Having spent the last several posts trashing Scott Brown’s pointless position on unemployment and tax cuts, we will now praise his sensible and courageous stand on repealing the odious Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary’s recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed.
This is a major step in the right direction. Good for Brown. Here’s hoping there are another couple of Republicans willing to follow his lead.
I’m not suggesting that he will wiggle (a la Senator McCain’s nonsense), but he sure preserved the opportunity to stall with that statement.
It’s definitely a good thing that Sen. Brown supports repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell, and you’re right to praise him.
p>However, I want to make sure that his support for repeal also means specifically supporting the Defense authorization bill to which DADT repeal is attached. After all, that’s the important thing. It’s not good enough if Brown claims he supports repeal but then votes against the bill because of some pretext (such as Sen. Reid hurting Republicans’ feelings for holding a vote on middle-class tax cuts).
In an all too familiar display of talking out of all sides of his, um, mouth, it seems that our Senator Brown sung a different tune this afternoon:
p>It appears to me that we need to add DADT to the list of issues on which his position is pointless. In fact, he again seems to have no “position” at all — besides pandering to whatever audience he chooses to value at any given moment.
The repeal is well supported by the public and I have to believe popular in MA where he actually has to hope to get elected. But, still, good news,
The poll on Boston.com has 91.5% supporting repeal. That has to mean something.
I’m disappointed in what Sen. Brown has decided. I guess he will need the work defending those who will violate the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). I doubt that DADT will come to a vote and be repealed and if it is it will cause more harm to those who are gay. Military law is different than Federal law. The UCMJ has Punitive Articles, 77 thru 134.
Article 125 would have to be repealed completely and this will not happen. Article 134-29, Again this would not be repealed. These offences are serious and an individual found guilty by a court-martial will go to prison. DADT protected gays in the military and if it is now repealed they will suffer if they violate the Articles of the UCMJ just like anyone else who would violate the UCMJ.
Sen. Brown will be making a huge mistake if he votes to repeal DADT.
First of all, being gay and having gay sex are two very different things. How do I know this? Well, I don’t… but I do know that being hetero and having hetero sex are two very different things. Just ask my wife.
p>Secondly, sodomy includes oral sex. You telling me that countless hetero male soldiers serving in the Gulf War, in Vietnam, in Korea, in WWII, in WWI weren’t getting blow jobs from young girls, from hookers, from girlfriends? Did the military cease to be effective because of some hummers? Would that effectiveness return if those soldiers simply screwed the girls instead?
p>Thirdly, it appears that the majority of soldiers prosecuted under Article 125 are straight.
p>Fourthly, the 2003 SCOTUS ruling on Lawrence vs. Texas puts Article 125 in doubt anyway.
When we were on road security the girls used to drive up and down the road on the back of scooters.
Up at Quan Loi this mama-san and myself became really good friends while we were there and I used to go hang around with her after business hours and have a few beers and write home. One night this major came knocking on the door, and when he looked up he asked: What are you doing here? I asked back: “Writing a letter and talking, what are you doing?” I forget his answer but I laughed my ass off.Officers didn’t frequent the same places we did Just like in the real world we were priced out.
When we got out of the field we wanted to unwind and I think the Army encouraged what we did. I had a routine 2-3 beers a girl and 2-3 beers a girl, 2-3 beers a fight with somebody from another unit who had the same routine.
I never worried about the sexual preferences of people I was with, I judged people on how they reacted to firing and nearby explosions, or how they reacted to being asked to do something out of the ordinary. Color never mattered either , although I did get into it once with all the Latino’s for calling a guy a ‘Gutless spic”. When they found out what happened for me to say it they took my side.
That’s not necessarily true. I’ve been retired from the Army since December 68. I was in on a fraudulent enlistment the Army found out about it in August 1966. Nobody mentioned court martial or anything. They said they were going to make the name change and they even told me I could go home with a UD if I wanted to. When I was leaving in Feb 67 they told me the paper work was on the way. I reported to Germany in Apr 67, and 1049’d back to Nam. I left Germany in July. As luck would have it the Red Sox would finally get into a pennant race so I went AWOL for 29 days, I went Ft Devens on a Wednesday turned myself in as AWOL and was home that Friday night on a weekend pass for the SPD. Got back to Nam in Oct two grades lower than when I left.
At no time did the fraudulent enlistment become a problem. Except for me. Hell when I was getting out the JAG officers all had a good laugh for themselves. Colonel Judge the CO of the Hospital sent me to see them to see if they could get things straightened out. They got everybody in the office to to gather around me and They had laugh. Thsn they told me to file for a correction of military records after I get out.
Here’s the kicker when I sent off for a re-issue of my medals the ones that mattered all had my brothers name engraved in them,even though the request was in my name. My retirement pay and all that other correspondence comes in my real name.
The VA has a box to check if your name is other than the name you served under so I never had a problem with them.
…there were about a dozen ‘demonstrators’ outside the Park Plaza tonight with signs saying – Thank you, Sen. Brown! – and wishing us all Merry Christmas as we went in (and one Happy Hannukah!).
p>So, I’d like to give THEM credit for such a nice gesture. You probably won’t see it on the news or read about it, because it isn’t ‘controversail’ enough, but it was really nice and was appreciated.
So if you’re progressive and you show thanks to a conservative who sides with progressives occasionally… you get a bit more crumbs now… but might get six more years of begging for crumbs instead of gettinh a progressive senator, one you won’t have to beg in the first place.
So if you’re a conservative and beg for help for forty years….
At least Senator Brown has the balls to make his own decisions. Don’t you progressives ever get suspicious of those politicos who immediately jump on your bandwagons and then retreat on their private jets to their luxury digs? There are a lot of us common folk out there who do, indeed, change their thinking to your points of view on various subjects. But you have to have a little patience with us.
…does not a progressive make. Hell, he hasn’t even made the vote, and threatened to block the bill if he doesn’t get his precious tax cuts for the rich.
p>I’ll still work my ass off to defeat him in 2 years. But the mere act of Mr. 41 announcing his support of the repeal is significant, especially in making national news (for instance, here and here and here and here) with his announcement, and potentially giving a few other Republicans an excuse to go with him. Has Fox News reported this yet? I couldn’t find anything.
I think this is meaningless political posturing.
p>I am reminded of too many otherwise progressive Democrats who loudly proclaimed their opposition to abortion — shamelessly pandering to pro-life voters in their districts — knowing full well that Roe-v-Wade was well-established law and that their “opposition” had zero impact on public policy.
p>When speaking to pro-choice audiences, they emphasized the constitutional protections afforded to every citizen — including women — and stirringly promised to zealously guard those protections. When speaking to anti-abortion audiences, they emphasized their opposition to abortion and promised to work with their fellow legislators to somehow surmount the “legislative barriers” (always erected by someone else) that stood in the way of “protecting the unborn”. In other words, they played both sides and kept themselves in office.
p>Senator Brown “backs DADT repeal” only because stiff barricades block any effective action against it — barricades that Senator Brown himself valiantly mans (such as the insanely self-destructive effort to hold ALL legislation hostage to the tax giveaway to our highest income earners). He is careful to leave himself ample escape routes — he cites “battle effectiveness” as a condition on the same day that three generals carefully name battle effectiveness in their regurgitation of their homophobic mantra on Capital Hill.
p>I think this is just more meaningless posturing, utterly devoid of substance, from our junior Senator.