Crash and burn: DADT repeal fails, 57-40

posted at 4:46 pm on December 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

They had 60 votes in the bank, with Brown, Collins, and Murkowski all promising to vote yes if they could reach an agreement with Reid on debate time and amendments. He spent a day negotiating with them and then gave up, choosing to ignore their demands and force a vote by bringing the bill to the floor anyway. And it worked! … in Collins’s case. Brown and Murky voted no but she ended up voting yes, even though (a) Reid gave her nothing in return and (b) she pledged last week not to approve any bills until the tax cuts deal is settled. So not only is she exposed as a liar and a chump, she didn’t even get a successful repeal here as a consolation prize. That makes her our official sucker of the day, with Reid a close second for not delaying this vote until after the tax deal is done, when there might be time to satisfy Brown’s and Murkowki’s procedural demands. Take note, gay activists: He’s happy to postpone a vote on DREAM to improve its chances of passing, but when it comes to DADT, the mere gesture of a vote will suffice. No wonder the chair of GOProud is so angry with him.

The final roll: 57-40. Joe Manchin and Mark Kirk voted no too, but their votes would have been irrelevant with Brown, Murky, and Collins all onboard and all other Democrats voting yes. Another not so minor problem for Reid: Blanche Lincoln apparently missed the vote, meaning that it would have failed in this case even had Brown and Murkowski switched to yes.

A key procedural vote on the bill containing a repeal the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell failed Thursday, dealing a final blow to advocates who hoped to overturn the 17-year old ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military during this session of Congress…

The result means that repeal of the ban, enacted in 1993, is unlikely to be changed by Congress anytime soon. The policy is also currently being considered in court proceedings…

In remarks shortly before the vote, Reid blamed Republicans – but not Collins – for blocking the massive defense measure from coming to the floor.

“It’s quite clear that they’re trying to run out the clock,” Reid said of GOP opponents before calling for the vote.

Is this truly the end of DADT? Maybe not: Lieberman just announced that he’ll introduce a standalone bill to repeal it instead of tucking it away inside a larger defense bill. I’m not sure what that’ll achieve, though. Even if Collins and Lincoln sign on, you still have the problem of getting Brown and Murkowski to break their pledge to ignore all other business until after the vote on taxes. Maybe Liebs is thinking that they can delay the vote on his bill until after the tax vote? Brown and Murky could afford to be sticklers about allowing multiple amendments on an omnibus defense bill, but on a targeted bill like Lieberman’s, they might acquiesce. He’s calling their bluff, potentially. Will they cave too? There’s plenty of political cover available to do so: According to Gallup’s latest, the public supports repeal … 67/28.

Update: Even more hope for Lieberman’s bill:

On Manchin, aide says: “I would say that if he was somehow the 60th vote, I do not think he would have voted the way he did”

If that’s true, then Reid doesn’t need Brown and Murky. He needs only one, and then the pressure of being the deciding vote will flip Manchin to yes too.


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

Anyone who is actually happy about the fact our military continues to discriminate against homosexuals is beneath contempt.
Enrique on December 9, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Ohhh poor confused little man, as I have posted here many times a person can be homosexual (I’ve even posted the regulation) and serve, they just can’t be a disruption.
It’s about unit cohesion, good order and discipline not everyone getting to be an “individual”.

LincolntheHun on December 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM

heh – my son’s high school government class was assigned to create a political cartoon. He drew a picture of two guys in a foxhole, with one saying to the other, “I can’t shoot him, he’s gorgeous!” – caption: Reason #1 why DADT should not be repealed.

BTW, dad, either your son needs a lesson in plagiarism, or your story is bogus.

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM

JetBoy on December 9, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Newsflash – I do not consider Ann Coulter’s opinions, much. But, on occasion, I do enjoy her dry sense of humor.

runner on December 9, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Would it help if heterosexuals were also forbidden to declare their sexual preference? Wouldn’t that eliminate all talk of “discrimination?”

Dee2008 on December 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM

BTW, dad, either your son needs a lesson in plagiarism, or your story is bogus.

