Barney Frank says Democrats are punting on repealing ˜Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) Until 2010. Looks like the folks at GOProud were onto something when they pointed out that so far, “Democrats have spent no political capital on moving on important election year promises such as the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell“.
Frank explains the reasons for the delay:
I believe we should and will do ˜Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” next year. . . . We haven’t done the preliminary work, the preparatory work. It would be a mistake to bring it up without a lot of lobbying and a lot of conversation.
It does seem Frank, a key player in the passage of DADT sixteen years ago, has learned from Bill Clinton’s fumbling of the issue early in his Administration. That Democrat President so quickly clumsily pushed repealing the ban on gays in the military that he agreed to the pernicious compromise of DADT to save face.
I agree with Frank that we do need a “lot of conversation.” Let’s hope though that he’s not the one leading it. We need people with long records of support of the military to speak out in favor of repeal.
They can better show why it is in our national interest to repeal the ban. It increases the size of the pool from which our armed forces can draw recruits. And it saves the military time and money. Instead of rooting around in the private lives of soldiers, they can better train them to serve our nation and protect their fellow citizens.
Study after study (after study after study) has shown that allowing open service of gay people in the military will not compromise the effectiveness of the armed forces. A number of nations have allowed gay people to serve openly in their armed forces without undermining unit cohesion.
While I agree with Frank that we need begin this conversation as a preparatory move to Congressional consideration of repeal, I think it’s a mistake to wait. We can start that conversation today. Congress can start moving the legislation tomorrow.
If the President and Congress could rush passage of a near-trillion dollar “stimulus” which Democrats hacked together in a period of weeks, why can’t they similarly speed passage of legislation to repeal a law which numerous concerned citizens, retired military officials and a bipartisan group of Senators and Members of Congress have been pushing for a period of years?
Let’s help Service Members Legal Defense Network (SLDN) next week when they launch “a major offensive” to urge the President to immediately repeal DADT.
But, it doesn’t look like Barney Frank’s going to be on our side on this one. And that may not be such a bad thing.
Why not wait until the next election cycle to bring this up? They can collect more campaign dollars on promises instead of results. Do any of these liberals have any courage or convictions?
I agree that the jaw jaw needs to start now, as the ‘kick the football game’ will continue until 2010 when the comment will be ‘we’re starting the conversation’ and then in 2012 it will be ‘those evil nasty Republicans have taken the House and/or Senate back and we don’t have the votes.’
Thus the Democrats will do nothing, and blame the Republicans for it.
Of course I’ve found the more insightful discussions about it on this thread.
Interesting question you pose, GPW: Is the cause of DADT repeal better off without Frank? Quite possibly.
OK, but I think that means common crew quarters for everyone.
If you won’t protect straight men from gay men who have a PRESUMED sexual interest in them, then why protect women from straight men who have a PRESUMED sexual interest in THEM.
Notice the double standard? Gay men say “I can control my desires around other men who are not interested in me” and it’s all OK because the wishes of the straight men who don’t want the possible unwanted attention are not taken into account.
But if straight men say “I can control my desires around women who are not interested in me” it’s not OK because the wishes of the of the women who don’t want the possible unwanted attention are given primacy.
So it’s the gay men who are presumed to be in control of themselves but not the straight men. Do you really think that’s the case?
Speaking personally, having Bwaney Fwank in the shower with me would be a creepy experience.
I for one can’t wait for this discussion on The View:
Baba Wawa: We have Bawney Fwank with us today. Bawney, what will it be wike for the miwitawy to wepeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Teww?”
Bawney Fwank: Well, Baba, it will be a weawwy wich expewience. But first we have to do the pwoper gwoundwork.
Baba: Oh, weawwy? Pwease ewaborate.
Bawney: We haven’t done the pwewiminary work, the pwepawatowy work. It would be a mistake to bwing it up without a wot of wobbying and a wot of convewsation.
Joy Behar (screaming): IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT!
