DADT On The Verge Of Being Repealed Today

SharpshooterTom

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/senate-faces-historic-vote-military-gay-ban/

WASHINGTON -- Congress is one step away from ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, with the Senate ready for a landmark vote that could deliver a major victory to the homosexual community, liberals and President Barack Obama.
Senators planned a procedural vote Saturday on a bill ending the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as lawmakers held an unusual weekend session in their race to finish the year's legislative business.
If at least 60 senators vote to advance the bill as expected, the repeal, which passed the House this week, could win final passage by late afternoon.
With opposition from Republicans weakening, passage would mark a triumph for Obama, who made repeal of the 17-year-old law a campaign promise in 2008. It also would be a win for congressional Democrats who have struggled in the final hours of the lame-duck session to overcome Republican objections, and for gay rights groups who said Saturday's vote was their best shot at changing the law because a new GOP-dominated Congress will take control in January.
Advocates vowed to leave nothing to chance and stepped up lobbying efforts in the hours before the vote, including a silent protest in the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor.

Could this ensure an Obama second term victory? It's what his base was looking for to rally behind him. I guess many would argue that he has squandered his massive majorities in both the house and senate so far, particularly as that's coming to a close with the GOP taking the house in january so "liberal defining moments" will be gone now.

Is this Obama's game changer, is the moment which wins Obama his second term?

Manic Moran

Is this Obama's game changer, is the moment which wins Obama his second term?

In a word.. No.

Firstly, rule #1. "It's the economy, Stupid". DADT has very little to do with either jobs or foreign affairs. It's more of a 'feelgood' thing.

Secondly, 'who cares'? The people who opposed DADT are likely to have voted for him anyway, and the people who oppose homosexuals in the military are likely to never vote for him. This doesn't change a whole hell of a lot.

If repealing DADT is the high point of his first-term resumé, he'd better hope the Republicans put forward a pretty weak candidate.

NTM

Overheal

the moment which wins Obama his second term?

Perhaps among the gay community. It's really not that critical to anyone else but the gay community and the evangelicals. Though it has been amusing tracking John McCain's stubborn resistance to the repeal which one can only likened to that of the Black Knight in the Holy Grail.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-15-2010/it-gets-worse-psa
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-2-2010/gaypocalypse-now
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-15-2010/moment-of-zen---john-mccain-questions-homosexual-conduct

I would however like to add that despite being a relatively minor issue, I definitely think it's hypocritical to have people protecting my freedoms that don't have those freedoms themselves.

Lockstep

Alvin Greene's Facebook status:
"now that gay in the military, i hope this do not hurt are men and woman to fight the war,, i am for equality but also to fight war good"

Manic Moran

He did lose, didn't he?

NTM

Overheal

Yes. Leave the poor pawn alone.

Lockstep

I'm glad to see senate candidates views on DADT

Einhard

Manic Moran wrote: »

In a word.. No.

Firstly, rule #1. "It's the economy, Stupid". DADT has very little to do with either jobs or foreign affairs. It's more of a 'feelgood' thing.

Secondly, 'who cares'? The people who opposed DADT are likely to have voted for him anyway, and the people who oppose homosexuals in the military are likely to never vote for him. This doesn't change a whole hell of a lot.

If repealing DADT is the high point of his first-term resumé, he'd better hope the Republicans put forward a pretty weak candidate.

NTM

I think you underestimate the political boost that this will give Obama, especially in a week after he won a victory of sorts on tax cuts, and before likely ratification of the START treaty. It's something that liberals, not just gays, have been looking to repeal for years, and something that Obama promised he would achieve. Had he failed to do so, as it seemed likely even last week, it would have reflected very poorly on his abilities as a politican, and left him open to accusations that he is caving into the Republicans and jettisoning his liberal base. Now he'll at least have cover. Whatever he does between now and 2012, he can point to Health Care and DADT as successes. Charles Krautheimer might have overstated it a bit by describing Obama as the newest comeback kid, but in politics success is everything, and now that Obama has a few under his belt, he has more room to manouevre on other fronts. It's not a game changer by any means, but I do think it's a significant victory, and one that will be appreciated Dems outside of the pink caucus. The fact that it was somewhat bi-partisan burnishes his cedentials on that front somewhat as well.

SharpshooterTom

Einhard wrote: »

Whatever he does between now and 2012, he can point to Health Care and DADT as successes.

