first hitch, everybody knows the command structure, has made a choice to stay in it, and has grown up a little bit.

I don’t think right that career personnel should have to hide who they are for decades in order to serve. But I also don’t think it’s right for ANYONE to be subjected to being ogled as a sexual object. So… certain levels of privacy should be maintained in situations where nudity can be expected. I think it’s fair to bar openly homosexual career personnel from certain career paths where there’s a conflict.

Setting down clear rules of conduct BEFORE conflict can happen would go a long way toward addressing J.E. Dyer’s concerns about litigation. And a system in which the first hitch still operates under DADT can smooth tempers as well as weed out the kooks.

Murf76 on December 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Israel has 5 million citizens with about 1 billion people trying to kill them. They have no choice but to allow women, gays and anyone else with a pulse and the ability to shoot a gun serve. They don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing like we do.

And yet, despite Israel’s oh-so-desperate inclusion of these many apparent misfits, their armed forces are among the best in the world. Go figure.

I honestly have to wonder how many members of the military really worry about this. Particularly among those younger recruits who’ve been living life with openly gay classmates and friends for many years now. I suspect that most simply do not care about who the man or woman next to them prefers to sleep with.

GalosGann on December 4, 2010 at 12:57 PM

@catmman you know I was almost taking you serious untilk you came to the “I’ve only ever known one gay in all my career” line. The truth is that at least 3-5% OF THE MILITARY POPULATION IS GAY. So you didn’t know just one, you knew dozens and they just didn’t tell you, but the price for your ignorance is that each one of them had to lie to you for your entire career. Which of your good friends is it? which one do you trust implictly but has been feeding you lies for years? Why should they? they served so well that you never knew. But did you really need the lie?
Also don’t give me the crap about no witch hunts and go read about them if you will, http://outserve.org/stories/ Witt alone proves your wrong and that is in the airforce, traditionally one of the most gay friendly forces.
But regardless of that, what gives you the right to deny them contact with their loved ones as basic as putting them on their contact list in case of death or injury? What gives you the right to deny them a goodbye or a greeting when they ship out or come home? Are your feelings so sensitive that you can’t even see two guy hold hands or hug without having a mental breakdown?
So basically go cry me a river, at least @Murf76 has a decent idea of compromise. It’s not in anyway a normal way to treat your fellow soldier whose volunteered to be on your flank and catch bullets for you but at least it gives a way out of the closet to those who try to make the military a career.

Zekecorlain on December 4, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Zekecorlain on December 4, 2010 at 3:30 PM

As with everything else, you don’t get the point.

At least 3-5% of the

general population

is gay, not the military population. The military gay population would be smaller than that

I only knew one person to be gay. That ultimately was because he outed himself. Maybe I did know dozens, but I didn’t know they were gay. Know why? Because they kept their private life to themselves. Know what else? I kept my private life to myself. Somehow I (and millions of others) managed to get through the day without destroying our pysche.

What difference does it make? I didn’t have any close friends who were gay. If I did, man, they really do the undercover bit well. And lying to me would be the least of their problems since they had been lying to their spouses and or children for many years before I got to know them.

Anyway. A few people getting booted for homosexuality does not disprove there aren’t any witch hunts for gays. Most gays (under DADT) get booted because they out themselves – not because of any sooper sekrit homo hunting squads whose sole mission is to destroy the lives of gays. A certain percentage of those also get tossed simply because they want out of the service, for whatever reason. They aren’t gay, yet would be counted as such statistically.

As far as I know, gays can put anyone they wish on their notification of next of kin in case of death. They can also name anyone they wish as beneficiaries on the SGLI. They can also have anyone they wish send them off if they get deployed. I’ve seen men and woman hug members of the same sex before. Or is it their right to engage in unacceptable PDA which is even frowned upon for straight soldiers in uniform? Did you know that airman (I’m not sure about the other services) are forbidden to engage in PDA (public displays of affection) to anyone while they are in uniform and while in basic and technical training? Even I, as an E7 couldn’t walk around base holding my wife’s hand while I was in uniform.