Back to your reguwarwy – excuse me, regularly – scheduled program.
Regards,
Peter H.
I served on active duty from 1970-1990. I believe that the ban on gays in the military was appropriate at the time. I could cite anecdotes (that would take up too much space here) to demonstrate why. But times have changed and I would now like to see gays be allowed to serve openly. The bad news: a female relative currently on active duty in the Army says that she and the folks she hangs with are opposed to gays in the military. So it’s still a long haul folks.
I served as an Air Force enlisted member for 20 years. I had straight and gay roommates. Never saw a reason for annoying people who were gay or straight, don’t see a reason for segregation now. In field conditions, people need to respect privacy as much as they can anyway — this might actually help on peripheral issues.
We’ve had close to thirty years of discussion about gays in the military. I think Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton or George Bush should have gone to Congress and asked for the repeal long ago, and stopped enforcement if that’s within their authority (it may not have been). Since His Hopeful Changeness thinks everything is within his authority, this is the only policy I want him to get on with. Now. I think it’s going to take an act of Congress or a presidential order, as racial integration finally did.
While I do support lifting the ban on gays in the military and women in combat arms, I would be hesitant to cite “studies” that “prove” that they will not effect the performance of the military. I say this not because the studies are false, but because studies are so often misused and conducted to provide a desired result that I think people are hesitant to believe them anymore. Especially in this case when you say that other countries don’t have a problem… the counter argument is of course they don’t their militaries are second rate by our standards.
In this instance, I think it is sufficient to say that it is the right thing to do and it is time to do it. I am a very big supporter of our military and I can say without hesitation that they will be able to adapt to this… and they need to. This was a bad policy Clinton agreed to and there is no defensible reason for Obama (and Frank) to allow it to continue.
Time to keep at least one campaign promise Mr. President.
This is one of the things that cemented me for the Republicans. Clinton totally backstabbed gays with DADT and then acted like he did us a favor. And all the gay left groups went right along with it and only criticized DADT once a Republican was president. Now a Democrat’s back in office, they’ll take the crumbs they can get and keep silent about it.
I think one of the few good things about “Starship Troopers”, the movie, was how it showed male & female troopers showering together, and how they were “matter of fact” about it. It sort of brought home that we weren’t actually looking at 20th century Americans.
I remember also being impressed by a “let gays openly serve” advocate on NPR several years ago who,when the conversation (it was a “talk” show) came around to “how is the sexual attraction a gay man feels for men different from that a straight man feels for women”, said “yes, men & women should bunk together” — most won’t follow the logic all the way.
In 2005 video, Bawney Fwank claims the housing bubble will never burst, encourages more bad loan-making.
I think that the left does not want repeal of DADT, as that policy is the bedrock public rationale for their highly institutionalized anti-military views and policies. For example, DADT is the reason that Harvard cites for its policies of exluding ROTC and harrassing military recruiters. Without DADT to blame, institutions like Harvard would be naked in their hostility to the military generally, and it would be clear to the world that they think it socially demeaning to have to interact with, or even tolerate the presence of, military people.
My experience in the military in the 60s was quite telling. As a rural (or hillbilly) type I had never been exposed to many black people or even many city folk. I quickly figures out that it was the individual that counted and not much else.
I suspect that allowing gays to be open about there preferences would have much the same effect for most. It’s hard to understand others if you never interact with them.
Face it- it’s George Bush’s fault DADT exists. He had 8 long years and he did nothing. You can’t expect BO to help ‘teh gays’ when he has much bigger problems that George Bush left him.
Yeah, let’s get rid of all sexual taboos and just force which ever ones we want on other people. DADT was one of the more humanizing events in history…. do what you do privately and don’t try to wave your sexuality (whatever it is) in everyone’s face. I love the “Starship Troopers” idea…. just goes to show that nowadays people are more into theory than reality. They should publish the real rape rates for the military now that there are so many women … people would be very surprised. Not reporting reality (in the MSM) is the way a lot of this theoretical nonsense gets a foothold.
