Gay Patriot Header Image

Why sudden swift action on DADT repeal?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:51 am - May 28, 2010.
Filed under: 111th Congress,DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

Like Bruce, I was surprised at the swiftness of the sudden movement on DADT.  For his first sixteen months in office, President Obama failed to use his executive powers to limit the reach of the ban, making it more difficult to dismiss service members who happen to be gay.

Now, all of a sudden, Congress acts.  To be sure, I am pleased with this move in the right direction, but troubled by the paucity of debate on the current bill.  And  concerned that there does not appear to be a timeline for executive action once Congress passes repeal.

All that said, what I most wonder about is why, after all this shilly-shallying around, Democrats decided to suddenly, swiftly taken action.

Share

52 Comments

  1. Yeah, I’m *so* glad Congress is dealing with this instead of trivial issues like the trillion dollar deficit, runaway entitlement spending, double digit unemployment, or the complete lack of border control. It’s great that Congress has its priorities so in order.

    Comment by V the K — May 28, 2010 @ 10:50 am - May 28, 2010

  2. You know, people told me that if I voted for John McCain, we’d see the government ordered to ignore lawbreakers…

    Never mind, It’s just to easy anymore.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 28, 2010 @ 10:59 am - May 28, 2010

  3. Dan, it´s about getting reelected. The Dems sense they are in peril of losing control and what better way to reverse the trend than kiss up to the gay community and energize them to vote Democrat.

    Comment by Roberto — May 28, 2010 @ 11:10 am - May 28, 2010

  4. “All that said, what I most wonder about is why, after all this shilly-shallying around, Democrats decided to suddenly, swiftly taken action.”

    Gee, is this hard to figure out?
    The enemy of gay equality is the Republican party. There is a distinct chance that the Republicans will gain sufficient seats in the November elections such that they may be able to block repeal if it were put off till next year. If not by taking over the House, then at least in being able to sustain a filibuster in the Senate.

    Given the psychology and scheduling of election year legislative actions (or lack thereof), if a bill like this is going to be passed this year, it needs to be done now. Given the disgusting and hyperbolic anti-gay rhetoric that the Republicans would surely deploy in the fall, if this bill were under active consideration then, it would be a lot harder for Congresscritters in red-leaning districts to vote for it.

    Obama has been intent on making this transition in as orderly a manner possible, trying to be fully repsectful of all the concerns (legitimate or otherwise) that the military has. That is why he delayed things long enough to get the military leadership on board. And has then given them a year to think through exactly how to implement the changes. I guess this is what you mean by “shilly shallying”.

    But given the nature of conservative and Republican policies, we cannot take the chance that they will be in a position to block this, once the review is complete. That is why it is being passed now.

    Comment by Tano — May 28, 2010 @ 12:42 pm - May 28, 2010

  5. That is why he delayed things long enough to get the military leadership on board.

    Except the military leadership ISN’T on board.

    So Tano, you just proved that Barack Obama is a liar. He said he would wait, and he didn’t. You also demonstrated the point – that Obama Party members like yourself and Barack Obama put politics ahead of the well-being and concern of our soldiers.

    And as for “disgusting and hyperbolic”, all they need to point out is that the people like yourself who are whining about repeal don’t care about our soldiers, don’t take their opinions into account, and have regularly referred to them as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and “murderers and baby-killers” in their own country.

    You don’t like it when your lies are pointed out. We’ve already seen that demonstrated in your whining fits elsewhere. You clearly are incapable of intelligent discussion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 1:06 pm - May 28, 2010

  6. The answer is simple: Dems need to shore up the base. With O’s sorry record on gay issues, this important special interest group wasn’t going to be rev’ed up to vote or donate.

    Comment by Paul — May 28, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - May 28, 2010

