The U.S. Senate yesterday voted to strike down the Pentagon ban on gays serving openly in the military, by a vote of 65-31. Eight Republicans -- including (surprise!) Richard Burr -- voted with all the Democrats. Burr had previously voted against bringing the measure up, so his switcheroo is indeed a surprise. Has he had a genuine change of heart, or is he just secretly gay? He issued a statement that scarcely clears anything up:"Given the generational transition that has taken place in our nation, I feel that this policy is outdated and repeal is inevitable. However, I remain convinced that the timing of this change is wrong, and making such a shift in policy at a time when we have troops deployed in active combat areas does not take into consideration the seriousness of the situation on the ground."
"It's wrong, it's bad, but I'm voting for it." What's up with that?
Actually, not all the Democrats voted. Joe Manchin of West Virginia found it convenient to be elsewhere and didn't vote. So did Orrin Hatch.
This Senate vote concurred with the vote already passed in the U.S. House to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, so the law is on its way to the president for his signature.
7 comments:
"Even Blind Pigs Occasionally Find the Acorn" - J.W.
Really, J.W.?
Could you possibly view the world through any more cynical a filter? How about pausing for a moment to rejoice in a true victory for social progressivism?
Personally, I love the idea of Al'Qaeda officers getting boot-stomped by openly gay soldiers! It takes little courage to fight for gay rights on Sanford Mall, but try it in Kandahar! Now that's bravery!
Anyway, J.W., this vote demonstrates just how wrong you have been for quite some time now. You have tried, both before and after the election, to label the Tea Party, which propelled Republicans to sweeping victories across the country, as a bunch of social reactionaries who hide behind the facade of caring about the finances of the country. But what do we have here? Republicans help repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" while holding a firm line against the Trillion dollar omnibus spending bill. To me, it sounds like the Tea Party delivers on its own promises, not on yours.
I am willing to give Burr the benefit of the doubt and accept that he voted for repeal of DADT because it is a civil rights issue. But on to the rest of your argument, Mike D. You said,:
"...the Tea Party, which propelled Republicans to sweeping victories across the country, as a bunch of social reactionaries who hide behind the facade of caring about the finances of the country."
I say the only finances they care about are those of the bankers and Wall Street, the very people who started and funded their movement and laughed (and are still laughing) at how Tea Party activists are such suckers.
Yep, suckers.
So is your plan to run against the Republicans who voted for the bullshit tax cut, like Paul Ryan for instance? Because while I firmly agree that the Democrats are to blame for this, the Republicans are too. In fact is was the Tea Party who demanded that the rich get what they wanted--to hell with the rest.
They are all in this together. We're well on our way to looking like Greece or Ireland. The rich keep getting big tax cuts, and the rest of us are asked to sacrifice. Just watch. Social Security is under the knife as is Medicare--the last two things the working poor and most seniors have between them and outright in-the-streets poverty.
The Tea Party and its candidates will do everything in its power to "drown government in a bathtub." That means privitazation of services, which means workers work longer hours for less pay. That means cuts in social security and Medicare benefits (see above). That means gated communities butted by shack housing, if any at all.
My problem is-I like Burr from personal interactions in the past. I've even voted for him twice, but not lately. Is it even possible he's learned something from our closest allies concerning gays in the military? This is the ultimate "who gives a shit" issue. For the person who goes by Mike D., you're still the most phony person on this post. The Tea Party movement will go down as the most ignorant "bought and paid for group" in the history of American politics. It's interesting that either eleven or thirteen newly-elected Tea "crack" party candidates elected to the house have hired lobbyists to be their Chiefs of Staff. Even someone as limited as you should be able to understand the Teaidiots are even more bought and paid for than traditional Republicans.
I can't wait to see Mike D.'s post when the Republicans in Raleigh push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in NC. I wonder how he will rationalize THAT? Oh, and by the way, Mike, the Tea Party folks who just got elected in November aren't even in office yet - NONE of them voted on the DADT repeal.
"To me, it sounds like the Tea Party delivers on its own promises, not on yours." - Mike D.
"Tea Party folks who just got elected in November aren't even in office yet - NONE of them voted on the DADT repeal." - Moose
"when the Republicans in Raleigh push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in NC." - Moose
Moose, are you and I not BOTH guilty of the same type of projection? Perhaps we should let them take office, then see what happens.
And for the record, if what you predict comes to pass, I will be very disappointed, primarily because they will not be doing what we sent them there to do.
Hmmm. What exactly did "we" send them to Raleigh to do? I never heard a single idea presented to voters this fall. All I heard was that Cullie Tarleton is a One-Man Job Killer and that Steve Goss is apparently the worst man who's ever lived. And I'm basing my assertion about the gay marriage amendment on what they have tried over the past few years. The amendment has been introduced year after year by Republicans, and the Democrats have killed it in committee. Heck, read the first paragraph of the NC Republican Party platform for 2010:
http://www.ncgop.org/atf/cf/%7B4d473206-3077-4e88-951a-80af9d1c4fbf%7D/2010%20NCGOP%20PLATFORM.PDF
I think it would probably be all right to let them marry, as long as they promise not to procreate.
Post a Comment