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Unless he’s doing the same in other classes, I doubt it. The field of political cartooning is notorious for borrowing ideas, often for blistering parodies of the originals.

Dark-Star on December 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Unless he’s doing the same in other classes, I doubt it. The field of political cartooning is notorious for borrowing ideas, often for blistering parodies of the originals.

I just felt like pointing out that dear ole dad’s proud observation of his son’s wit …falls a bit short. =]

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM

If this can’t make it can DREAM? I mean this was a gimmie I thought.

Gatsu on December 9, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Homophones? Is that a new offering from Verizon?

Norwegian on December 9, 2010 at 5:39 PM

It’s apparently what the Iphone uses as its autocorrect…

Vyce on December 9, 2010 at 6:29 PM

That’s actually a dang good question, why would gays be allowed in combat if women aren’t?

scotash on December 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Women are breeders, and young men do the stupidist things to protect them, even if they are not lovers.

Gays are most emphatically not.

Slowburn on December 9, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Anyone who is actually happy about the fact our military continues to discriminate against homosexuals is beneath contempt. Makes me wish there was evidence of a Hell that you go to after your death, which can’t come soon enough. Wankers.

Enrique on December 9, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Seriously, you’re trying to argue with people who seem to fervently believe that if DADT is lifted, the U.S. military is going to turn into one big gay orgy.

In other words, don’t try to engage rationally with the irrational.

Vyce on December 9, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Gays are most emphatically not.

Not what?

Breeders? Willing to behave stupidly for the protection of women?

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Sanity prevails.

BKeyser on December 9, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Momentarily. Give it time. Insanity has all the advantages these days.

rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 6:35 PM

It’s apparently what the Iphone uses as its autocorrect…

Here’s something you might enjoy (( NOT GAY ))

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 6:36 PM

What will the courts do to the US military now?

d1carter on December 9, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Breeders, and to further clarify; breeders that do not need an equal number of the opposite sex for procreation.

Slowburn on December 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Seriously, you’re trying to argue with people who seem to fervently believe that if DADT is lifted, the U.S. military is going to turn into one big gay orgy.
Vyce on December 9, 2010 at 6:31 PM

.
Might broad brush you have there Vyce.
My objection (as one who has to follow UCMJ) is with the further erosion of “good order and discipline” that may follow if this little experiment were to be implemented. One can be gay and serve, but being a disruption is a problem. And there will be disruptions, do you really want commanders wasting more time with personal problems or fighting the enemy?

LincolntheHun on December 9, 2010 at 6:41 PM

I’ll bet Bradley Manning was one of the reasons.

Machiavelli Hobbes on December 9, 2010 at 6:42 PM

On Manchin, aide says: “I would say that if he was somehow the 60th vote, I do not think he would have voted the way he did”

Or put another way, Machin doesn’t vote the way he thinks is right, he is only voting for what he thinks is politically best for himself.

Good work W. Va.

angryed on December 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Seriously, you’re trying to argue with people who seem to fervently believe that if DADT is lifted, the U.S. military is going to turn into one big gay orgy.

In other words, don’t try to engage rationally with the irrational.

Vyce on December 9, 2010 at 6:31 PM

No people that believe that the capabilities of the US Military would be severely compromised by lifting DADT.

Slowburn on December 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Anyone who is actually happy about the fact our military continues to discriminate against homosexuals is beneath contempt.
Enrique on December 9, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Ohhh poor confused little man, as I have posted here many times a person can be homosexual (I’ve even posted the regulation) and serve, they just can’t be a disruption.
It’s about unit cohesion, good order and discipline not everyone getting to be an “individual”.

LincolntheHun on December 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM

So forcing Americans to serve as liars or with liars promotes order and discipline in the ranks?

lexhamfox on December 9, 2010 at 6:47 PM

A yes vote by Manchin won’t go down well in WV. Is he angling for one term?

mockmook on December 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Just put all the homosexuals in one group…can you imagine bedtime…

royzer on December 9, 2010 at 6:54 PM

So forcing Americans to serve as liars or with liars promotes order and discipline in the ranks?

lexhamfox on December 9, 2010 at 6:47 PM

No American is forced to serve. Before you join, the rules are explained to you in great detail. If you cannot abide by the rules, you simply don’t join.