  7. My hunch is that Obama and his party are desperate to throw their base some red meat to get them energized. The timing seems strange—you set up a study and then you act before it’s over. It’s all election-induced ADHD. While I want DADT to be done away with, I think there are wrong ways to do it. A change that allows a sailor who does his job well and who doesn’t act unprofessionally towards his shipmates to say, “Yep, I’m gay,” won’t adversely affect morale and readiness of a ship’s crew in most cases, IMHO as a former submariner. We had a guy who almost everyone believed to be gay on our crew. He was a great guy as well as a great nuclear technician. He retired from the Navy while I was on the crew, and upon retirement, admitted to being gay. Would people have cared if he had been able to admit that while serving on the crew? Not really. However, those on the pro-repeal side should at least acknowledge that it complicates things to have people serving in very close quarters who are sexually attracted to each other. (Sure, we’ve had this situation since surface ships started having women on their crews, but at least there, men and women have separate berthing.) Some on the anti-repeal side have also expressed concerns about how this would affect things beyond just letting servicemembers serve openly. The bottom line for me is that the military knows how to run itself best, and I worry about politicians, many (most?) of whom have never served in the military, telling the military what to do. Should someone be barred from military service just because they are openly gay? I definitely don’t think so. But I don’t really trust this congress and president to handle this in a way that at least respects the legitimate arguments of the pro-DADT side, and the timing of this legislative push does nothing to convince me otherwise.

    Comment by chad — May 28, 2010 @ 1:27 pm - May 28, 2010

  8. Beautifully put, chad. I agree completely.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 1:28 pm - May 28, 2010

  9. The text of the actual amendment show that it doesn’t repeal it right away.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 28, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - May 28, 2010

  10. No doubt it has to do with an increasingly unhappy part of the Democratic base, which we have seen in donor boycotts and Obama being heckled when he speaks at gay events. Though I think its more because Pelosi was pushing for it happen than Obama wanted it to happen. Obama wanted to do this as apolitically as possible by hiding behind the military review and letting it be the decider. I don’t disagree with the approach but I think it has more to do with his lack of leadership than a deference to the military.

    I would have rather the review been done and it would have removed at least a rather good reason for not voting to repeal it. The problem is now that some voting against it did it for that reasons while others might have less than savor reasons. The point being that you would allow more votes to cross over had you waited.

    Its all political theater

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 28, 2010 @ 1:54 pm - May 28, 2010

  11. ‘I would have rather the review been done and it would have removed at least a rather good reason for not voting to repeal it. ”

    But you are missing the rather obvious point. The GOP does not need a “good reason” to oppose it. They oppose it on principle. That is not going to change based on what the review finds.

    If you wait till the review has been issued, then the GOP will have sufficient seats in the Senate to block with a filibuster. They are already on record as wanting to do that now – they will, we hope, fail. But with a few more seats they will succeed.

    Its really quite simple. You want repeal? Then you support the present effort. Otherwise you won’t get repeal.

    “I think it has more to do with his lack of leadership than a deference to the military. ”

    yawn. Why is stuff like this so predictable. He is a strong leader so long as he does things you don’t like. But when he moves issues you do like, then it must be some other force, or some other motivation. This is rather pathetic.
    He said all along that he will do this. He said all along that he will do it in a manner that is least disruptive to the military. That is exactly what he is doing.

    Image that – a competent president leading in a responsible manner in a direction you want to go. It would just kill you guys to acknowledge that, eh?

    Comment by Tano — May 28, 2010 @ 2:11 pm - May 28, 2010

  12. He said all along that he will do it in a manner that is least disruptive to the military. That is exactly what he is doing.

    Once again, Tano, you lie.

    Your Barack Obama said he would not move until he had all military leadership on board. He does not. He is going against the clearly-expressed desires of military leadership who have stated that his doing so would be disruptive.

    These facts were presented to you previously. Instead of acknowledging them, you continued to lie.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 2:35 pm - May 28, 2010

  13. What? Tano lying?

    I’m shocked SHOCKED to find Tano lying on this comments thread.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 28, 2010 @ 2:48 pm - May 28, 2010

  14. Tano, the problematic thing about whether Obama is a strong leader or not is that it hasn’t been supported. Obama is not the reason healthcare got through, Nancy Pelosi is the reason it got passed. He has let Congress craft the major pieces of his agenda, not himself. He never lead on DADT and once again deferred to someone else. Just like with the Oil Spill, he has been letting BP try to handle it…or something. I honestly am not sure who has been in charge with it.

    It just looks like a pattern to me, and I question how much of a leader he has been.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 28, 2010 @ 2:52 pm - May 28, 2010

  15. “Obama is not the reason healthcare got through, Nancy Pelosi is the reason it got passed.”

    Now that is just plain silly. He argued for it. He won an election on it. He moved it to the front of the agenda – against lots of advice from those who said he would fail to pass it. Yes, he allowed Congress (y’know, the representatives of the people) to do the job they were hired to do, rather than dictate the bill himself (which is precisely the charge you would level at him if he wrote more of it).

