Oh my: Standalone DADT repeal bill passes House as Olympia Snowe flips to yes in Senate

posted at 6:10 pm on December 15, 2010 by Allahpundit

They already passed an amendment to repeal DADT back in May, but that was part of a broader defense bill. Today’s vote was on the standalone DADT bill that Lieberman and Collins are hoping to put in front of the Senate next week. The vote in May: 234-194, with just five Republicans voting yes. The vote today: 250-175, with 15 Republicans in the majority. (Among the 10 who flipped to yes this time: Jeff Flake.) It was smart of Pelosi to force a vote in the House, just as it was smart of Reid to table the vote on the DREAM Act so that the House could go first. In each case, the fact that the lower chamber’s already passed a corresponding bill ratchets up the pressure on Senate fencesitters.

In fact, it’s already paying dividends. Olympia Snowe was one of the 40 no votes last week on the defense bill that had a DADT repeal provision in it, but suddenly on the standalone bill she’s had a change of heart:

“After careful analysis of the comprehensive report compiled by the Department of Defense and thorough consideration of the testimony provided by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs, I support repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law,” Snowe said in a statement.

Remember, the sticking point for Scott Brown and Murkowski (but not Collins!) has been the procedural posture of the DADT vote, not the substance. They claim they’re in favor of repeal, but they want the tax deal finalized — which could happen tomorrow — and they wanted more time for debate on the broader defense bill. I’m not sure how those procedural objections will translate to the new standalone DADT bill. It could be that Brown, Murkowski, and Snowe all vote yes, which would actually put Reid at 61 votes for cloture, or they could all vote no for whatever procedural reason, leaving Reid stuck at 58. Or maybe Snowe alone will join Collins in voting yes, putting Reid one thin vote away from the magic number. If that happens, the pressure on Manchin to switch from no to yes will be overwhelming, especially since one of his aides said after last week’s vote that he probably would have voted differently if he had been the 60th vote. Long story short, anything can happen, but they’re tantalizingly close to finally getting this done. Exit question: After threatening to hold the lame duck session over until January 4th if need be to deal with the START treaty and other business, Reid basically has to bring this bill to the floor now, right? Gay activists aren’t going to accept “we ran out of time” as an excuse.


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 3 4

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Using our Best and Brightest as lab rats for social engineering is a major issue. Polls can be manipulated to achieve the results you want. Gay activists comprise a small percentage of 5 % of our population. Gays are serving honorably right now. This is not a civil rights issue. This is political/social/cultural debacle.

kingsjester on December 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 6:47 PM

He opposed reform back in May when he was trying to show supportive conservatives that he was still one of them.

He premised it on the result of the review but that’s bunk. Everyone knew how the review would turn out and it was buying time until after the election.

So he’s playing games.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Yet the same people who want everyone to STFU about social issues seem to flock to these ‘gay’ rights threads. Curious, isn’t it?

JannyMae on December 15, 2010 at 6:21 PM

That’s because Gay Marriage is going to win HUGE in California and it’s the only way we’ll ever be competitive there ever, ever! Dontcha know?

Oops!

But seriously, us “so-cons” are told over and over again that we need to shut up about social issues so “true conservatives” can shout all day long about the need to give into the PC Brigade “gay rights” and look “enlightened” – totally a Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot moment in the conservative movement to me…

Branch Rickey on December 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Please tell me just how it is that allowing a soldier to say that they are gay will effect the mission?

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM

I was just talking to a guy who was a Forward Air Controller. He worked in a two man team, always together. He said he could have done his job but would have felt uncomfortable just knowing his buddy liked guys.

I think the last thing ground pounders and the fighter jocks providing close air support for those ground pounders need is an uncomfortable FAC.

darwin on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Well, the Post and ABS, aren’t ‘Liberal Organizations’ like MoveOn or DailyKos

WaPo is just another cog in the leftist machine, and proud of it to boot;

“The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.” –Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman of the Washington Post

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

It isn’t a mission so much as moral.

upinak on December 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM

What is a moral? Is being gay immoral? Is being a marine immoral? Is being a gay marine immoral? Just asking.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

guess I have more faith and respect for our soldiers than so many others seem to. Some how I just don’t think that military discipline or professionalism of our troops will suffer just because someone in their unit can now say that they’re gay without punishment.

Yes, I’m sure our military can now rise to the level of efficiency of the Dutch, who had a very successfully integration of homosexual troops themselves. Oh, the Dutch can’t actually fight anymore, but darn are they nice and PC.

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 6:40 PM

It’s amusing in a puckered sort of way how the Left has suddenly found this enthusiasm of the military.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

He premised it on the result of the review but that’s bunk. Everyone knew how the review would turn out and it was buying time until after the election.

So he’s playing games.