Rebar on December 9, 2010 at 6:55 PM

So forcing Americans to serve as liars or with liars promotes order and discipline in the ranks?
lexhamfox on December 9, 2010 at 6:47 PM

.
No one is forced to lie, hence don’t ask don’t tell.
You’re just not allowed to do certain things like drugs, get your nipples pierced, or take long showers in the wee hours of the morning with another man.

LincolntheHun on December 9, 2010 at 7:02 PM

I think I upset Enrique.

Heh.

pugwriter on December 9, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Enrique/Ernie or whomever that whack job is: You do little to convince those of us who have concerns about the repeal. Instead we see you as smug and nasty.

CWforFreedom on December 9, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Hallelujah!

mnmom on December 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM

A yes vote by Manchin won’t go down well in WV. Is he angling for one term?

mockmook on December 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM

He’s having a difficult time squaring up his inner Democrap with the Ronald Reagan make-over he had about a month before the election.

BetseyRoss on December 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Compromise on this by the Republicans will prove toxic to their future. The push to normalize homosexuality by the Left is moving ahead on many fronts: adoption, marriage, and the repeal of DADT. Conservatives need to stand together on this. So can we expect transsexual drill sergeants in the future?

Blue Collar Todd on December 9, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Harry Reid is making sure the 111th Congress goes down as the worst in history?

Harry Reid is sabotaging the Progressive’s remaining agenda? It’s almost as if he is intentionally making sure his base are as unhappy as possible – does he really think that they will blame the Republicans? After the Democrats held the majority in both houses since Jan 2007?

Dr Evil on December 9, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Joe Manchin and Mark Kirk voted no too, but their votes would have been irrelevant with Brown, Murky, and Collins all onboard and all other Democrats voting yes. Another not so minor problem for Reid: Blanche Lincoln apparently missed the vote, meaning that it would have failed in this case even had Brown and Murkowski switched to yes.

Harry Reid gambling with legislation?

Dr Evil on December 9, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Anyone who is actually happy about the fact our military continues to discriminate against homosexuals is beneath contempt.
Enrique on December 9, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Right back at ya…

Anyone who is actually happy about the fact of forcing our military in the middle of a war to bow and meet the demands of a small segment of society that wants to have sex with itself is beneath contempt.

JellyToast on December 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM

No people that believe that the capabilities of the US Military would be severely compromised by lifting DADT.

Slowburn on December 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM

And a recently completed report (so recently completed that the ink is barely dry) found that to not be the case.

Oh wait, I forget, with many social cons / “true cons” here at Hot Air, any sort of negative report or poll is casually dismissed as biased or inaccurate.

Vyce on December 9, 2010 at 8:14 PM

So forcing Americans to serve as liars or with liars promotes order and discipline in the ranks?

lexhamfox on December 9, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Kinda wondering about how anyone is 1) forcing them to serve and 2) lie.

catmman on December 9, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Good.

I believe anyone who supports repeal probably never served in a combat infantry unit. As a Marine, I would have slept in the rain rather than be the dude who hootched with the fag. Life is tough enuff in the suck, who needs the extra head ache that comes along with that crap, seriously.

Alden Pyle on December 9, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Seriously, you’re trying to argue with people who seem to fervently believe that if DADT is lifted, the U.S. military is going to turn into one big gay orgy.

In other words, don’t try to engage rationally with the irrational. – Vyce on December 9, 2010 at 6:31 PM

True, very true. It would be such a horror that a serviceperson revealed to his/her peers that they are homosexual. Gee, they might convert their entire division.

SC.Charlie on December 9, 2010 at 8:51 PM

I believe anyone who supports repeal probably never served in a combat infantry unit. As a Marine, I would have slept in the rain rather than be the dude who hootched with the fag. Life is tough enuff in the suck, who needs the extra head ache that comes along with that crap, seriously.