But it's what was contained within the health care bill, a lot liberals didn't think he pushed as hard as he should have. Where was the public option? Many people like Michael Moore and Jon Stewart called it "timid health care bill". So he has reformed healthcare as you say, something that his opponents didn't bother with, but was really as good as it should of been? Depends how you spin it I suppose. But your right he does have DADT now which will keep the base happy who only last week were beginning to get pissed off with him. But he has a long way to be regarded as convincing, it's why is approval rating still only in the mid 40s. Reagan and Clinton began to climb above 50% in their third year.

Black Swan

Einhard wrote: »

I think you underestimate the political boost that this will give Obama, especially in a week after he won a victory of sorts on tax cuts...

How will the extension of the Bush-Era tax cuts be viewed as a "victory of sorts" for Obama? Correct me if I am in error, but didn't Obama campaign in 2008 against the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

Further, these Bush Era tax cuts did not mitigate the advent of the great recession during Bush. And it's doubtful that they trickled down to create jobs during Bush, when the 2008 recession brought with it record setting unemployment in the United States. Nor can it be expected that the extension of the Bush Era tax cuts beyond 2010 will all of a sudden start trickling down to create new jobs now (unless you wish to measure how such monies may trickle down to create jobs in China, India, etc., where overseas returns on investment are higher than investing in the United States).

Reagan Era trickle down economics is dead, and if it worked way back then, it was because China was closed for major business investment, and is now very open for a high ROI by the wealthy American investor.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Firstly, rule #1. "It's the economy, Stupid". DADT has very little to do with either jobs or foreign affairs. It's more of a 'feelgood' thing.

Yes, the economic state of the nation will determine the 2012 presidential election.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Secondly, 'who cares'? The people who opposed DADT are likely to have voted for him anyway, and the people who oppose homosexuals in the military are likely to never vote for him. This doesn't change a whole hell of a lot.

Indeed. No change in voter behaviour as a result of this.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If repealing DADT is the high point of his first-term resumé, he'd better hope the Republicans put forward a pretty weak candidate.

Would this be Republican Tea Party 2012 presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

Manic Moran

I think you underestimate the political boost that this will give Obama, especially in a week after he won a victory of sorts on tax cuts,

No, I don't think so.

The tax cut thing was a personal victory insofar as he was able to get it passed despite the grumblings of his party. (Much the same as the healthcare bill, really). To that end, yes. But insofar as it was a victory that actually achieves anything, I'm not so sure. Taken on its own, the bill increases expenditure without increasing revenues and, as BL points out, was something he was against to begin with. I really think an approach similar to the Governator's is required: Sign nothing which involves increasing expenses without showing how it's going to be paid for. The healthcare bill didn't do a whole hell of a lot to fix any problems inherent in the system either.

and before likely ratification of the START treaty.

Does anyone really care, though? If it ratifies, the US and USSR will only be able to nuke the planet thrice over, instead of four times. Big whoop. Wonderful feel-good sort of thing, I'm sure the Nobel Committee will be most pleased and may want to vote for him again. I don't see the chap in my cubicle next to me voting for him because he signed the new START (Or for his congresscritter because he ratified it), however.

Had he failed to do so, as it seemed likely even last week, it would have reflected very poorly on his abilities as a politican, and left him open to accusations that he is caving into the Republicans and jettisoning his liberal base.

So the man floating in the water has managed not to sink and drown, is what you're saying? That's far from getting back onto the ship and setting sail.

Now he'll at least have cover. Whatever he does between now and 2012, he can point to Health Care and DADT as successes.

Seriously, who actually likes the healthcare bill? That wonderful monstrosity which nobody actually knew what was in it when it was passed, negotiated behind closed doors (Contrary to Obama's pre-election pledge, incidently), which doesn't do what the left wanted, was flat opposed by the right, and does nothing about the actual amount of money that healthcare costs overall (just juggles who pays for it). A CBS poll in July showed 36% approval of the bill four months after it passed. And Health Care is to be notched down as a success? Movement for the sake of movement isn't necessarily a good thing. There was an article I read yesterday, NBC or CNN, can't recall, that observes that though Congress has actually done quite a lot this term, its approval ratings are absolutely dire. Case in point.

Would this be Republican Tea Party 2012 presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

That would, I think, count as a pretty weak candidate.

NTM

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Llewellyn H. Rockwell

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Llewellyn H. Rockwell

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was so close.

kaiser sauze

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I get it, even $858Bn is peanuts now and this money will appear out of thin air from the money trees that will suddenly sprout when Yellowstone goes up.