    “He never lead on DADT and once again deferred to someone else. ”

    Once again – he campaigned on it and won. He told the Pentagon that it would be happening, so they should wrap their heads around that. Then he decided to give them time to review HOW to implement the change, not whether to implement the change.

    “Just like with the Oil Spill, he has been letting BP try to handle it…or something.”

    Yeah, or something…. Something like what? Push BP aside and stop the leak with……the super-big drill hole plug that the government keeps in storage for just such an occasion?

    Derangement syndrome. Full blown….

    Comment by Tano — May 28, 2010 @ 3:03 pm - May 28, 2010

  16. Two obvious reasons that have already been mentioned: Obama wants to shore up his base heading into what appears will be a very bad midterm election for his party; to avoid an almost definite effort by the GOP, should they take enough seats in Congress after the election as expected, to quash repeal efforts regardless of what this review study says.

    He is a strong leader so long as he does things you don’t like.

    You’re joking,right? “Strong leader”? Obama? Barak Obama? The guy currently serving as POTUS? That guy? C’mon, whom do you think you’re kidding with this? Even libs are pissed off that they had to twist his arm so much to even get lukewarm support for a delayed repeal they didn’t like. That’s being a “strong leader”? Puh-leeze.

    I’d prefer a full repeal now like many others, but the more I think about it the more this compromise is growing on me. It takes the issue out of Congress and puts it squarely where it should be: in the hands of the CiC and the Pentagon. Let them decide how best to implement repeal. I’m sure I won’t like everything they come up with but it will change over time (probably a long time) to be more to my liking and it’s a helluva lot better than the nothing the Republicans wanted or leaving this odious law intact.

    Comment by John — May 28, 2010 @ 3:08 pm - May 28, 2010

  17. All of the Monday morning quarterbacking I have seen on healthcare points to Nancy Pelosi. She didn’t back down when the Administration wanted to retreat to a small reform, which probably would have been the better idea. She pushed and got what she wanted, she was able to wield her influence and push it ahead. I think Pelosi is a great speaker, I don’t agree with her agenda, but there is no doubt she gets what she wants done. I can see why she wanted Obama as the democratic nominee instead of Hillary now.

    He would have probably gotten a better healthcare bill if he had been more forceful on it. Like the stimulus plan, he let everyone else throw something into it and make it worse than it had to be. Maybe I am just used to stronger executives cause I am used to Clinton and W Bush, but he just seems less likely to lead and more like an idea man.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 28, 2010 @ 4:34 pm - May 28, 2010

  18. W Bush?
    So you really don’t have success as one of the factors defining strength of leadership?

    Bush had Social Security reform and immigration as his two big domestic initiatives. Failures both.
    Oh, he did pass NCLB – but he let Teddy Kennedy write most of it.
    Thats strong leadership?

    He did have the theatrics down….

    I repeat what I wrote above. Is there any initiative yet that Obama has failed to pass, or set on the road to passage?

    I am reminded of the quote Reagan used – “its amazing what you can get done if you don’t care who gets the credit”.
    Do you consider that attitude as a manifestation of weak leadership?

    Comment by Tano — May 28, 2010 @ 4:50 pm - May 28, 2010

  19. I repeat what I wrote above. Is there any initiative yet that Obama has failed to pass, or set on the road to passage?

    Yup — his “net spending cut.”

    Among others.

    Failure.

    Meanwhile as for Bush, not one, but two domestic tax cuts.

    Plus the creation of Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, we could go on.

    The problem with you, Tano, is that you simply don’t realize that your liberal perspective is fact-free and based solely on the repeating of Obama Party talking points.

    Perhaps if you could bring yourself to question your Obama Party and its talking points, you might be able to contribute to a discussion. But as always, you end up looking like a partisan fool.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 4:59 pm - May 28, 2010

  20. Nothing passed. Anyone who looks at this and says something literally passed has not read the amendment. An implementation date is not set, the military has to complete its review AND prepare for all changes BEFORE the amendment can be enacted. This could be next year, it could be a few years from now. This was a political maneuver because Democrats know gays will not pay attention to the details and AGAIN blindly vote for them because they saw something in the headlines saying DADT repeal. It’s truly sad that we gays have allowed ourselves to be a complete and utter political joke.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/28/did-congress-really-vote-to-repeal-dadt/

    Comment by Holly — May 28, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - May 28, 2010

  21. “Democrats know gays will not pay attention to the details and AGAIN blindly vote for them because they saw something in the headlines saying DADT repeal.”

