Senate's shameful DADT repeal failure
By: Cahir O'Doherty | Published Friday, December 10, 2010, 9:20 AM | Updated Friday, September 9, 2011, 9:57 PM
You may not have followed the attempt to repeal the lamentable
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the
U.S. Senate yesterday, so please allow me to supply a quick recap: it began badly and then spiraled into one of the most shameful days in American politics in decades.
Can there be any top-tier Democrat (or indeed, Republican) left in the nation who hasn't grasped the now white hot political risk of continuing to offend gay voters in this particularly clumsy fashion?
We're all sick of DADT. You, me, the gays, the
Democrats, the
Republicans, the American public and the estimated 66,000 active duty gay and lesbian service members still menaced by it around the world.
DADT has already been thrown out court, and in the court of public opinion, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have pleaded to end it, 75% of
U.S. voters want it repealed - and yet still it keeps coming back, like Banquo's ghost, prolonging its death throes in the corridors of power.
But yesterday the repeal of DADT failed not because of any high minded last minute objections, nor for any impassioned and transformative arguments, but simply because of petty procedural objections.
There are so many lamentable aspects to this abject failure of leadership from both parties that's hard to know where to start.
Let's start at the top.
President Obama insisted that the Senate should not act on DADT until the Defense Department's study was released on December 1, well into lame duck season and following the elections. So, since this was his plan, he's as responsible for yesterdays result as
Harry Reid and the Republicans who voted against it.
Republicans who said they'd vote for repeal (Lisa Murkowski,
Scott Brown, and
Dick Lugar) did not in fact vote for cloture. They really really wanted to end DADT they said, but that would have meant handing the Democrats a victory, so forget it. So they voted against an issue they supported. Principled, eh?
And now with the prospect of Senate Democrats passing repeal diminishing by the hour - and with the Republican take-over promising nothing but irresponsible gridlock - would it be too much to ask that the President find it in himself to do what the Senate apparently can't - lead?
America voted for hope and change. America voted to end discrimination and the enforced deceit that blights soldiers lives and compromises their integrity. DADT doesn't hold up in the court of law or the court of American public opinion. But once again it will fall to the courts to do the job our elected officials are incapable of.
Perhaps we shouldn't lament those activist judges after all. Unlike our Senators, at least they're actually willing to perform the roles they're paid for.
The Senate can point fingers at each other from now till January - America doesn't care and neither do I. What matters is that yesterday they failed 66,000 active duty troops. It is still not safe for those soldiers to come out.
The Democrats had the House and Senate for two years and yet they waited until yesterday to fail. The House and the Senate now owe it to these brave soldiers to stay at their own posts until this repeal is complete in a stand-alone bill.
36 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.Monsoonman | Dec 21, 2010, 12:29 PM EST
Mayosligo: Take a look into a group called ACORN and its close ties with the international socialist union called SEIU. You will see they are very involved in voter registration and elections throughout the U.S. You will see their purple shirted personnel "working" at many voter precincts. You will also see that they have been convicted of massive voter fraud and are thought to be the reason many races get tilted towards far left candidates. See their involvement in the Minnesota senate race and how such a person as al franken ended up in the senate. He "won" by 300 votes, even though there is evidence of voter fraud.
Mayosligo | Dec 21, 2010, 12:00 PM EST
Business, or the lack of, as usual in Washington D.C. America is cursed with baboons in Congress. My opinion, of course. I vote every election and my choices are seldom voted in. I don't understand this.
Monsoonman | Dec 15, 2010, 08:08 PM EST
I am celebrating Festivus this year Lad, you might try it, it's not bad as far as cults go. So happy Festivus for the rest of us.
seanomelbourne | Dec 15, 2010, 06:03 PM EST
By the way have a great holiday Hanukkah,Xmas or what ever.
seanomelbourne | Dec 15, 2010, 06:01 PM EST
I admire your memory Mman.I have tried to contact him,but he's furious with me. I informed him he did not exist so he ignores me.
Monsoonman | Dec 15, 2010, 09:44 AM EST
Lad, I could only under par anything at pebble after you passed on and intervened with G*d on behalf of my golf game...Remember we have a deal?
seanomelbourne | Dec 14, 2010, 07:05 PM EST
Wikileaks a govt. conspiracy!!! We've got to neutralise the left/right loonies. what will they come up with next? Maybe Mman played 18 holes at pebble beach 10 u/par.
Monsoonman | Dec 14, 2010, 01:36 AM EST
Lad are you gaslighting? He is the gay, pfc...As far as wmd's in Iraq being proven by wikileaks, just ask google. Now the lefty loons are claiming wikileaks is a govt. conspiracy to justify the Iraq war.
seanomelbourne | Dec 13, 2010, 04:53 PM EST
Mman are you saying one of his given names is Gay? Where are the WMD's?