Could you possibly invest in a laptop with a built-in webcam and leave the camera running for the next twenty or so years? I just want to see the expression on your face when in, say, 10 years, you stumble across the Facebook of a fellow [former] devildog you once hootched with whose profile lists “Men” as one of his interests. =]

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 9:05 PM

True, very true. It would be such a horror that a serviceperson revealed to his/her peers that they are homosexual. Gee, they might convert their entire division.

If gays had that level of conversion rates, every missionary on the planet would be begging for those secrets. har har

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Feel good story of the day.

Hening on December 9, 2010 at 9:28 PM

I just want to see the expression on your face when in, say, 10 years, you stumble across the Facebook of a fellow [former] devildog you once hootched with whose profile lists “Men” as one of his interests. =]

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 9:05 PM

I’m guessing you never served in a grunt unit or you’d understand. I’m not against repeal because I dislike gays. I’m sure I served with gays, and I don’t care what they do on their own time. My only beef is that it would cause extra ass-ache (no pun) if they were openly in my unit because of the relentless sh!t the person who hootched with them would get. It would cause the type of fractures in the fabric of the fireteam, squad, platoon that fighting units ought not have. Combat infantry units aren’t cushy corporate office settings where social experiments have the luxury of playing out. Sorry, just my opinion.

Alden Pyle on December 9, 2010 at 9:45 PM

My only beef is that it would cause extra ass-ache (no pun) if they were openly in my unit because of the relentless sh!t the person who hootched with them would get. It would cause the type of fractures in the fabric of the fireteam, squad, platoon that fighting units ought not have. Combat infantry units aren’t cushy corporate office settings where social experiments have the luxury of playing out.

So your problem is less with the gay Marine in question and more with the juvenile behavior of your fellow jarheads? But hey, when you do come back to the civilian [working] world, you’ll be pleased to hear that such treatment of homosexuals (and those who work with them) is not permitted. =] Errr, not that the military has some sorta monopoly on the harassment of others herp derp.

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Alden Pyle is telling it correctly. The sad thing is that so many do not take the time to understand why the combat arms Marines and Army are opposed to repeal of DADT and why it is a good thing that DADT was not repealed.

Phil Byler on December 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM

DADT… all show, no substance.

The media has completely warped what DADT means. Just like Civil Unions. Both measures are PRO-GAY, and removing DADT (or creating antipathy towards Civil Unions) is so ridiculously counterproductive.

lansing quaker on December 9, 2010 at 10:23 PM

DADT fails: Allah hardest hit.

rightwingyahooo on December 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Jeddite on December 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Heh, “working”, ok so you’ve outed yourself as a candy ass civilian or a REMF, in either case you’ll never understand what it takes to be an effective operator, so nothing personal, but your opinion on this subject really is less than compelling.

I’m still pulling shrap out of my jaw femur and clavicle, and enjoy the constant reminder of a fractured lumbar and two broken ribs from my cushy federal job. Idiot civilian ROE’s and PC social experiments imposed on my world have real casualties. We live or die based on these foolish whimsies implemented by fat non-hackers in warm cubicles who wouldn’t last a day in the bush.

Alden Pyle on December 9, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Vyce on December 9, 2010 at 8:14 PM

I took that survey. I know a lot of fellow officers and NCOs who took the survey. I don’t know of a single person in all the military people I work with that don’t have strong reservations against the repeal.

And why do you people need to go on with the name-calling here?

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Alden Pyle on December 9, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Fking A Alden! You’ve earned your right to speak your mind. You don’t have to take crap from any of these people here.

HOOAH!

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Once again take note of IL Kirk vote. Commence whining about how he’s just voting with the party … because.

MarkT on December 9, 2010 at 11:55 PM

So 68% of the country thinks it’s just peachy if you want to smoke a pole in the barracks, but if I want to smoke a cig in my local bar I’m the Antichrist. The world’s ideas of morality and taboo behavior have utterly launched out of Earth orbit. Stop the world, I want to get off. This country is sucking more and more by the day.

Pun intended.

quikstrike98 on December 10, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Anyone who wants to know what will happen if DADT is repealed can just read “Good Bye, Good Men,” about the integration of gays into the Catholic Priesthood.