Wait, so putting a hardcore leftist in charge of the “review” might have pre-determined the results? I’m shocked! :)

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Another Joyous event:

Vote on Dec. 21 for Net Neutrality.

portlandon on December 15, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Joy to the Net,
The Warden Comes….
And ALL, His MINIONS TOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

They stripe us of our Funny Sites….
They take away the Political Fights….
And all the liberals SING
And all the Liberals SING
And ALL THE Liberal SING, SING,SING!

upinak on December 15, 2010 at 6:52 PM

You are way off base there, p-don. Way off.

JetBoy on December 15, 2010 at 6:48 PM

No, he’s not. He’s dead-on. GOProud is nothing more than a group of gay rights advocates pretending to be conservative Republicans. Conservative Republicans don’t advocate special rights for certain groups of people.

JannyMae on December 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

But your are willing to say so to the other 40%.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:48 PM

I’m willing to say that a minority of a group is wrong, yes. Just like proponents of repeal are saying about opponents — that they’re wrong.

I’m not willing to say that 60% of deployed Marines are wrong. I am willing to say that 40% might be.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

It isn’t a mission so much as moral.

upinak on December 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM

What is a moral? Is being gay immoral? Is being a marine immoral? Is being a gay marine immoral? Just asking.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

I thought we weren’t supposed to discuss “social issues.”

Except homosexuality in a variety of dimensions, though, huh?

Somehow the discussion always seems to make time to “share” homosexuality in all it’s dimensions but voters/netizens are considered some sort of barbarian or worse if and when there’s any sharing of morality, views on morality and why they’re believed.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Conservatives and tea party activists in Maine need to learn from some of the mistakes of this past election (which overall was a success as far as electoral victories are concerned, jury is still up on how many will stay true to their word) and field well seasoned candidates who can WIN in 2012 after Snowe goes third party.

Daemonocracy on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

GOProud isn’t a fiscally Conservative based group, but a Socially liberal Republican group. They can try and fool some, but most know what they want.

portlandon on December 15, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Hey, as Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, and Lincoln Chaffee have shown us, we can rely on our “economically conservative”, socially liberal friends when the game is on the line.

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 6:40 PM

If it were simply a matter of being PC, I’d be with you. But we are stronger when we allow gays to serve. Just consider all of the foreign language translators, for example that we lost to this policy. One small example that had tangible, harmful impact on our security.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

GOProud is nothing more than a group of gay rights advocates pretending to be conservative Republicans. Conservative Republicans don’t advocate special rights for certain groups of people.

JannyMae on December 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

+1 : Exactly correct.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 6:55 PM

What is a moral? Is being gay immoral? Is being a marine immoral? Is being a gay marine immoral? Just asking.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

you are kidding right?

Look, I couldn’t give two craps less if they (homosexuals) do what they do. But I am not a man, nor do I have a right in the combat zone. But some men may not want to be around those who have to prove how “gay” they are by annoucing it to the military and the world.

So the morale of the men who don’t want to deal with the BS drama of those who have to tell everyone they are gay could be a serious reason.

upinak on December 15, 2010 at 6:56 PM

One small example that had tangible, harmful impact on our security.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

How about when our experienced Army and Marine infantry refuse to reenlist in large numbers, will that impact our security at all?

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 6:57 PM

If it were simply a matter of being PC, I’d be with you. But we are stronger when we allow gays to serve. Just consider all of the foreign language translators, for example that we lost to this policy. One small example that had tangible, harmful impact on our security.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

That calls for an exception to the rule — allowing open gays in critical, hard-to-replace positions. You ensure the military isn’t weakened while also not disrupting the majority of the corps.

Again, the military discriminates all of the time based upon which positions which people can fill. It would be nothing new.

But this isn’t about strengthening the military. It’s about forcing a social position on people. If we weaken the military along the way, hey…gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 6:57 PM

If it were simply a matter of being PC, I’d be with you. But we are stronger when we allow gays to serve. Just consider all of the foreign language translators, for example that we lost to this policy. One small example that had tangible, harmful impact on our security.
MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Yeah, loosing 5-10 translators is a much bigger deal than losing 5% of our special operations soldiers.

dpierson on December 15, 2010 at 6:58 PM

portlandon on December 15, 2010 at 6:30 PM

You are way off base there, p-don. Way off.

JetBoy on December 15, 2010 at 6:48 PM

No, JetBoy, no he’s not way off, not even off a tiny bit, but right over the target.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 6:58 PM

How about when our experienced Army and Marine infantry refuse to reenlist in large numbers, will that impact our security at all?

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Didn’t you hear? Forcing people to live with things they don’t like, like having to hide their sexuality, is wrong. They should be able to be open and welcome.

On a related note, don’t dare mention your religious beliefs about homosexuality. You should be made to deal with it or leave.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 6:59 PM

I did not know she was a Lesbian

jake-the-goose on December 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Joy to the Net,
The Warden Comes….
And ALL, His MINIONS TOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

They stripe us of our Funny Sites….
They take away the Political Fights….
And all the liberals SING
And all the Liberals SING
And ALL THE Liberal SING, SING,SING!

upinak on December 15, 2010 at 6:52 PM

LOL!