Monsoonman | Dec 12, 2010, 10:49 PM EST
Lad, I said gay pfc bradley manning was the source of the intelligence leaks. Period. I made no giant leap about Bush & wmd's I just read the leaked intelligence in wikileaks and it showed there were wmd's in iraq.
seanomelbourne | Dec 12, 2010, 06:21 PM EST
Monsoonman you inferred that somehow Manning's leaks to Wikileaks were connected to his sexuality.You are making a giant leap stating that the leaks justify Bush's sojourn in Iraq and the non existent WMD's.
qwqghjqgw | Dec 11, 2010, 08:25 PM EST
hello everyone,im wholesale supplier online Welcome to our website ===== AooMall.com ======= accept paypal or credit card and free shipping We need your support and trust!!! Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our website Walk around A look at Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth You'll find our price is more suitable for you. ===== AooMall.com ========
qwqghjqgw | Dec 11, 2010, 08:25 PM EST
hello everyone,im wholesale supplier online Welcome to our website ===== AooMall.com ======= accept paypal or credit card and free shipping We need your support and trust!!! Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our website Walk around A look at Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth You'll find our price is more suitable for you. ===== AooMall.com ========
eiriamach | Dec 11, 2010, 03:38 PM EST
Siobhan716, look at the studies that were done on the effects of desegregating (ending segregation by race) the military in the 1940s--the same reactions and dire warnings by some before desegregation, but no impact on effectiveness after integration.
eiriamach | Dec 11, 2010, 03:30 PM EST
During the past 17 years, US armed services have discharged approximately 13,000 soldiers under DADT. DADT has become an instrument of manipulation and even extortion used by a minority of bigots against gay and lesbian service people. This power to manipulate, not any "tyranny by the minority" of gays and lesbians, is a real problem. In the military, manipulation of personnel can endanger security, so there is a reason to end DADT besides the fact that it requires people to lie about who they are. There is no analogy to be drawn between keeping DADT and controlling racism in the military. seamusmoore has that wrong too. We have freedom of speech to rebuke racists for their hate speech, just as happens outside the military, just as would happen if gays and lesbians could serve openly in the military and became the target of homophobic comments. Racists get their comeuppance not by being thrown out of the service (that's reserved for gays who are outed) but by decent people reacting to the offensive drivel that pours out of the racists' mouths. I agree also with Cahir's point about the failure of the Senate to act on principle. Voting on repeal DADT was a test of principle, and too many senators flunked the test. What will it take for our legislators to put their worries about re-election aside and finally start doing their jobs?
siobhan716 | Dec 11, 2010, 03:24 PM EST
Some of you are apparently getting your facts from the liberal-leaning main stream media, please read below. "The Pentagon's long-awaited report on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was finally released, and the hostility to repealing the policy is deeper than even Secretary Robert Gates predicted. In a statement, the Defense Department boss admitted that the repeal could have a "disruptive" and "potentially dangerous impact." This survey hints at a freefall in recruitment and retention if liberals lift the ban. Of the men and women in a combat role, only a sliver of service members (11%) think that throwing open the closet to homosexuals is a benefit to the military. Sixty percent of the Army and Marine troops on the front lines agreed that their effectiveness would be negatively affected."
seamusmoore | Dec 10, 2010, 10:24 PM EST
borefield: You miss the point: gays can serve in the military, they just CANNOT OPENLY promote their sexual orientation thru word or action. The purpose of DADT was to end witchunts for gays in the military. The reason not to repeal DADT is the effect that it would have on the morale of the other 95% serving, particularly combat troops or those serving on a submarine (i.e., those in close contact with each other). Let's substitute race for sexual orientation and examine the issue. Do you not believe that there are troops who may have racist tendencies or thoughts? What would happen if they openly expressed these thoughts in words or behavior, Would they not be thrown out of the military? They certainly would; therefore, they keep their thoughts to themselves and conform their behavior to the military's code of conduct. If they can't do that, they must leave the military. We are slowly becoming a country with tyranny by the minority. The driving force behind this is the dominance of postmodernist thought in higher education, with its preoccupation with race, gender, and sexual orientation.
borefield | Dec 10, 2010, 08:53 PM EST
I have NEVER agreed with anything Cahir has commented on, that is, up till now. I must agree that DADT is a sham. If someone is brave enough to go to war and fight for my country, I really don't give a sugar what their sexual preference is. I do not agree that if gays or lesbians want to march in the St. Patricks Day Parade, they should do so under a banner promoting the sexual preference. This life style is against the rules of the Catholic Faith. They can march with pride in their Heritage without making a statement.
Monsoonman | Dec 10, 2010, 05:24 PM EST
Lad, I stated a fact, not tainted by opinion. The major source of the wikileaks military intelligence was from Bradley Gay Manning PFC (army of course). As far as what is being revealed by wikileaks, I am finding it is exonerating president Bush and his assertions that saddam had and was pursuing wmd's. It proves valerie plane and her husband joe are both liars with an agenda and it shows our present foreign policy is in the hands of dangerous rank amateurs. BTW: If 911 was an inside job you sure can't tell from the wikileaks. Better tell rosie o'dennis.
seanomelbourne | Dec 10, 2010, 04:48 PM EST
2bornot2b!!! His/Her views ares as outdated as his/hers non de plume,medieval and homophobic. That's right Mman asserting that Mannings indiscretions are caused by his sexuality, how anti gay are you.By the was Assange is a free speech warrior
hollabackgurl | Dec 10, 2010, 01:47 PM EST
Homophobia and misogyny in the same sentence? You don't like gays and you don't like women and you aren't even a soldier so what do you have to contribute but your own little hissy fit 2BorNot2B?