    Huh? Gays are so stupid as not to pay attention to details? That is your argument?

    And they should rather vote for the party that has opposed repeal every step of the way?

    “It’s truly sad that we gays have allowed ourselves to be a complete and utter political joke.”

    You really wanna be a political joke? Support and vote for the party that is actively working against your equality. Now that would be hilarious.

    Comment by Tano — May 28, 2010 @ 6:14 pm - May 28, 2010

  22. Maybe they finally figured out that 78% of Americans support the appeal? Even 60% of Republican favor the repeal (which makes one wonder why Collins is the only GOP Senator planning to vote for the bill…more proof that the radical fringe of social conservatives set the agenda for the GOP).

    Comment by Houndentenor — May 28, 2010 @ 6:34 pm - May 28, 2010

  23. You really wanna be a political joke? Support and vote for the party that is actively working against your equality. Now that would be hilarious.

    Like you do, Tano?

    And how about your support of a party whose leader says that he opposes gay marriage, that marriage is a “sacred bond” between a man and a woman, and that “God’s in the mix”?

    And how about your support of a party that openly practices employment discrimination against gays?

    So Tano, you are hilarious. You don’t realize how foolish you look at screaming about “working against gay equality” when you are licking the boots of people who are doing exactly that which you criticize Republicans for allegedly doing.

    Now run away again. Your failure to respond to facts only demonstrates that you have no intelligent argument to make and in fact are nothing more than an intellectual failure and bigot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 6:36 pm - May 28, 2010

  24. Tano,

    I am equal. The only one complaining here is you. I do not need a political party to approve of me the way you do. Unlike you, being gay does not define me; I do not wrap myself in the ridiculous rainbow flag. The American flag is the only flag that holds my allegiance.

    I never said I did not support repeal, but I want the military to review it first, like was promised! My brother serves in the Air Force and he deserves to be the focus because this will affect him more than you. You do not care about my brother though, you do not care about if this administration will implement this properly during war, nontheless. You are not my concern, my brother is my concern.

    The only joke in this scenario is you. You blindly vote for a party that moved this legislation merely for political rhetoric to shore up a fledging base and you call it progress. This is why Democrats do not need to respect you. You come cheap.

    Comment by Holly — May 28, 2010 @ 6:38 pm - May 28, 2010

  25. Houndentenor,

    That is very simplistic of you. I would suggest you look at the complaints of most of the Republicans who voted against it and you will see that most would have been open to the idea AFTER the military was done with its review. As a lesbian, I agree with the Republicans. I wanted the review from the military first, that way the focus would be on our men and women serving, rather than being a political grandstand for votes like it has become.

    Comment by Holly — May 28, 2010 @ 6:43 pm - May 28, 2010

  26. I haven’t read every single response in the thread, and I’m not sure if anyone has used the phrase “political legacy” yet, but I think that’s what the rush was about for Democrats — they want to be on record as having voted “Yes” for repeal, even if the military’s report in December turns out to be SO negative that repeal does not proceed at all.

    What’s more, a lot of Democratic congresscritters may fear that if they don’t register a “Yes for DADT Repeal” vote now, they may no longer have the opportunity to do so after November!

    So, regardless of whether the current repeal effort ultimately succeeds, I think that Democrats wanted to have a “Yes” vote on their political résumés.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 28, 2010 @ 8:48 pm - May 28, 2010

  27. Holly,

    You must absolutely KNOW that what you are saying is utter BS. Republicans have been opposed to this, on principle for ever. The only reason DADT exists today is because of Republican opposition to gays serving in the military 17 years ago. They have opposed it every step of the way, and still do. They will NOT change their position, irrespective of what the review says. And surely you must know that.

    The review is not focused on the question of IF gays will be allowed to serve openly – it is focused on HOW the military will adapt and adjust to gays serving openly. The President has decided that the change will happen, and has tasked the military to make it happen smoothly.

    Unless, of course, the Republicans block it, which they are intent on doing. I guarantee you that if it doesn’t pass now, and if the Republicans gain enough seats to stop it next year, they will do so.

    “I am equal.”

    Yes you are. Yes, we all are. Which is why we must defeat the Republicans who wish to continue, in law, a practice which denies that equality.