Thats good.

Joy to the net….

portlandon on December 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

No, he’s not. He’s dead-on. GOProud is nothing more than a group of gay rights advocates pretending to be conservative Republicans. Conservative Republicans don’t advocate special rights for certain groups of people.

JannyMae on December 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

And what are you basing this on? Have you even so much as read a single blog post at GOProud? And where do you get “special rights” from…all that’s desired is EQUAL rights…the right to not have to lie about who you are, and the right to marry the person you love.

JetBoy on December 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

But this isn’t about strengthening the military. It’s about forcing a social position on people. If we weaken the military along the way, hey…gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 6:57 PM

I have seen no evidence that the military would be at all weakened by repealing DADT, but have seen evidence that DADT serves to weaken our military. That is my criteria for wanting its repeal. The rest of what you attributed to me is pure fabrication.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:01 PM

the right to not have to lie about who you are, and the right to marry the person you love.

JetBoy on December 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Who says you have to LIE?

Who says you can’t marry the person you love?

I’ve been to 2 gay weddings in my life. They didn’t have a problem getting married.

portlandon on December 15, 2010 at 7:02 PM

It’s amusing in a puckered sort of way how the Left has suddenly found this enthusiasm of the military.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Great point…..but I’m not amused. Libs like Dingy rebuke the military and his like really have little use for them except for maybe Pelosi’s rides. These leftists need to keep their social and socialist views in the civilian arena. Our heroes have a real mission.

PaCadle on December 15, 2010 at 7:02 PM

It isn’t a mission so much as moral.

upinak on December 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM

What is a moral? Is being gay immoral? Is being a marine immoral? Is being a gay marine immoral? Just asking.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Upinak is referring to character. Character requirements for to serve honorably and competently.

As part of our military, not from a stage singing show tunes (which I write to refer to aberrant individual character effecting aberrant individual behavior, and in the military, that’s counter productive to everyone else).

Ooops, thought any mention of “social issues” (such as character requirements in regards our military) was verboten.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:02 PM

the right to not have to lie about who you are

JetBoy on December 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

So strongly religious servicemen will be able to speak their mind on homosexuality, right? Or are they expected to shut up about who they are?

Something tells me it’ll call for reprimand and even sensitivity training.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 7:03 PM

But we are stronger when we allow gays to serve.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Gays quietly served prior to DADT, Gays have quietly served with DADT. So the argument isn’t about allowing gays to serve it is about a social experiment that may or may not work. If it doesn’t work we are in deep doo-doo.

chemman on December 15, 2010 at 7:05 PM

PaCadle on December 15, 2010 at 7:02 PM

I agree, though I am not amused, either, thus, the description of reaction (“puckered sort of way”)…perhaps I should have written, “it’s curious” or something else…

Suddenly the Left has declared a big embrace of the military, which should be all anyone need know to tell you they are scoping out a new target, and have done so.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Please tell me just how it is that allowing a soldier to say that they are gay will effect the mission?

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM

The problem will not be with loyal service men & women who happen to be gay, the problem will be with the activists whose sexual identity is a way of life, a statement. The person whose sexual identity causes disruption. You cannot have disruptions in the military, you must perform as a well oiled machine and offering the assless chaps crowd a spotlight will bring calamitous results.

Think about it, an organization (armed forces)whose sole purpose is to make every member think, act, look and react identically is not a place for members that like to “buck the trend” of conformity.

It will not end well.

Tim Zank on December 15, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Mainstreaming gross immorality guarantees the wealth and peace a nation will experience.

Inanemergencydial on December 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

On a related note, don’t dare mention your religious beliefs about homosexuality. You should be made to deal with it or leave.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 6:59 PM

You are free to believe that their lifestyle wrong, just as many have moral beliefs that lead them to condemn extra-marital sex or alcohol consumption. The government isn’t in a position to act on every religious restriction.

dedalus on December 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Conduct is governed by the UCMJ for gay and straight personnel alike.

(And before you or someone else brings up the sodomy thing, ask yourself when was the last time you heard of a sailor being punished for getting a hummer from a sporting lady on shore leave.)

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

And what are you basing this on? Have you even so much as read a single blog post at GOProud? And where do you get “special rights” from…all that’s desired is EQUAL rights…the right to not have to lie about who you are, and the right to marry the person you love.

JetBoy on December 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

I guess you don’t know that “equal rights” in the military means “special rights”. Repeal of DADT means endless sensitivity training sessions informing members of what they can and cannot say or do. In other words, gays will become special, and have special rights.

darwin on December 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

If it were simply a matter of being PC, I’d be with you. But we are stronger when we allow gays to serve…

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

They’re already serving and have been for a while now.