I should think that if they truly gave a damn about it, they would have done this long ago. I kept asking, during the campaign, that if Hillary or Chumpy Obamalini were serious about it, they would have done something about it while in the Senate. But then that would require Il Douche to have actually done something in the Senate.
Hey Pete, you left out the Daffy Duck like spittle.
I know. I always think about that scene whenever there’s a DADT discussion. I like that movie, yeah it’s bad in so many ways, but overall, I think it’s pretty cool. Of course Casper Van Dien and NPH are pretty cute.
On a side note, my brother was required to read it at The Citadel. Apparently there’s a lot of good material about leadership in the book. He said, of course, the book was a lot better.
#17 – “Hey Pete, you left out the Daffy Duck like spittle.”
From which liberal? They ALL have that reflex! 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
“Face it- it’s George Bush’s fault DADT exists. He had 8 long years and he did nothing. You can’t expect BO to help ‘teh gays’ when he has much bigger problems that George Bush left him.”
Really? Did Bush use a mind control ray on Clinton to make him sign DADT?
Get it through your head, the Democrats do not care about your gay ass, but they will buy your votes with cheap empty promises.
I think I know why Obama lied about some of his other promises. On this one I am just plain sad. He’s got everything all lined up for him to make a change. In other words there is no excuse. Like many conservatives, once the election was over, we hoped Obama might just might be a different guy. That he would in fact bring us together, work across isles and not be a polarizing figure. I’m truly sad that we were wrong. If he can’t change DADT in his first 100 days, it means he never meant to in the first place. I’m just plain sad.
#9 Matt You are right. In the 70’s when I served in the Army, drug abuse was unreal and out of control. After reaching critical mass, they fixed the problem. I guess when the services were segregated, eventually when they chose to change, they did and blacks now serve honorably side by side with whites and hispanics and no one blinks an eye. Once the change is put in place the serivices are amazing at saluting and saying “yes sir it will be done”. When gays openly serve there might be a few bumps in the road but don’t underestimate how well the services can institute changes in a closed envirnment, with their control and discipline.
A few points:
(1) The headline to this post is disingenuous: “Democrats Delaying Repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” gives the impression that this is a Democrat/Republican issue, but it was a democrat-majority House and Senate (and a democrat President) who passed it in the first place. Among the many things that are confused in this issue, party lines are one.
(2) How can Frank’s claim, that “we haven’t done the preliminary work”, be true? The day of at least considering repeal of DADT must surely have been anticipated by those with the will to do the up-front spadework. This should have been going on since at least the elections of 2006, if not earlier. Unless… those who claim to care had higher priorities.
(3) The military does not “root around in the private lives of soldiers”. That is the “don’t ask” part.
(4) Contrary to popular belief, the President cannot repeal DADT (well, not legally, anyway). Yes, the implementation policies are an executive branch issue, but the policies implement a discriminatory requirement set in law. Change has to begin in Congress.
Of course the Dhimmicrats are going to postone ANY action on DADT ’til at-least 2010; they need it as an issue in 2010 to milk campaign cash out of their unquestioning and passive G/L supporters for “…just one more election against the GOP, who are entirely-responsible for blocking it’s repeal. So give ’til it hurts, or else the Haters will win…again.”
It’s been 100 days, and has Obamessiah done ANYTHING for the Gays?
It’s been over two years since Pelosi and Reid took control of the Hill, and have they done anything for the Gays? They haven’t even delivered on ENDA,…which was supposed to be a slam-dunk.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Question, …just send lots of money.
With respect, Gene, that’s just absurd. Maybe you had some slight glimmer of hope that he would be different, I’d believe that. However, you had to know long before November what exactly he was going to be in that respect.
But then I knew he was an idiot, but I didn’t know he was that colossal an idiot.
Has he done anything useful for anybody?