    “I do not need a political party to approve of me the way you do. ”

    Huh? I have no need for a party to approve of me. But if there are two parties, and one of them respects the equality of all people and legislates so as to recognize and enforce that equality, and the other party does everything it can to deny that equality, then I am not so brain-dead as to be confused as to where my sympathies shall lie.

    “Unlike you, being gay does not define me;”

    Huh? Being gay does not define me. Where do you get this stuff? Is there some handbook of rightwing memes that you just draw randomly from to hurl at people you disagree with?

    “you do not care about if this administration will implement this properly during war, ”

    Actually I do, and am very proud of my president and how he has gone so far out of his way to insure that the military leadership could acclimate to the idea of repeal ( a year) and then gave them another year to formulate the process for making the change seamlessly. All in the face of lots of flack from his base who wanted him to move quicker. You should be grateful too.

    “You blindly vote for a party that moved this legislation merely for political rhetoric …”

    No, I vote with eyes open for the party that has been trying to accomplish this for 17 years. And I vote against the party that has been doing all it can to stop it for 17 years.
    Its really not that complicated Holly.

    Comment by Tano — May 28, 2010 @ 8:55 pm - May 28, 2010

  28. Tano,

    President Clinton enacted this legislation and both political parties defended it being in place. There are plenty of Republicans who would be okay with a repeal, but AFTER the military has thoroughly reviewed the subject and proper changes made.

    You are proud of “your” President, well I don’t care. I’m proud of the military and their well-being comes before your political desires. Like I said, you do not care how politicizing this will affect my brother who serves; you get to sit on your ass and complain. I do not want this to be political and that is what it has become. You want, you want, you want…I want politics out of this on both sides and for politicians to stop legislating military behavior. Yes, I want both political parties to stop legislating military behavior. Let the military perform its review and then let the changes be implemented; not this symbolic gesture which is asinine at best.

    No, sir, I’m not using Conservative cliches; this is me, this is my opinion, irrespective of what others think. I would be glad to talk about details with you, but you seem incapable of acknowledging that there is legitimacy in waiting 7 months to fulfill what “your” President promised. There is bi-partisan support for repeal from the general public, but I do not know anyone in the general public who wants this performed without the approval of the military, and this review would have removed all doubt of political coercion.

    Comment by Holly — May 28, 2010 @ 9:27 pm - May 28, 2010

  29. The only reason DADT exists today is because of Republican opposition to gays serving in the military 17 years ago.

    Actually, it exists because it was passed by an Obama Party-majority Congress, signed by an Obama Party President, and endorsed and supported by the Obama Party as “protecting American values”.

    Now, Tano, you pretty much have completely destroyed your credibility by stating that Republicans controlled both Congress and the Presidency in 1993. My suggestion would be that, instead of continuing to demonstrate your infantile understanding and utter lack of intelligence, that you come clean, acknowledge the fact that you have been lied to by your Obama Party, and start to develop some intellectual firepower and freedom.

    There is a future away from the plantation, Tano. You don’t need the Obama Party to take care of you and change your diapers; you can do that yourself, if you will only believe you are equal and stop believing their lies that you are inferior and need the Obama Party to take care of you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 9:53 pm - May 28, 2010

  30. “President Clinton enacted this legislation and both political parties defended it being in place.”

    Huh? President Clinton intended to allow gays to serve openly. The Republicans raised holy hell – absolute opposition. DADT was the compromise. There is no question that if the Dems had their way, this would have been resolved 17 years ago. DADT exists only because the GOP forced that compromise. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand anything about the issue.

    “There are plenty of Republicans who would be okay with a repeal, but AFTER the military has thoroughly reviewed the subject and proper changes made. ”

    BS. Thst is exactly what the bill specifies. The repeal does not take effect until AFTER the review is done, and AFTER the military leadership signs off on the process.

    “I do not want this to be political and that is what it has become. ”

    Sorry Holly, but it became political 17 years ago when the GOP forced DADT as the compromise. It is now a law. That means it can only change as a result of a political process.

    Unless, of course, you support the bill now before Congress. Because that takes it out of the political realm, and does exactly what you pretend you want – it puts implementation in the hands of the military, and gives them the right to sign off on the process.

    “Let the military perform its review and then let the changes be implemented; not this symbolic gesture which is asinine at best.”

    I guess you really just do not understand what you are talking about. THe
    current bill is not symbolic. It does exactly what you way you want done.