If you want a Lavender Mafia operating in our military and becoming giddy when the bus pulls up with your son on board as a fresh young recruit, then don’t worry about repealing DADT. There won’t be any problems with gays integrating into the military, just as there weren’t with gays in the priesthood.

Just saying. Read the book.

bonnie_ on December 10, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Wow Reid is really stupid to call a vote without the votes. I thought they tried really hard not to do that.

Also, once it is voted down, why is it okay to just keep making people vote?

You don’t like the vote so you just keep voting until you get the outcome you like? That’s like adding 2+2 over and over until you get 6 because you really want it to be 6.

Someday all this forcing of political correctness against people’s will is going to come home to roost…

This isn’t progress, this is regress.

petunia on December 10, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Anyone who is actually happy about the fact our military continues to discriminate against homosexuals is beneath contempt. Makes me wish there was evidence of a Hell that you go to after your death, which can’t come soon enough. Wankers.

Enrique on December 9, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Question: If my opinion is that homosexuality is an unnatural and unhealthy sexual perversion, does that constitute discrimination?

Answer: If gays serve openly in the military, then yes, that will constitute discrimination. You will not be allowed to say or do anything that implies you don’t accept homosexuality. Because the moment homosexuality in the military is officially blessed, anything but full acceptance would necessarily be contrary to team cohesiveness.

You can’t just allow homosexuality in the military. If you allow it, you must also mandate full acceptance. If you mandate full acceptance of homosexuality, you must also punish any noncompliance with that policy.

Right now, discrimination against homosexuals is a non-issue in the military. Mandate the full acceptance of homosexuality, and discrimination against homosexuals — which can be interpreted very broadly — will immediately become a career-ending move.

What will happen then is this: all those with religious objections to homosexuality — and that takes in a lot more people than you think — will find being required to nod assent to open sin intolerable, and find the military a lot less attractive as a career. How many people can the military afford to lose?

But most important of all, what does “allowing homosexuals to serve openly” have to do with having an effective military? The first question should not be, “Can we be more progressive?” but “Does this enhance the strength of the military?”

Have you noticed that “Ending DADT” and same-sex marriage both ultimately end up with the government coercing the acceptance of homosexuality? No, I’m not suggesting it’s because gays are fascists. But it is the inevitable result of using government action to advance an agenda favorable to gays. Governments apply coercion, whether through naked force or fines and penalties. You can’t use government to push a gay-friendly agenda without applying government force to social issues. Think long and hard about the consequences.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 10, 2010 at 2:45 AM

Anyone who is actually happy about the fact our military continues to discriminate against homosexuals is beneath contempt. Makes me wish there was evidence of a Hell that you go to after your death, which can’t come soon enough. Wankers.

Enrique on December 9, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Oh, really? Please, do tell us what service you were in, and what your MOS was? I bet I know the answer. As a former Marine Corps Combat Arms NCO, allow me to inform you, that you don’t rate. STFU until you’ve held a rifle in defense of your nation, and actually lived in an open squadbay or a fighting hole for a length of time. Then I’ll be interested in hearing your opinion. Ta tah, WANKER.

quikstrike98 on December 10, 2010 at 3:54 AM

For the first time in my adult life…nah, that’s too easy. I am proud of the Senate for doing the right thing, though. The military is not a social experiment. If a person can’t keep their sexuality in their pants then they don’t belong in an environment such as the military. No one is discriminating against anyone only that this will keep at bay NAMBLA (look it up for an real eye opener), polygamists, transgenders, etc, etc. and keep discipline and morality intact. The gay activists can express their sexuality elsewhere and the democrats’ hatred of the military, and religion also because that’s what this is all about, will continue sadly.

mozalf on December 10, 2010 at 8:09 AM

The fact that gays and lesbians can serve………but they must be very, very quiet, well let’s say invisible, so as not to hurt the feelings of the other macho types says it all.

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2010 at 8:56 AM

57+40=97
add Blanche Lincoln gives 98.

Who were the other 2 who skipped the vote?

percysunshine on December 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM

According to Gallup’s latest, the public supports repeal … 67/28.

I strongly doubt that reflects the opinion of Americans who are informed on just what is involved here.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM

The fact that gays and lesbians can serve………but they must be very, very quiet, well let’s say invisible, so as not to hurt the feelings of the other macho types says it all.