You know, getting lectured to by one who has nothing but contempt for the military is rich. Maybe I’m just part of the group who is too stupid to know better than join the military just to climb the social ladder? You don’t think the military is a real job anyway, right? So why would you want to subject homosexuals to such a life of social privation?

You lost any possible credibility you had in this debate when you resorted to attacks on the service and admitted your true feelings about it, which, I propose, is why you’ve got such a burr up your backside.

Deep down you know your not good enough for military service. You don’t have what it takes. You could not control your own baser impulses, so you and others like you get back the best way you can – by trying to turn the argument to civil rights. It doesn’t matter that every time your arguments are refuted, that every time someone like me with not inconsiderable amounts of actual experience over many decades in many different situations over all the service branches in and out of combat, none of that matters, when we tell you what actually happens or will happen. It doesn’t matter to you. You don’t even make a pretense of it mattering. All you want is what you want.

Its funny you mention another commenters suggestion of compromise. DADT was a compromise and you don’t want it. Compromise isn’t what you want. You want complete acceptance. You want complete acquiescence. When you don’t get it, you stomp around like a spoiled child.

You can’t fathom that something exists (the military) which doesn’t cater to your blind egoism. That there is something greater, there should be something greater, of more import than your damnable sensibilities.

We should all bow before you and your ilk – those who have never stood a post, taken fire, returned fire, suffered real privation, spent decades sacrificing – all in the name of Service.

Well, fine. I’m not in anymore (not that it mattered to you anyway). Do what you will. Believe what you will. Have your fun. Wait, you won’t because you didn’t have the balls to join.

catmman on December 4, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Zekecorlain on December 4, 2010 at 3:30 PM

I’m not trying to be insensitive by recommending that DADT stay in place through the first hitch. I understand your point, but at the same time… I remember the 18 year-old I once was too. Vividly. lol

When I was enlisted, it was before DADT, and of course there most definitely were gay personnel. But hot-headed and as poor in judgment as I was in those days, it wouldn’t have done for one of them to eyeball me in the shower. There’d have been a fight for sure. But fortunately, I didn’t know who was who until much later, and by then we’d all become friends and were in military reliance upon one another.

Fact is… the neofrontal cortex of the brain, where the judgment center resides, isn’t fully mature until about age 25 anyway. Until then, even though they’re toting guns… they’re essentially kids. Allowing time for physiological maturity as well as military conditioning would be advantageous for preventing disciplinary problems and developing unit cohesion.

To be honest, I don’t think ANYONE should be deprived of long-lasting, committed relationships. But I also don’t think the military should be encouraging them in the first hitch, not to homosexuals and not to heterosexuals.

It’s best to wait for true maturity no matter who you are. And Love can mess up a military career faster than anything I can think of. So, while I don’t think its right to say young people can’t get involved… I don’t think the military should necessarily make a whole lot of accommodation for them in the beginning of their careers either.

Murf76 on December 4, 2010 at 5:42 PM

@murf76 I understand your points, though i find it vaguely amusing that people you don’t trust to control their emotions are given weapons and control of multi-million dollar weapons that can kill millions but shouldn’t be expected to control themselves while naked. It’s pretty much a double standard. But I understand it, still given the fact that everyone lse was able to do it, to think that our service men are less than the british, israelies, aussies, etc etc I think does them a disservice and I think insults their abilities.
@catmman I’m still not buying it, if you could get discharged for holding your wife’s hand while in uniform I’ll eat my hat and yours. Also since you went from there were no witch hunts to it was just a few witch hunts I think we can safely assume that you blinded yourself to the realities of the force. I may not have served but that’s the countries loss not mine. I had service members ask me to join but by than i realized I was gay and didn’t want to put up with the hassle. Also I know over 10 gay members of the military in all branches not a single one puts their bf or spouse on their contact list. If you don’t think that there is real intimidation than your sadly mistaken.
Also there are more gays in the military than in the normal population, where would you go if you were trying to prove your masculinity to your family and society?