    “I’m not using Conservative cliches; this is me, this is my opinion,”

    Total BS. I have never said a single thing in this thread, or any other, which can in any way be interpreted as defining myself as gay. That is a common trope of the gay right however – I have read people here make the same argument that you make.

    “but you seem incapable of acknowledging that there is legitimacy in waiting 7 months to fulfill what “your” President promised. ”

    Huh? That is exactly what will happen. Excuse my french here, but are you fricken brain dead? NOTHING can proceed until the review is done – 7 months AT LEAST. And then it proceeds in a manner defined by the military.

    Comment by Tano — May 28, 2010 @ 10:05 pm - May 28, 2010

  31. There is no question that if the Dems had their way, this would have been resolved 17 years ago.

    The Obama Party controlled Congress and held the Presidency when DADT was passed 17 years ago.

    Your inability to admit that fact does not make it untrue; it merely demonstrates how delusional you are.

    And now, let’s demonstrate your additional hypocrisy.

    You harbor and nurture a couple of world-class thugs in your comments section, who seem to take it upon themselves to enforce a conformity amongst the commenting community – no one dares to dispute the GP line unless they are willing to read themselves being lied about, or characterized in the most disgusting manner.

    Which is why you attack, namecall, and lie about Holly because she refuses to conform to your leftist worldview.

    But it gets better:

    I still expect an apology, especially when you go on to criticize others for their own vile language.

    So Tano screams about “vile language”, then goes ahead and uses it himself.

    This becomes entirely too easy after a while.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 10:27 pm - May 28, 2010

  32. Tano,

    The bill is symbolic in gesture because they are making a political statement before anything can be accomplished. Can you understand that? The review should be finished first and THEN Congress acts. Not before.

    You are simply an ass.

    Comment by Holly — May 28, 2010 @ 11:28 pm - May 28, 2010

  33. The enemy of gay equality is the Republican party.

    Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the gay left figuring out what a colossal homophobe their SOBiC is, eh?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 29, 2010 @ 1:02 am - May 29, 2010

  34. There is no question that if the Dems had their way, this would have been resolved 17 years ago

    Remind me, again, which party Sam Nunn belonged to?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 29, 2010 @ 1:21 am - May 29, 2010

  35. “The bill is symbolic in gesture because they are making a political statement before anything can be accomplished. Can you understand that?”

    No I cannot understand that. The bill has the force of law. It mandates that the review be completed, that the SecDef, the Chairman, and the President evaluate how the process is to proceed and certify that it can do so without harming the military. And then, with their signatures, the repeal goes into effect.
    This is real stuff, its not symbolic. It is the enabling legislation for the accomplishment.

    “The review should be finished first and THEN Congress acts. Not before.”

    Well that is your opinion. But that doenst mean the law is just symbolic.

    And you ignore the obvious point made earlier. Because the Republicans have a fair chance of adding a few Senate seats in November, they will most likely have the ability to filibuster the bill if it doesnt come up before the review is done.
    The Republicans intend to kill this repeal if they possibly can. That is the only reason why passage must happen now, rather than later.

    Comment by Tano — May 29, 2010 @ 1:35 am - May 29, 2010

  36. No, Tano, you ignore the obvious point made earlier.

    The military does not want this bill. They have made that clear. You and your lying Obama Party are trying to ram through this bill to destroy and punish the military.

    The Republican Party puts country and the well-being of the military ahead of pandering to gay and lesbian bigots and hatemongers like yourself. You don’t care about the military; you only care about your own desperate need to hurt and attack the military and try to use the government to force other people to accept your inferior and antisocial behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2010 @ 2:31 am - May 29, 2010

  37. The Republicans intend to kill this repeal if they possibly can.

    Seems to me that there are 26 tolerant™ and compassionate™ liberals keen on doing the same. And let’s not forget the beloved Critz voted no.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 29, 2010 @ 5:58 am - May 29, 2010

  38. TGC–

    “tolerant ™” “compassionate ™”

    Hee hee!

    Comment by Sean A — May 29, 2010 @ 8:00 am - May 29, 2010

  39. “…you only care about your own desperate need to hurt and attack the military and try to use the government to force other people to accept your inferior and antisocial behavior.” (Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2010 @ 2:31 am – May 29, 2010)

    Really? Being gay is inferior and anti-social? Aren’t YOU gay?

    I can’t think of any other description besides “self-loathing”.

    Comment by Houndentenor — May 29, 2010 @ 8:49 am - May 29, 2010

  40. #39: “I can’t think of any other description besides “self-loathing”.”