That amount of national debt has been added since Obama took office is huge, no doubt, but you failed to note that much of that was due to legislation the monkey before him had signed, i.e. inherited.

The CBD is also decreasing, so you cannot say that he isn't making an effort. All this while leading the country through a recession and a constipated, squabbling bunch of politicians who are there to 'help & advise him'.

EastTexas

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How will the extension of the Bush-Era tax cuts be viewed as a "victory of sorts" for Obama? Correct me if I am in error, but didn't Obama campaign in 2008 against the Bush tax cuts for the rich?


Would this be Republican Tea Party 2012 presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

Yes he did and made some other promises he shouldn’t have.
That said, I think being President is a learning experience.
Only after you are actually sworn in, you see it from inside and begin to understand the enormity of your position and responsibility in its entirety.
Being flexible having a learning curve is actually a plus.

I respect him for bucking liberals screaming for other people’s money.


The infatuation by the left with Sarah Palin, a failed politician/ TV personally is simply fascinating.
Like Pavlov's dogs, they start salivating at the mere mentions of her name.

EastTexas

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Excellent Post
And who takes the strongest stand against deficit finance and crazy spending?
The TeaParty.

Black Swan

EastTexas wrote: »

The infatuation by the left with Sarah Palin, a failed politician/ TV personally is simply fascinating.

The so called American left (which looks middle of the road by EU standards) may be a bit over exuberant when responding Sarah Palin's constant PR nonsense, but you have to admit that she has a lot of popular support by large segments of the Republican Tea Party. When she shows up to speak, they turn out in great numbers for her, and will vote for her in 2012.

EastTexas

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The so called American left (which looks middle of the road by EU standards) may be a bit over exuberant when responding Sarah Palin's constant PR nonsense, but you have to admit that she has a lot of popular support by large segments of the Republican Tea Party. When she shows up to speak, they turn out in great numbers for her, and will vote for her in 2012.

Well put, but they are not quite the same.
Though a minority, they want European polices to replace American ones, of which half of them would be in conflict with our constitution.
Big government
Cradle to the grave welfare nanny states at a huge expense to the working man/ taxpayer.
Repeal of the 2nd amendment
Giving up your personal and civic responsibility to the government to micro manage your life.
We’ re not a domesticated society dependent on the daily rations from our keepers/ Government.
An environment where you ask for permissions instead of exercising your rights.
Why?
If they hate it so much, they can just move to Europe, instead of attempting import this to ram this down our throats.



And it’s not that these policies are working out that well in Europe either.
From what I can tell, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels have more say so over the future of Ireland than the Irish people, just for starters.
Not claiming that our way of life and values in all their diversity is the best but they are ours and sovereign and not for the left to attempt to erode and dismantle.

Palin,
If Mickey Mouse where to run for office, hard core Disney fans will vote for him or her.
If Palin runs at all, it would be to grab a certain fan demographic only to turn it over via endorsement to the primary winner.
It’s called political organizing.
Nothing empowers her more than the upsurd and fanatical hatred from the left.
Palin has done the best she can do with that hatred….turned it into opportunity and wealth for her family.
Welcome to America

EastTexas

On the Topic.
I welcome the repeal of DADT.
For the life of me, I cannot see how a person’s sexual orientation affects their ability to serve their country.
In fact, the only way this could have a negative affect if this continues to be stigmatized, ergo it should not.

Manic Moran

EastTexas wrote: »

On the Topic.
I welcome the repeal of DADT.
For the life of me, I cannot see how a person’s sexual orientation affects their ability to serve their country.

That wasn't the argument. It was a question of what it would do to the cohesion of the units in a population which is substantially more conservative as a whole than the US's general population. That may not be the fault of the gay person, but it's still an affect that the larger scale needed to consider.

NTM

EastTexas

Manic Moran wrote: »

That wasn't the argument. It was a question of what it would do to the cohesion of the units in a population which is substantially more conservative as a whole than the US's general population. That may not be the fault of the gay person, but it's still an affect that the larger scale needed to consider.

NTM

Speaking as a vet, no doubt there may be some problems with cohesion at the beginning of the implementation but in the long run even hard liners will have to come to terms and will.
Just like some had to adjust to women serving in capacities traditionally dominated by men.
Humans have a steep learning curve.