So there goes that argument that repealing DADT will somehow “allow gays to serve.” What it’s intended to do is allow people who engage in homosexual behaviors to share their experiences with whoever has the bad fortune of being required to be in ear shot. Among other things…

And it’s the “other things” not yet revealed that the “gay agenda” includes which will be the big yob of awful to befall our military (with grave implications to our nation from there).

Lips are zipped on the reports from Chaplains, for example. The “gay agenda” and Squishy Obama (along with Mullen and Gates and Powell, etc.) don’t even want to allow discussions about the issues Chaplains have reported on. Ask yourself, why that’s so.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Just consider all of the foreign language translators, for example that we lost to this policy.

You gotta link for that or is that just an assertion???

Branch Rickey on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

The problem will not be with loyal service men & women who happen to be gay, the problem will be with the activists whose sexual identity is a way of life, a statement.

It will not end well.

Tim Zank on December 15, 2010 at 7:06 PM

That’s what bothers me, not gays serving … but activist gays.

darwin on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Mainstreaming gross immorality guarantees the wealth and peace a nation will experience.

Inanemergencydial on December 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

The last time I heard from you, you were telling us how atheists were immoral. This time its gays. I know, I know, everyone is immoral except for white, fundamentalist, heterosexual, Third Day Adventists from Hayseed County, Bama.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Oh, hey, how do you feel about “‘gay’ marriage” and, say, abortion and Christian beliefs, as in, exercising one’s Christian beliefs? I ask because so far, the suppression of “social issues” has condemned all of those issues from a negative perspective while being all too eager to poll and poll again about how “popular” this repeal of DADT is, so we’re told while hearing nothing in support of it from actual members of the military, except the Perfumed Generals in the Pentagon.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 6:46 PM

I’m not quite sure what response you want, here. If you’re asking my opinion on those issues, as a Catholic, I’m against the institution of civil marriage as the Calvinist innovation it is, and thus don’t think there should be a ‘gay marriage’ issue, I think abortion should be recognized as a form of murder, and I’m 100% in favor of people being guided by Christianity.

If you’re asking whether I think so-called ‘social issues’ are unimportant, or shouldn’t be discussed: of course not! Particularly abortion and the death penalty are the most important of issues, in my opinion, because they speak to our society’s commitment to the most fundamental of rights, the right to life.

If you’re questioning the verity of the many polls showing public support for ending DADT, all I can say is look at the cross-tabs. Even if you readjust the samples to contain more conservatives, as I keep pointing out they’ll still show majority support. And after all, dismissing polls one doesn’t like is more of a lefty nutroots thing; let’s not play that game around here, eh?

Finally, if you thing the Pentagon report showing no harm and possible benefits from the repeal of DADT is the result of the Army brass somehow being mendacious and trying to put our fighting men and women in harm’s way, well, I think you might want to think twice before making that sort of accusation.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Conduct is governed by the UCMJ for gay and straight personnel alike.

(And before you or someone else brings up the sodomy thing, ask yourself when was the last time you heard of a sailor being punished for getting a hummer from a sporting lady on shore leave.)

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Ah, but we’re in new territory. We’re changing the rules of conduct.

Mark my words: While open talk about homosexuality will have to be tolerated, any vocal religious condemnation will be reprimanded.

If not as a result of direct change, as a result of lawsuits.

amerpundit on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

(And before you or someone else brings up the sodomy thing, ask yourself when was the last time you heard of a sailor being punished for getting a hummer from a sporting lady on shore leave.)

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

What do you mean on shore leave? Try underway.

darwin on December 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM

I’ll say it again though I suspect no one for repeal will reply…

Can anyone name one tangible strategic or tactical advantage gained by repealing DADT? What can openly serving gays provide the military to make it better that cannot be obtained otherwise?

Secondly, speaking as a Marine Corps Veteran: anyone who enlists in the USMC under a pre-condition is unqualified and unfit to serve in my Marine Corps. Anyone. If you put your personal agenda above that of the Corps, you don’t deserve the opportunity to stand on those yellow footprints.

Don’t repeal. Ever.

BKeyser on December 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM

The last time I heard from you, you were telling us how atheists were immoral. This time its gays. I know, I know, everyone is immoral except for white, fundamentalist, heterosexual, Third Day Adventists from Hayseed County, Bama.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

The last I heard from you, you made the same confession, written in hyperbole, of course.

Good day.

Inanemergencydial on December 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Wesley Clark agrees with you whole heartedly!!!

BigWyo on December 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Just consider all of the foreign language translators, for example that we lost to this policy. One small example that had tangible, harmful impact on our security.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

THOSE INTERPRETORS, themselves, made the “harmful impact on our security.”