    Says one of the petulant crybabies who hate themselves so much that they need governments to pass laws recognizing their personal romances and relationships as “equal” and valid so that they don’t feel like “second class citizens.”

    Hound-for-dinner, if you weren’t self-loathing, you would just live your life instead of spending so much time trying to convince yourself and everyone else that you have been victimized by society. And if you thought that certain laws should be changed, you would support those changes without systematically assuming that your political opponents are motivated by personal, seething hatred and disgust for you. You would be able to accept that other people disagree with you politically and then go on with your life. But since you hate yourself so much, the whole thing has to be turned into a battle of good vs. evil. Political triumphs over “evil” conservatives are what confirms for you that YOU ARE “GOOD.” Why do you need that?

    Hell-For-Leather, why can’t you just accept yourself for who you are regardless of what the military says or does? Why do you need so much validation from public officials for who you are and how you live your life?

    I can’t think of any other description besides “self-loathing.”

    Comment by Sean A — May 29, 2010 @ 11:48 am - May 29, 2010

  41. LOL

    I thought Ron Paul had the best quote of the week on DADT. What a waste of time and money to drum well-trained, hard-working men and women out of the service for being gay.

    I do find it interesting that aside from the gaypatriot triumverate, no one here seems to agree with them on the repeal of DADT and the freedom to marry EXCEPT the moderates and liberals who disagree with them on just about everything else.

    Comment by Houndentenor — May 29, 2010 @ 1:50 pm - May 29, 2010

  42. Houndentenor,

    You may wish to correct</a< your observation.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 29, 2010 @ 2:28 pm - May 29, 2010

  43. Really? Being gay is inferior and anti-social? Aren’t YOU gay?

    Well, let’s provide an example:

    Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.

    The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass — no political party has opposed it — but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.

    The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.

    “My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.

    Now, this makes it clear that sex with underage children is “common” and normal for gay and lesbian people.

    So obviously, since I’ve never had or even had the desire to have sex with underage children, and think that doing so is inferior and antisocial behavior, obviously, I can’t be gay.

    There are several more examples. I don’t worship Barack Obama, I don’t hate George Bush, I don’t believe that taking children to sex fairs constitutes an “educational experience”, I don’t believe that being punished for demanding sex from your coworkers is homophobia, I don’t think the military are “unwelcome and uninvited intruders” in our country, etc. “Being gay” involves having to do all of these things, and clearly, I do not in any way qualify.

    That’s the hilarity of you and your Obama Party, Houndentenor. We thought you’d hit rock bottom when you started shrieking that Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas were not really black, but every day you demonstrate how completely you’ve taken minority status away from actually being a minority.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2010 @ 9:00 pm - May 29, 2010

  44. The really funny juxtaposition for me was this.

    Yesterday, Tano whined:

    no one dares to dispute the GP line unless they are willing to read themselves being lied about, or characterized in the most disgusting manner.

    And then Houndentenor whines:

    I do find it interesting that aside from the gaypatriot triumverate, no one here seems to agree with them on the repeal of DADT and the freedom to marry

    So first the lefties criticize this blog as viciously conformist, then they start laughing and ha-ha’ing about people not agreeing with each other.

    Again, intellectual consistency is not the hallmark of the left, but the degree to which they are incapable of practicing it still is staggering.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2010 @ 9:17 pm - May 29, 2010

  45. Now, this makes it clear that sex with underage children is “common” and normal for gay and lesbian people.

    Because Richard Hudler of Canada said so, NDT?

    I guess my experience is different. But NONE of the gay people I know NEVER had any sex with anyone under 18 while adults (and if I’m wrong and some did, they obviously aren’t bragging about how “normal” it is). Further, almost all I know did not even have sex while under 18. Go figure.

    So when we say we believe that being gay is not inferior, it has nothing to do with believing being gay involves having sex with underage children, taking children to sex fairs, entitled to sexually harass employees, or any other disgusting practice. Just as being heterosexual isn’t inferior even though there are plenty of heterosexuals who also engage in such reprehensible behavior.