Manic Moran

Not saying you're wrong, but the argument was 'Why rock the boat?' The military is doing the job as it is, so where is the benefit in changing the policy? After all, military service is not a right, so if the military can do the job whilst being picky about its membership, then what's wrong with it?
Note that the MOD this week released a review of the concept of women in the front line. They quite correctly state that whilst women are capable of doing the job, there is no particular need to undergo the shift which would be required, so they're not going to change the policy.

(Just to be clear, I support complete integration, but the argument is as above, and it's not entirely without merit)

NTM

Exile 1798

EastTexas wrote: »

IMHO opinion, I find the collective slogan chanting from the left (which actually nothing but parroting TV punditry) a wee bit silly.
But hey whatever floats your boat.

Right. What's this then...

EastTexas wrote: »

Well put, but they are not quite the same.
Though a minority, they want European polices to replace American ones, of which half of them would be in conflict with our constitution.
Big government
Cradle to the grave welfare nanny states at a huge expense to the working man/ taxpayer.
Repeal of the 2nd amendment
Giving up your personal and civic responsibility to the government to micro manage your life.
We’ re not a domesticated society dependent on the daily rations from our keepers/ Government.
An environment where you ask for permissions instead of exercising your rights.
Why?
If they hate it so much, they can just move to Europe, instead of attempting import this to ram this down our throats.

... projection?

Do you have any thoughts that don't amount to platitudes?

EastTexas

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Right. What's this then...



... projection?

Do you have any thoughts that don't amount to platitudes?

The Party of "No!" is a slogan ….is it not?

Let me get this straight
You are upset about me pointing this out to someone else on another thread?


In my own words what the far left wants…ask them.
And also part of my impression of Germany, a bureaucratic nightmare.

amacachi

EastTexas wrote: »

In my own words what the far left wants…ask them.
And also part of my impression of Germany, a bureaucratic nightmare.

From what I've heard it's not that for the Germans at least.

jill_valentine

Manic Moran wrote: »

That wasn't the argument. It was a question of what it would do to the cohesion of the units in a population which is substantially more conservative as a whole than the US's general population. That may not be the fault of the gay person, but it's still an affect that the larger scale needed to consider.

NTM

On the other hand, gay soldiers might be swift to point out that DADT is in itself harmful to unit cohesion because they had to keep themselves isolated from their comrades out of necessity. And that's before you get into the area of morale.

Take the mildly infamous case of Mike Almy; discharged under DADT having being caught out after thirteen years of service, because another member of the USAF read his emails. How do measures like that possibly preserve unit cohesion? Major Almy's sudden discharge couldn't have been of much benefit to the cohesion of the couple of hundred people under his command, or to morale of the tens of thousands of other gay men and women already trying to quietly serve under the terms DADT dictated to them.

The generally accepted figure of DADT discharges is 14,000. That's an awful lot of good soldiers to throw overboard for no rational reason. I daresay it could have made for a pretty cohesive unit all by itself, in fact.

Exile 1798

EastTexas wrote: »

The Party of "No!" is a slogan ….is it not?

Let me get this straight
You are upset about me pointing this out to someone else on another thread?


In my own words what the far left wants…ask them.
And also part of my impression of Germany, a bureaucratic nightmare.

You complain about others repeating "slogans" from "TV pundits", yet then you repeat tired old cliches of know nothing TV personalties.

And referring to the Democratic Party (Centre-Right) or American Liberals (Centre and Centre-Left) as "the far left" is a Bill O'Riellyism. Why are you repeating such a tactless misnomer? Don't you think for yourself?

I'm sure everyone is aware that "Party of No" is a talking point used by Democratic strategists and politicians, especially the person who mentioned it. I wonder if you are aware of all the sloganeering that you are churning out. It seems not.

EastTexas

Exile 1798 wrote: »

You complain about others repeating "slogans" from "TV pundits", yet then you repeat tired old cliches of know nothing TV personalties.

And referring to the Democratic Party (Centre-Right) or American Liberals (Centre and Centre-Left) as "the far left" is a Bill O'Riellyism. Why are you repeating such a tactless misnomer? Don't you think for yourself?

I'm sure everyone is aware that "Party of No" is a talking point used by Democratic strategists and politicians, especially the person who mentioned it. I wonder if you are aware of all the sloganeering that you are churning out. It seems not.

Hey fella,
I get that you don’t agree with my political views and respect that.
But it’s futile on your part to try to shut me up via with personal attacks because you don’t like my opinion.


.

Exile 1798

EastTexas wrote: »

Hey fella,
I get that you don’t agree with my political views and respect that.
But it’s futile on your part to try to shut me up via with personal attacks because you don’t like my opinion.