Zekecorlain on December 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Zekecorlain on December 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Actually, what I meant to say was that a few people getting booted for homosexuality doesn’t mean there were witch hunts. But if we’re going to talk percentages: A few hundred people (400-500) get booted for homosexuality a year. Of that number, a certain % are using it as an excuse, meaning they aren’t gay and just want out of the military. I’ll be generous and say that maybe 5-10% of the above number, but lets discard that notion for the sake of argument. So less than 500 people are getting booted out for being gay annually. There are over 1 million people in the service (add another few 100K counting the guard and reserve components). Fewer than 500 people out of a million a year are getting booted for homosexuality. I can’t even do the math in my head the % is so small. But you say, without hesitation, that witch hunts are occurring on a regular basis. I don’t think ‘witch hunt’ means what you think it means.

You didn’t serve and its the countries loss? My, you have a pretty high opinion of yourself, don’t you? Yeah, the military is wringing its hands over not having you. Do you read this stuff after you type it? Humility – learn some.

You didn’t want to put up with the hassle? But isn’t letting people be true to themselves, isn’t that worth the effort, worth the ‘struggle’? Surely one as important as you could have worked from the inside to make sure the right thing was done? Alas, no. You’re own statement show you to be the coward you are. You’ll let other people do the heavy lifting as it were.

I also didn’t say I could get discharged for holding my wife’s hand, but it is against regulations. You seem to think there are only rules against gays being able to express themselves physically with their significant others and that’s simply not true. Of course that’s not your point. Once the truth about what the rules are for everyone, then your assertion of persecution falls flat on its face.

I thought that gays were advocating for the repeal of DADT so they could be who they are? If that’s the case, then why are they joining the military to prove how masculine they are? You’re saying gays can’t be true about who they are to their own family, so we must force the military to acknowledge said behavior? Why? So they can use that as the justification for their lifestyle for their family’s sake? If “being gay” is what gays are, then why the need for such subterfuge?

As far as demographics go, the military pretty much reflects the civilian population. Are you saying there are more gays in the military so they can prove they aren’t gay? If that’s the case, then what happened to the whole, “gays need to be true to themselves so we need to let them serve” argument? I thought that was the point of the whole repeal movement – so gays didn’t have to ‘prove’ anything and could be who they are?

You know ten gay people in all branches and not one of them puts their, presumably gay, significant other on their contact list? Really? Why? Emergency data cards and SGLI beneficiary paperwork (to name a few, but two of the big ones) don’t ask about the sexual orientation of the named person. But the truth doesn’t further your argument, only the myth of persecution does.

As far as intimidation goes, I’m only seeing intimidation from one side in this debate and its coming from the pro-gay side. Or did Adm Mullen not tell people just a few days ago that if they don’t like it (repeal) then they can quit? Was that what you meant?

…I think does them a disservice and I think insults their abilities.

Here we are again. Trying to take the high road? You have the audacity to write this after saying people only join the military so they can advance up the social ladder (meaning only poor people join the military) and that the military isn’t a real job (which is one of the reasons you didn’t join)?

You really are a non-sensical, talking out of both sides kinda person, aren’t you?

catmman on December 4, 2010 at 9:40 PM

…i find it vaguely amusing that people you don’t trust to control their emotions are given weapons…

Zekecorlain on December 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM

lmao…. Weapons are ever so much easier to control than emotions are.

Murf76 on December 4, 2010 at 11:24 PM

The Marines are a part of the Navy.

Which reminds me of Royal Navy Traditions. Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash

==

lmao…. Weapons are ever so much easier to control than emotions are. And of course men with emotions can’t control weapons. Or something.

MSimon on December 5, 2010 at 9:55 AM

I joined the Navy to become a qualified Nuclear Reactor Operator. I qualified.

MSimon on December 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM

if you could get discharged for holding your wife’s hand while in uniform I’ll eat my hat and yours.

Doing it while on parade is considered unusual. As in “not in a neat and orderly military fashion.” Probably at quarters would qualify under most circumstances.

MSimon on December 5, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2