First, here is how the proposed DADT repeal compromise has been characterized:
“According to one person familiar with the White House meeting, the proposal that is being considered would legislatively repeal the statute this year, but the current policy would remain in place and implementation of repeal would not occur until after the Pentagon’s working group study is finished in December. Further, completion of repeal would require certification from President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen that the new law will not have a negative impact on readiness, recruitment, retention, and other key factors affecting the military.”
This seems pretty tame to me. In fact, it’s not much in the way of a repeal at all. It’s certainly not some type of instantaneous policy change.
Second point: repealing DADT is, according to polls I have seen, overwhelmingly favored by the public.
Yet, McCain has said he will filibuster an amendment to troop funding that contains the compromise language. I would gather that he won’t be the only one supporting the filibuster based on recent GOP performance in the Senate. Can someone explain the basis for a filibuster the repeal of DADT, given that it still gives the Pentagon final say and that repeal has majority public support, that doesn’t have significant homophobic overtones?
EDIT: Yes, I am aware that my question is loaded, but I cannot think of a less “loaded” way to phrase it…
I have no personal opinion on DADT, and would leave it to those in the know as to what its impact would be on a military unit.
That said, the only justification that I can come up with for a filibuster is…why now? If it’s all contingent how the Pentagon study, why not just wait until December? Oh, right, because its not about DADT itself, its about the politics that surround it. Or, perhaps McCain is threatening to filibuster because the Dems don’t have the courage to put it up for a standalone vote…why append it to a funding bill?
First, here is how the proposed DADT repeal compromise has been characterized:
“According to one person familiar with the White House meeting, the proposal that is being considered would legislatively repeal the statute this year, but the current policy would remain in place and implementation of repeal would not occur until after the Pentagon’s working group study is finished in December. Further, completion of repeal would require certification from President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen that the new law will not have a negative impact on readiness, recruitment, retention, and other key factors affecting the military.”
This seems pretty tame to me. In fact, it’s not much in the way of a repeal at all. It’s certainly not some type of instantaneous policy change.
Second point: repealing DADT is, according to polls I have seen, overwhelmingly favored by the public.
Yet, McCain has said he will filibuster an amendment to troop funding that contains the compromise language. I would gather that he won’t be the only one supporting the filibuster based on recent GOP performance in the Senate. Can someone explain the basis for a filibuster the repeal of DADT, given that it still gives the Pentagon final say and that repeal has majority public support, that doesn’t have significant homophobic overtones?
EDIT: Yes, I am aware that my question is loaded, but I cannot think of a less “loaded” way to phrase it…
I am in favor of repealing DADT, but, I agree with what jar posted above – why now? If implementation cannot be completed until after the evaluation, then why not do the evaluation first, then take the legislative action. That seems to make sense.
In addition, I strongly suspect the wording of the proposed legislation is not quite as clear as your quoted language. I am guessing the threat of filibuster has to do with the specific language of the proposal.
I have no personal opinion on DADT, and would leave it to those in the know as to what its impact would be on a military unit.
That said, the only justification that I can come up with for a filibuster is…why now? If it’s all contingent how the Pentagon study, why not just wait until December? Oh, right, because its not about DADT itself, its about the politics that surround it. Or, perhaps McCain is threatening to filibuster because the Dems don’t have the courage to put it up for a standalone vote…why append it to a funding bill?
This just smacks of more pandering by the dems.
Of course it is appended to a funding bill in order to make it even more politically toxic to filibuster it (esp. after the GOP howled about filibustering military funding while waging a war on two fronts). But nothing that you listed provides much in the way of a justification for filibustering it. The other “why now” is that Dems want to get something done in case they don’t have large majorities in 2011. This still doesn’t address the merits, because even without a Dem majority, repeal of DADT would still be publicly favored and the compromise would still be pretty tame.
I mean your rationale is essentially, that the GOP would likely vote for a repeal in December, but won’t vote for a repeal now even though implementation of the repeal is contingent on what happens in December. How is that a logical approach?
Absolute BS how? It didn’t say that allowing openly gay servicemen would not effect recruitment etc., it said that the implementation is contingent upon a finding to that effect.
Well, it’s probably election year politics from both sides. OTOH, McCain may have the honest opinion that it should not be implemented. Remember this is not some group that is just trying to hold on to old ways. The military probably constantly is considering what the atmosphere needs to be like for top readiness and performance of duties. The armed forces led the rest of our society in desegregation and including women in it’s ranks, and rules and structure change fairly frequently to best fit this mission, so I’m thinking the calculus has already been made relative to open gay/lesbian service. I do hope that the leaders don’t fold to pressure from the civilian ranks, if they truly feel it will diminish the effectiveness of our forces. I have not been too heartened by the conduct of Gates in his position, and I know these guys are trying to cross the divide between military and administrative policy, but he seems to be somewhat of the political type, and that may not be in the best interest of the military side. Mullen has seemed pretty straight up so far.
Absolute BS how? It didn’t say that allowing openly gay servicemen would not effect recruitment etc., it said that the implementation is contingent upon a finding to that effect.
I was reading quickly and I thought he said it wouldn’t have any effect.
I can save them the time and the money if they like and let them know that it will have a noticeable effect
Absolute BS how? It didn’t say that allowing openly gay servicemen would not effect recruitment etc., it said that the implementation is contingent upon a finding to that effect.
I was reading quickly and I thought he said it wouldn’t have any effect.
I can save them the time and the money if they like and let them know that it will have a noticeable effect
I think you greatly misunderstand most 18-28 year olds (which I am assuming form the vast majority of enlistees) views on homosexuality and whether it would impact their choice to enlist, re-enlist, etc.
I’m not trying to suggest a logical approach, as I’m merely trying to guess what McCain/GOP might be thinking.
Out of curiosity, you seem to imply that it should be repealed because it is publicly favored. If politicians only did what the public wanted, we wouldn’t have Healthcare Reform.
I don’t think it should necessarily be repealed because of public support for repeal, just that the public polling does not give McCain (or anyone filibustering) a basis for the filibuster.
I think you greatly underestimate how their opinions change when they live in a military environment. Its not like working at Wal-Mart and going home at night.
I think you greatly underestimate how their opinions change when they live in a military environment. Its not like working at Wal-Mart and going home at night.
I’m not aware of any polls which track changing opinions of service members between the time they enlist and later in their careers. If you have such a poll I would love to see the results. There are polls which track overall attitudes toward homosexuality in the military at various times, and they show startling changes in acceptance over the past couple of decades.
I think you greatly underestimate how their opinions change when they live in a military environment. Its not like working at Wal-Mart and going home at night.
I’m not aware of any polls which track changing opinions of service members between the time they enlist and later in their careers. If you have such a poll I would love to see the results. There are polls which track overall attitudes toward homosexuality in the military at various times, and they show startling changes in acceptance over the past couple of decades.
No polls just real world experience. I spent 2 days with new recruits recently and trust me once they have some time under their belts things change. It was a topic of discussion given the current tone in Washington.
Its been covered ad nauseum here but some choose to ignore the issues that this policy presents in the real world and not in fantasy land where some people choose to deal with these things.
With women, there’s no need to ask nor tell. Show me a woman in the military, and I’ll show you a lesbian. And if by chance there happened to be a “straight” woman there, would she really care if they’re around lesbians? I mean, aren’t all women a bit lesbian anyway? At least that’s the way it is in my fantasy world.
And bi’s – they’re not 100% gay, so it makes sense to allow them in before allowing in full-blown gays (pun intended).
I’m not quite sure whether you allow trannies in before gay men, or vice versa – I could see it going both was (pun intended).