They knew the policy for service, they intentionally violated it (if you swear to “not tell,” but you insist on “telling,” there’s some character — as in moral — or psychological issue at work there that compromises anyone in an area of “security”, especially when it’s translating one set of expression in one language to another language).

Many of those dismissed were identified as compromising what they “translated” and it appears they were doing so intentionally. Motives? Bitterness, revenge. Same thing Mr. Whosits Wikileaks source did and why.

You’re trying to excuse the guilty by claiming they’re being victimized, while it is they who are doing the victimization.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

You gotta link for that or is that just an assertion???

Branch Rickey on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Yeah, I know its the NY Crimes, but read anyway

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

This time its gays. I know, I know, everyone is immoral except for white, fundamentalist, heterosexual, Third Day Adventists from Hayseed County, Bama.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

I suppose you’re unaware of how the black community feels about homosexuality, or maybe you’d rather just forget it.

Oh, and nice stereotyping. Tells me a lot.

darwin on December 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

and the right to marry the person you love.

JetBoy on December 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Well David Epstein, a heterosexual, agrees with ya so you got that going for ya.

Ya know because he specializes in American politics and voting rights at Columbia University and blogs about it at HuffPo and hates Sarah Palin.

How’s that Sen. Crist working for ya too?

Branch Rickey on December 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Can’t wait to see a queen Marine.

Viator on December 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Oh, and nice stereotyping. Tells me a lot.

darwin on December 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

I’m just here to hand out the rope…

8D

Inanemergencydial on December 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Wesley Clark agrees with you whole heartedly!!!

BigWyo on December 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM

He does? I wasn’t aware he was pro-life.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

If a solid conservative President is not elected in 2012, and if conservatives are not able to win control of congress, this is seriously the end of America.

3-4 years from now, if Obama is reelected, or if we elect some half baked RINO with another Democrat majority in congress, America is finished. Nothing will save our country except a complete revival in our churches.

JellyToast on December 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

I know, everyone is immoral except for white, fundamentalist, heterosexual, Third Day Adventists from Hayseed County, Bama.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

How refreshing./

However,you did forget the Clinging to our Guns and Bibles bit though. Stick to the script, or you won’t get paid.

portlandon on December 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

I did not know she was a Lesbian

jake-the-goose on December 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Whatever, as to Snowe, but Collins sure appears to be.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

This time its gays. I know, I know, everyone is immoral except for white, fundamentalist, heterosexual, Third Day Adventists from Hayseed County, Bama.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Ah, I see a member of the “No Labels” Koffee Klatch is here…

Branch Rickey on December 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

If we end up with the draft again we know who to blame.

Rose on December 15, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Many of those dismissed were identified as compromising what they “translated” and it appears they were doing so intentionally. Motives? Bitterness, revenge. Same thing Mr. Whosits Wikileaks source did and why.

You’re trying to excuse the guilty by claiming they’re being victimized, while it is they who are doing the victimization.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Source, please.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Inanemergencydial on December 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Confession? Did I confess something? Was it a confession to say that I’m an atheist? I guess to you, it must be a matter of guilt to say such a thing. Funny, vut I feel no guilt or shame what so ever. In fact I’m proud of what and who I am. I don’t even need to put others down to feel good about myself. I don’t have to preen and strut my moral supposed superiority to be content with who I am. If only you could say the same.

P.S. If anyone is wondering, I’m not gay, but wouldn’t mind saying so if I were.

P.P.S. I did serve honorably as an officer in the USAF and I’m not ashamed of that either.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

P.P.S. I did serve honorably as an officer in the USAF and I’m not ashamed of that either.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

eh? Why would you be?

darwin on December 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Conduct is governed by the UCMJ for gay and straight personnel alike.

(And before you or someone else brings up the sodomy thing, ask yourself when was the last time you heard of a sailor being punished for getting a hummer from a sporting lady on shore leave.)

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Then why is a repeal of this DADT policy necessary at all?

Why was the policy even written by Clinton in the first place? Because homosexual behavior was a disqualifying characteristic to prevent someone so engaged from enlisting or, if discovered after enlistment, for dishonorable discharge. So Clinton cast this policy, with the belief that it would allow service as long as there was no “tell” involved in what they were doing. What’s wrong with that, why should it be repealed, IF, as you claim, there’s already a policy that dictates behavior for all in service?

This is a conflicting set of complaints and concerns that can’t be explained rationally. So the emotional affronts begin: “it’s not fair,” and “it requires people to lie” and similar emotional lies to agitate, to accomplish nothing but agitation and generate a lot of negativity that can’t be resolved without caving in to the emotional ploys at work.

Another thing: that lady on the shore ISN’T TRYING TO CREATE A POLITICAL-SOCIAL STATE OF CONDITIONS THAT ALTERS OUR SOCIETY. She isn’t making requirements of her sailor to arrange entire changes on civilization to accommodate her 2% of peers…

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

BKeyser on December 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Semper-Fi, your post last night inspired my post this afternoon but I don’t have to repeat it because it will not matter to the activists who wish to denigrate the services.