    Comment by Pat — May 30, 2010 @ 11:57 am - May 30, 2010

  46. Oops. “NONE” should be “ALL.”

    Comment by Pat — May 30, 2010 @ 11:59 am - May 30, 2010

  47. I’d rather they drag this debate out for some time. I want it consuming their every moment for as long as possible.
    I want them ignoring the economy.
    Every time these fools try to “fix” it they make it far worse. So “wasting” time on this issue is beneficial to us in the long run.
    And as normal Tano is a buffoon.
    DADT is after all, a dem written, dem passed, Dem President signed bill.
    Many conservatives really could care less. And this will likely have true bi-partisan support.
    But hey, the libs have used it to slam our forces for years. I guess they will need to find some other reason than a rule forced on the military by Congress
    The military has rules to cover the situations of behavior. Too many used it as a “Get Out Of The Military Free” card, and those who didn’t tell, and were outed by some scum who didn’t like them were done no service by a law passed by Tano’s beloved party of fools. I recall two cases where the unit as a whole would prefer their Gay soldier back and get rid of the one troublemaker who outed them (One was a Medic, the other a Translator), and in one of the cases I recall the outer getting the boot later as well. I never heard about the other, though he was quite unpopular with the rest of the unit.

    Comment by JP — May 30, 2010 @ 5:49 pm - May 30, 2010

  48. Congrats Gay Patrioters! Are you going to oppose Mark Kirk for Senate now that he voted against DADT repeal? And also Scott Brown.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 30, 2010 @ 8:37 pm - May 30, 2010

  49. I do so love how the lefties make their hypocrisy so darn obvious.

    Before, when you point out what their Obama Party masters do in the way of demanding abolishment of the military, branding our troops “uninvited and unwanted intruders” and supporting groups that openly attack our military members, they whine:

    My point being that you can hate and criticize flaws in allies, while still supporting them on the other issues that you agree with.

    But now, what do they demand other people do?

    Are you going to oppose Mark Kirk for Senate now that he voted against DADT repeal? And also Scott Brown.

    Once again, the minority gay-sex liberal demands that other people be held to a standard that the gay-sex liberal whines and screams and will not tolerate being held to themselves.

    This really demonstrates how gay-sex liberalism is all about special treatment based on minority status. Because Tom is a gay-sex liberal, he doesn’t believe that he has to be fair or consistent; the rules shouldn’t apply to him because he’s a minority.

    Meanwhile, Tom, besides the fact that you and your fellow gay-sex liberals support abolishing the military, branding our troops as uninvited and unwanted intruders, and supporting groups that openly attack our military members, we also know that you and your fellow gay-sex liberals like Jared Polis put forward fake military veterans to tell lies for you, such as Rick Duncan and one you and your Annelise Parker personally endorse and support, Michael Patrick McManus.

    Only in the Obama Party would they be desperate enough to put forth fakes and liars as “proof” for how DADT should be repealed. And what makes it even more hilarious is how the gay-sex shill groups like SLDN don’t condemn these liars and fakes for pretending to be veterans when they’re not.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 30, 2010 @ 11:22 pm - May 30, 2010

  50. I believe President Truman ordered the Armed Forces racialy integrated in 1948 or 49. In the Summer of 1950 the all Black 24th Infantry Regiment was one of the first units sent to Korea. Clearly the military was foot draging.

    As much as I love and respect our military men and women (I have several friends deployed right now) there is a culture of homophobia in the US armed forces that will have to be delt with and some serious leadership will be needed. One saving grace I expect is that the vast majority of gay troops will be very selective about who they come out to.

    What will happen is the worst case abuses such as the USAF Reserve nurse who had discharge procedings started based only on an anonomyus complaint the she had once cohabited with another woman 100 miles from her unit, will immeditely halt. That alone will strengthen our force structure

    Comment by Greg Smith — May 30, 2010 @ 11:36 pm - May 30, 2010

  51. Thanks for you thoughtful comments on AOL tonight. I realize it can be frustrating when you can’t lead the movement to DADT repeal. But, hollering foul about politics doesn’t become you. Please don’t add more dissent to our best hope of advancement – what happed in Congress is the essence of the political process. It wouuld be refresihng to hear at least one conservative act conservatively rather than joing the crowd of nay sayers who are going to turn what is left of the GOP into the most pathetic and misguided movement in US History….

    Comment by Dr Bill Rohde — May 31, 2010 @ 3:57 am - May 31, 2010

  52. Bill, dissent? Naysayers? Huh?

    Why shouldn’t I express some concerns about this issue even if I think it it a step in the right direction? And why do you feel the need to alert us to your prejudices against the Republican Party?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 31, 2010 @ 9:16 am - May 31, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.