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2010 at 8:56 AM

The military isn’t the Glee Club at the Community Center.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM

There’s plenty of political cover available to do so: According to Gallup’s latest, the public supports repeal … 67/28.

If that’s true it’s only because they believe that out troops are okay with it. Because the pentagon released a phony poll to make it appear that way.

Here’s a little known fact from that poll:

% of gay armed forces that would like to serve openly?
15.

Dorvillian on December 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM


What Dorvillian wrote ^^.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Take note, social cons and homophones (sadly, not mutually exclusive groups).

Vyce on December 9, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Homophones? Is that a new offering from Verizon?

Norwegian on December 9, 2010 at 5:39 PM

No, Norwegian, I think “homophones” are those pink princess models. With a giant dial that goes round and round and makes that “ringy dingy” sound.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM

GOProud has always been for repeal of DADT as well as fiscal conservatism.

And writing a plethora of really, really *mad* tweets, especially ridiculing anyone who is Christian.

Actually, I think that’s their primary activity.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Reid is quite the creepy guy to me.

AnninCA on December 10, 2010 at 11:01 AM

For the first time in my adult life…nah, that’s too easy. I am proud of the Senate for doing the right thing, though. The military is not a social experiment. If a person can’t keep their sexuality in their pants then they don’t belong in an environment such as the military. No one is discriminating against anyone only that this will keep at bay NAMBLA (look it up for an real eye opener), polygamists, transgenders, etc, etc. and keep discipline and morality intact. The gay activists can express their sexuality elsewhere and the democrats’ hatred of the military, and religion also because that’s what this is all about, will continue sadly.

mozalf on December 10, 2010 at 8:09 AM

I disagree. I disagree with McCain on this. I think DADT is a policy that truly served us well, gave the military a huge swath of time to transform their policies and attitudes, and I think they actually succeeded.

I’d trust the people serving, and most don’t feel this is needed anymore.

The generation in the military today just is more comfortable. I’m not sure that would apply to transgender, though. :)

AnninCA on December 10, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Sorry, Allah, I know that you’re disappointed.

Venusian Visitor on December 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Dirty Harry Reid, Treacherous Susan Collins and Loopy Leftwing Lieberman are up to their old plans yet again. Another bill to repeal DADT introduced today.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 4:03 PM

If you guys are so worried about what happens when you add gays to the military why don’t you read the book on the subject? or better yet buy it

Zekecorlain on December 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Zekecorlain on December 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Hogwash.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Zekecorlain on December 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Hogwash.

…but I’d like to add, that, DADT is an workable method to allow homosexuals to serve in the military, and they’re doing so. Or, we could return to the “before DADT” times and policy, in which case, no homosexuals were allowed to enlist and if enlisted and discovered afterward, were discharged dishonorably.

What’s being attempted by “revoking DADT” is not to “allow homosexuals to serve in the military” (because they are already and most people know who they are), this is an attempt to further what is generally called “the homosexual agenda,” to coerce society toward a whole range of ‘alternative’ practices. It’s also an attempt to repel Chaplains from the military in all capacities except some sort of diluted-generality as to religious faith and principles. I could go on but it’s a waste of time.

Lourdes on December 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM

bonnie_ on December 10, 2010 at 12:36 AM

I second the recommendation. Michael Rose did a fantastic job on that.

pannw on December 10, 2010 at 8:42 PM

The fact that gays and lesbians can serve………but they must be very, very quiet, well let’s say invisible, so as not to hurt the feelings of the other macho types says it all.

You know who’s taking bullets for your smarmy little ass in Middle Eastern sewers? “Macho types”. Guess what, the guys who sign up for combat arms aren’t mincing metrosexuals like you.

quikstrike98 on December 12, 2010 at 3:40 AM

You know who’s taking bullets for your smarmy little ass in Middle Eastern sewers?

quikstrike98 on December 12, 2010 at 3:40 AM

That would be “soldiers of all races, sexes, and orientations”, you addlebrained wingnut.

Dark-Star on December 12, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2