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

If it were simply a matter of being PC, I’d be with you.

But we are stronger when we allow gays to serve. Just consider all of the foreign language translators, for example that we lost to this policy. One small example that had tangible, harmful impact on our security.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

You mean all those Arabic translators in Afghanistan? The left really dropped the ball on that meme, huh?

So again, we’ve seen gay friendly militaries. They don’t work. Why do you want us to be more like the Dutch?

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

THOSE INTERPRETORS, themselves, made the “harmful impact on our security.”

They knew the policy for service, they intentionally violated it (if you swear to “not tell,” but you insist on “telling,” there’s some character — as in moral — or psychological issue at work there that compromises anyone in an area of “security”, especially when it’s translating one set of expression in one language to another language).

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Well, here’s one fellow’s account of what happened to him:
My story begins almost a year ago when my roommate, who is also gay, was deployed to Falluja. We communicated the only way we could: using the military’s instant-messaging system on monitored government computers. These electronic conversations are lifelines, keeping soldiers sane while mortars land meters away.

Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives — comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay.

I could have written a statement denying that I was homosexual, but lying did not seem like the right thing to do.

It doesn’t sound as if he just had a yen to go tell people ‘guess what? I’m gay!’ one day, so I don’t think your point is valid.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

P.P.S. I did serve honorably as an officer in the USAF and I’m not ashamed of that either.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Thank you for your service.

Inanemergencydial on December 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

yeah, about that repeal thing,

“Gates has refused to speculate on how long he believes the repeal of the law would take to implement. But he has said repeatedly that he would not sign off on the certification until any training is completed and the service chiefs – many of whom have expressed reservations about allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly — are comfortable that lifting the ban would not have an affect on unit cohesion or combat effectiveness.”

I donno, but MArine Chief sure ain’t comfortable, last I heard….

runner on December 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

eh? Why would you be?

darwin on December 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

No reason. Why would I be ashamed of being an atheist? No reason as well. But that “inanemergencydial” dude may think it immoral of me, so I just wanted to to let him know that I’m not.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Can you link it? I’d like to read it.

BKeyser on December 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

It was a stupid political policy, put in place for the most cynical of motives. I am amazed at how the same folks who saw it for the pander that it was when it passed are so keen to see it preserved today!

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Glad to see that they did their part to get the economy humming again, helped reduce unemployment, fixed the cavernous deficits in Social Security and Medicare, gave our active duty troops all the financial support they needed to get their job done efficiently and safely so that Congress now has time to vote on this obviously pressing issue.

They did all those things first, right?

njrob on December 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

If we end up with the draft again we know who to blame.

Rose on December 15, 2010 at 7:19 PM

I seem to recall endless discussions of how hard it was to meet manpower goals when Bush was president. Now Obama is about to dictate a policy that the majority of combat troops oppose. What exactly does the political establishment now expect?!?

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 7:28 PM

We communicated the only way we could: using the military’s instant-messaging system on monitored government computers. These electronic conversations are lifelines, keeping soldiers sane while mortars land meters away.

It doesn’t sound as if he just had a yen to go tell people ‘guess what? I’m gay!’ one day, so I don’t think your point is valid.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Wow, that’s a mighty fine story there….

I guess ‘write a letter’ wasn’t an option….

BigWyo on December 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

The last time I heard from you, you were telling us how atheists were immoral. This time its gays. I know, I know, everyone is immoral except for white, fundamentalist, heterosexual, Third Day Adventists from Hayseed County, Bama.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Let me see, let me adopt your nomenclature and point of view here for a moment and deploy it contarily…

You heterophobe, racist, anti-Christian, elitist.

You’re just afraid of heterosexuals, you harbor racial animosity toward “White people” (likely, mostly if they’re male), you disrespect or perhaps cannot stand Christians (especially if they’re White and male), you’re condescending toward certain populations who you consider to be of lesser intellect than yourself…

I haven’t read anything from you (or JetBoy for that matter) that even makes rational sense. It’s all statement building toward pugalistic littering of your Leftwing Propaganda, opportunities to litter with such.

Like I said earlier, the Left exploits this and other related issues to DADT to interject both deprogation of our society in general (race, ethnicity, beliefs, gender, heterosexuality, etc., which refers to the majority among us) and promote (and share) descriptions of homosexuality.

Note your deflection earlier into the issue of “sodomy”.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

After this glorious piece of socially enlightened legislation passes, could someone set up a recruiting centre in East Sydney, please?

OldEnglish on December 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM

The GOP will betray you. And lookey here, it’s the one that betrayed you on Obamacare. Hmm…

What’s up with the tribe?

HA HA HA!!!!

True_King on December 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM

THE TRAITOROUS 111TH CONGRESS GOES OUT IN STYLE!!!