.

1) I've made no personal attacks on you
2) I've made no attempt to "shut you up"

Manic Moran

jill_valentine wrote: »

Take the mildly infamous case of Mike Almy; discharged under DADT having being caught out after thirteen years of service, because another member of the USAF read his emails. How do measures like that possibly preserve unit cohesion? Major Almy's sudden discharge couldn't have been of much benefit to the cohesion of the couple of hundred people under his command, or to morale of the tens of thousands of other gay men and women already trying to quietly serve under the terms DADT dictated to them.

As long as nobody knew of MAJ Almy's persuasion, there was no poor effect on the subordinates. How could there have been? They didn't know. As far as the unit losing their leader is concerned, that's the beauty of the military system: Everyone is supposed to know the job of the person two levels above them, and officers rotate in and out of command routinely. It's not like the British system where a soldier stays in a unit for most of his career. Where MAJ Almy's personal morale was concerned, I believe DADT would have been in effect when he signed on, so it wasn't as if it was an unknown hazard.

The generally accepted figure of DADT discharges is 14,000. That's an awful lot of good soldiers to throw overboard for no rational reason. I daresay it could have made for a pretty cohesive unit all by itself, in fact.

The thought had been proposed.

NTM

Black Swan

REMINDER...
A couple posters on this thread have tended to get a bit personal. Please address the content of posts, and not each other, per charter and boards.ie policy. Thanks, BL.

jill_valentine

Manic Moran wrote: »

Where MAJ Almy's personal morale was concerned, I believe DADT would have been in effect when he signed on, so it wasn't as if it was an unknown hazard.

Thirteen years of being evasive and deceptive to your own comrades as a condition of your career can't be much fun - even if that's what you sign up for - but yes, they were the rules Almy was willing to play by. He was willing and able to serve under the conditions DADT imposed.

However even though he didn't Tell, he was still discharged, with significantly slashed severence pay, because the airforce took extraordinary measures to Ask. That story became relatively well documented in part because Almy was vocally outraged about McCain's near-hysterical insistence that no such thing could ever have happened, but I doubt it's an isolated case.

Estimates on the number of serving gay personnel tend to come in around 40,000 - when those folks look at a case like Almy's, I can imagine it's hard not to feel like they're the subject of a witch hunt. They qualified to do the job they do, just like everybody else, then they serve under the further stupid conditions imposed on them, and it's still not enough.

Ultimately, everybody generally accepts that most gay soldiers aren't going to leap out of the closet even with the repeal of DADT. A repeal just means that they can focus on the job in hand, without having to to sweat the possibility of their own organisation treating them as criminals at a moments notice.

One thing I am curious about; I'm unsure what the implications of a repeal are for gay service families in terms of benefits or what have you - can anybody clarify?

Manic Moran

jill_valentine wrote: »

One thing I am curious about; I'm unsure what the implications of a repeal are for gay service families in terms of benefits or what have you - can anybody clarify?

Defence of Marriage Act still is in force. Gay 'unions', 'marriages' or whatever will not be recognised by the federal government.

NTM

jill_valentine

Ah okay, so benefits only extend as far as married partners?

Manic Moran

Not married homosexual partners, no.

NTM

jill_valentine

Yeah, sorry, the phrasing was poor there - gay unions of any kind aren't recognised I know, but I'm curious if there are any other benefits made available to straight couples that aren't married, in terms of hospital visits etc.

Manic Moran

I can't think of any benefits that the Army authorizes for heterosexual couples that aren't married, so I would not expect any for homosexual ones.

NTM

jill_valentine

Yup, that's what I was wondering about. Cheers.

RichieC

The US wasnt exactly in good company with their ban on gay service members.

Manic Moran

Wasn't aware it was a competition.

The US has its own cultural make-up. Comparing with Austria, Argentina or Zimbabwe doesn't really matter. Much the same as any other such moral questions, like abortion, capital punishment, or polygamy.

NTM

RichieC

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wasn't aware it was a competition.

The US has its own cultural make-up. Comparing with Austria, Argentina or Zimbabwe doesn't really matter. Much the same as any other such moral questions, like abortion, capital punishment, or polygamy.

NTM

It's certainly not a competition, but there's only one country that sells itself as "the beacon of freedom in our otherwise dark, dark world"

I've found that on this topic, as well as many others it is not exactly that at all.

Anyways, Glad it happened. a nice poke in the eye for sell out McCain, too. always nice