2BorNot2B | Dec 10, 2010, 01:37 PM EST
So a Bradley Manning, a gay 'queen' threw a hissy fit because she could not get her way with one of those buff military dudes, and her estrogen-laden tantrum has now put the entire world in peril through a massive leak of sensitive documents? She should be court martialed and then shot. Is that the 'honorable' service what we can expect from a temperamental military gay diva when jilted or ignored? --- Give me STRAIGHT soldiers only... FAST, and stop the PC pandering to the rabid Act-Up activists! Those jerks are far more toxic and destructive than a woman in the throes of PMS
olovely | Dec 10, 2010, 01:34 PM EST
Conservative Republicans are all by their lonesome on this issue, opposing repeal 57-39. And a recent Pew poll found precisely the same divide, with 62 percent of moderate or liberal Republicans favoring repeal. It's overwhelmingly clear at this point how extreme a position opposing repeal really is.
Nicomax | Dec 10, 2010, 12:32 PM EST
At 4-5% of the overall population, homosexuals are likely also that % of our current, and past military forces. Maybe 4-5% of our all-time military heros were also, so what's the big deal other than some biblical literalists can't ever see above their halos.
Monsoonman | Dec 10, 2010, 12:29 PM EST
greenferret says:" what a young bright possibly homosexual soldier can/should do."....Au contraire, me friend. The source of the wikileaks intelligence is thanks to PFC Bradley Manning, 23. Young gay blade member of the sword fighting battalion of the DADT corpse.
olovely | Dec 10, 2010, 12:02 PM EST
The rich got a tax break and everyone who is not a white straight male is still a second-class citizen. A Republican's job is never done.
hollabackgurl | Dec 10, 2010, 11:37 AM EST
And like I said, the troops on active duty were consulted, and they like the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, realize it makes no difference to combat readiness or anything else, frankly.
Porickseantuny | Dec 10, 2010, 11:31 AM EST
As I said, if you're not on base or in combat, you vote shouldn't count.
hollabackgurl | Dec 10, 2010, 11:05 AM EST
75% of US troops in active duty (and their families, by the way) said the repeal of DADT would have NO affect on them, their families or their unit.
greenferrett101 | Dec 10, 2010, 10:55 AM EST
Its sad and disheartening that these fat old white men are deciding what a young bright possibly homosexual soldier can/should do.. shame on them
tom/peggy | Dec 10, 2010, 10:46 AM EST
I seem to recall the Republicans telling the Democrats nothing with move forward until the tax issue is passed. That needs to be done immediately. The Republicans and President Obama are ready to do so. Let's go Democratic Majority get it done.
Porickseantuny | Dec 10, 2010, 10:32 AM EST
The problem is solved. After all if you can say with any honesty the number of homosexuals in the Military, then someone is telling. In reality you're speculating and creating statistics from fantasy. The question is how many of the active military living on base or in combat are in favor of revision. Military who live off base have no skin in the game. By the way judges should apply the existing law to facts, not make the law. If being deceitful bothers you, don't volunteer.
Padraig8 | Dec 10, 2010, 09:47 AM EST
Joma:did you ever hear of "give credit where credit is due?", Would it not be nice to see a list of the politicians who voted to repeal instead of tarring them all with the same brush?
seamusmoore | Dec 10, 2010, 09:44 AM EST
There is one small problem with your analysis, Cahir. The troops, themselves, are overwhelming against its repeal. In a VOLUNTEER army in a time of war (like it or not), the repeal of DADT would be detrimental to morale and re-enlistments. Look at what happened to the Catholic Church after VATICAN II which so demoralized the clergy that a fair number of priests and nuns left, a contributing factor to the Church scandal of the last 40 years. DADT was a response to Clinton trying to jam "an openly gay policy" upon the military as his first act after inaguration. It was Democratic Senator Sam Nunn (GA), head of the Armed Services Committee, who thwarted Clinton. DADT was the fallback position of the Clinton administration. Once laws are passed,they are difficult to repeal (see GOP's challenge with Obamacare); therefore, the blame rests with Bubba. One question I have: If you blame Bubba, will Niall fire you?
feeneycj | Dec 10, 2010, 09:41 AM EST
please Cahir....keep it to yourself! Let them do their job, not socialize about their sex lives. It will save lives.
joma5004 | Dec 10, 2010, 09:18 AM EST
This is the behavior we have come to expect of politicians in the U.S. They are gutless wonders one and all. It is no wonder we are in the trouble we are in.