RAM IT down the dumbbleep American Peoples throats!!!

PappyD61 on December 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Wow, that’s a mighty fine story there….

I guess ‘write a letter’ wasn’t an option….

BigWyo on December 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

I’m not saying he mightn’t have been more careful. I am saying it’s silly that he would need to be. He was serving honorably, doing important work that very few are qualified to do, and was discharged for no good reason. That hurts the Army, and the nation as a whole.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

It was a stupid political policy, put in place for the most cynical of motives. I am amazed at how the same folks who saw it for the pander that it was when it passed are so keen to see it preserved today!

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

And yet that “stupid policy,” so you call DADT, allowed people who engage in homosexual behaviors to both enlist and serve in the military.

Yet such as those were not pleased with that. There’s this “need” to “tell” or display that indicates a mental and mentally unstable or irregular mind by such a population.

So remove the policy and return to standard military policy before DADT was in effect: homosexual behavior is cause for dishonorable discharge from the military, and, disallows anyone so involved from enlisting in the first place.

What’s wrong with that? Why join the military if you feel compelled to talk about homosexuality?

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Hayseed County, Bama.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Oh, so it’s Southerners you dislike.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:35 PM

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Thanks for the link – don’t go to Hell’s Bible often so I missed this.

I found this interesting…

But I never got to. In March, I was ousted from the Navy under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which mandates dismissal if a service member is found to be gay.

That’s not the policy. The policy for dismissal is if you ask someone (that’s the “Don’t Ask” part of DADT) or if you tell someone (that’s the “Don’t Tell” part of DADT) so that’s curious someone “found out” about him {he used military equipment to talk about his sexual preference – again the “Don’t Tell” part of DADT} – he blabbed. If you blab about your sex life as a translator with rules prohibiting that what else will you blab about – stuff you just translated?

1. He knew the rules (again the “Don’t Tell” part of DADT) and broke them. So gay soldiers don’t have to follow rules? Fascinating development. [reminds me of when my brother claimed the "teacher failed me" because 50% of his grade was classwork and even though he had 99% on tests plus 0% on classwork that equals a failing grade. My parents we're having none of it and said, "no sweetie you did that all by yourself" - it sucked to be him in summer school but he knew he had to do the classwork too] Looks like he lost his job because he violated the rules.

2. 70 translators, according to him, are gone as well because they too violated DADT. Let’s see, 5% of Marines won’t re-up versus 70 translators who can’t follow rules?

hmmmmmm……..

Branch Rickey on December 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Are transgendered included? Can you get a nice sex change operation in a military hospital on the tax payers dime?

Viator on December 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Can you link it? I’d like to read it.

BKeyser on December 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I found it. Great post. And Semper Fi Marine.

Funny how those who’ve never stood on those footprints -you at MCRDSD and me at MCRDPI- cannot possibly comprehend the life of a Marine, and yet they want to substantially alter it.

BK- Sgt, 0811, 1986-1992

BKeyser on December 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Who is going to oppose this moron RINO? I want to contribute. Sick and tired of her, Collins, Lugar and others of their ilk….

ultracon on December 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM

BKeyser on December 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I will try.

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Finally, if you thing the Pentagon report showing no harm and possible benefits from the repeal of DADT is the result of the Army brass somehow being mendacious and trying to put our fighting men and women in harm’s way, well, I think you might want to think twice before making that sort of accusation.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

It’s a political activity by political beings who are acting out politically to accommodate a like-minded politician. Mullen is a Leftwinger, Gates at this rate, who knows but he seems to have shown his Leftwing political hand by referring to our military as “the people’s military” recently.

This is the Left’s agenda to remake our military and affect many other social issues accordingly. It’s like placing a roach in a cereal box and anticipating all the eggs to be laid soon after, without regard for the integrity of the food source to nourish and provide afterward.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Will Barry sign it?

SouthernGent on December 15, 2010 at 7:38 PM

I seem to recall endless discussions of how hard it was to meet manpower goals when Bush was president. Now Obama is about to dictate a policy that the majority of combat troops oppose. What exactly does the political establishment now expect?!?

18-1 on December 15, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Worse than that, the folks that are being told “suck it up (can we still say that now?) or leave” who are most likely to do just that, are the “tip of the spear” (can we still say that?) combat arms, infantry, special operations. Exactly the people we need the most.

Even when the inevitable draft brings in new (inexperienced unmotivated) recruits, the skills, experience, and pure ferocity of our elite volunteer troops will be gone forever.

Rebar on December 15, 2010 at 7:39 PM

DOTUS checklist nearing completion:

Obamacare, destroy the American Peoples’ health system.

DADT, destroy the military (morale, etc.)

Wall Street, Financial Reform and then of course Financial Reform II, and III, and…….

Destroy the dollar.

Destroy trust in the Federal Government.

Destroy internet freedom with “net neutrality” turn it into a “PUBLIC UTILITY”.

Destroy the American Agriculture system (we’ll get that famine that will get us down to that manageable global population of one billion yet, you’ll see).

Have I missed anything?

******and the sad part as the light of freedom is extinguished in this land?…..the Progressive controlled GOP will do nothing to stop it.

PappyD61 on December 15, 2010 at 7:39 PM

BK- Sgt, 0811, 1986-1992

BKeyser on December 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM

O811 too, from 1967 until 1970, glad you found it I am not good at keyboards.

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Finally, if you thing the Pentagon report showing no harm and possible benefits from the repeal of DADT is the result of the Army brass somehow being mendacious and trying to put our fighting men and women in harm’s way, well, I think you might want to think twice before making that sort of accusation.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

And Mullen has patently, blatantly lied before Congress and the American public time and time again about DADT and why he “feels” it should be repealed.

No one’s asking, then no one’s telling. Mullen claims people are “required to lie” because of DADT. If no one’s asking, who’s lying?

Mullen simply wants to accommodate the telling — he’s after a different military function and it’s politically motivated. At the bidding of his political peers and President.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM

The polling taking place — from what I have heard first-hand from people in service (not saying who for personal reasons, however) — have all said that they responded in the negative as to repealing DADT. Many have shared how it was their attempts to even respond to this “poll” process was thwarted: didn’t go through, screen fell dark, “enter” pressed, screen disappeared, nothing sent…

Obama obtained the results he wanted to further his socio-political attack on our military and that’s been assisted by Mullen and, loathesomely, by Gates.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

DOTUS Checklist (I missed a couple):

DREAM ACT, destroy the Immigration system, effectively opening up the borders for 50 million more Hispanics to flood across the border for FREE MEDICARE, MEDICAID, WELFARE, HOUSING BENEFITS, and soon COLLEGE TUITION. North American Union here we come!!!!

Destroy the nations defenses (the hardware and non-troop assets) with the new START TREATY!!! DISARM DISARM DISARM!!!

PappyD61 on December 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

It’s a political activity by political beings who are acting out politically to accommodate a like-minded politician. Mullen is a Leftwinger, Gates at this rate, who knows but he seems to have shown his Leftwing political hand by referring to our military as “the people’s military” recently.

This is the Left’s agenda to remake our military and affect many other social issues accordingly. It’s like placing a roach in a cereal box and anticipating all the eggs to be laid soon after, without regard for the integrity of the food source to nourish and provide afterward.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Um, first of all, I strongly disagree with the notion that if you use the word ‘people’, you’re a left-winger. That’s just a mite bit silly. And it is, after all, our (i.e. the American people’s) military.

But as to your main point, how is this a ploy to remake our military? ‘Remake’ in what way? Homosexuals already serve in the armed forces, all this policy change will do is make it so people like that translator don’t need to worry that if they slip up and accidentally out themselves they’ll be discharged. How is that a big change?

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:44 PM

fourdeucer on December 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Ah! Another cannoncocker! 05′s or the pig?

BKeyser on December 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM

The polling taking place — from what I have heard first-hand from people in service (not saying who for personal reasons, however) — have all said that they responded in the negative as to repealing DADT. Many have shared how it was their attempts to even respond to this “poll” process was thwarted: didn’t go through, screen fell dark, “enter” pressed, screen disappeared, nothing sent…

Obama obtained the results he wanted to further his socio-political attack on our military and that’s been assisted by Mullen and, loathesomely, by Gates.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

So now you’re alleging a vast left-wing conspiracy to hide the opposition to ending DADT? I’m beginning to suspect you’re having a bit of fun at my expense.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Cool. Moving on, get that tax deal passed already.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Source, please.

Inkblots on December 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Oh, riggght, a Wiki page or something, maybe a post at HuffPo about it, riight. Find your own information, I’ve found mine.

And I was referring to the guy in our military who violated his terms of service to steal classified information, due to his personal “feelings” of animosity, revenge, anger and resentments about his transsexual associate not “getting” medical treatment, care, whatever…

If you can’t see the mental instability in that behavior and those motives, I can’t help you.

The few translators who were years ago fired were of similar states of mind, engaged in similar attempts to jeopardize security information for their “hurt feelings” or whatever else they were emotionally motivated by…but the gist of this is that a theme of easy resentments and attacks in revenge by many a homosexual on the rest of society or employers or peers or total strangers on the internet is well documented. It indicates a mental and/or emotional instability in general, and a real problem to our national security AND military (as also in education among other fields) by people so engaged (in homosexuality).

Take a look at the behavior entirely involved in Wikileaks: it’s a case of vengeful people with ego issues who hate and feel justified in destroying without responsibility for their actions.

Lourdes on December 15, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Is being gay immoral?

MJBrutus on December 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Yes.

scotash on December 15, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4