Obama is going to ask Congress to repeal DATA in his SOTU tonight. It’s about time. The question is, will he be able to get any Republicans to support it, or will they filibuster it just to be dickheads?
John Boehner is indicating he wants to take the dickhead route:
DATA has worked “very well?” Is he serious?
Has public opinion changed enough on this that a Republican filibuster would backfire on them? Could Obama be putting them in a position of having to expose their most unpleasant side to the independents they court?
I think this could be a good strategy. Gay bashing has reached a level of diminishing returns for the Republicans, and spending capital on a filibuster will hurt them with indy/moderate support.
This could be a good opportunity for a filibuster. It might tie in well with the current Prop 8 trial. (!)
Still, what are the benefits of getting rid of DATA? I agree that it is ridiculous, but unfortunately, I have no experience with US Military. So how would ending DATA effect morale, enrollment, etc.?
Of course he is. Since DATA was passed, the numbers of gays and lesbians exposed and forced from the armed services has increased. Since the purpose of DATA was, I would say, to pretend to be just to homosexuals but actually to make the services unpalatable to them, thus reducing Teh Gay in their ranks, it has worked very well indeed.
Your problem, Dio, is that you are looking at DATA from a principled and practical POV, when DATA is in its very origins unprincipled, unjust, and impractical.
:eek: That’s . . . that’s fucking brilliant. It seizes the moral high ground from the conservatives! It shifts the gay-rights debate away from supposed threats to the sanctity of marriage, to the propriety of affording American military personnel their full measure of honor and freedom; also, to allowing the military to make full use of all potential recruits without regard to irrelevant things about them. And in this period of American history, who can argue with either, and still claim to be patriotic?! HOMOPHOBE, WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?! :mad:
It also gives everybody something to talk about other than the economy, and all to the Admin’s advantage.
If this is for real, it’s the first thing Obama has done since taking office that truly leaves me in awe.
For one thing, they could stop throwing out people with important skills in the name of bigotry.
If it drives people out; good, those aren’t the sort of people who should be running around with weapons and authority over people. If a KKK guy refuses to join the military because it doesn’t practice segregation anymore, is that bad?
I mentioned this to a friend in the Army and he said they were told about it two weeks ago, but that they were also told it doesn’t change much, as it isn’t a full repeal.
He said that the way it was explained to him is that you still can’t openly act gay, but if you do go to your higher up and say, “I’M GAY!” you’ll no longer be kicked out. He said he thinks it’s a way for the military to save $ and soldiers by not discharging folks, but it helps that it’s a nice PR move to.
Here’s what I don’t understand: if you can throw a rainbow parade and not get kicked out, doesn’t that effectively mean you can openly serve? Am I missing something? Is my friend missing something? Enlighten me, please.
Edit: I believe he misunderstood what I was asking :). I clarified a bit and he said that no one is supposed to be talking about sex anyway or be caught having sex in places they shouldn’t be. I pointed out that’s EVERYONE though, not just gays.
As of a few months ago, repealing DADT had something like 70% support amongst voters. It’s pretty low-hanging fruit, and I doubt the GOP will be able to filibuster it.
The Generals will have a hissy fit, but c’est la vie.
Assuming you’re being serious… are you serious? Focusing on an issue which is very low on most Americans’ list of priorities is a brilliant move which leaves you in awe?
Of course not, DT. Yet what could be the longer implications on this?
I think it’s a bold move if they go through with it and it is a silly rule to have in the first place. Getting rid of it is good for PR, but maybe not that good around the barracks, IYKWIM.
70% of adults favour repeal. 60% of Republicans favored repeal! Granted the Republican numbers will probably drop some once Obama puts his name behind this, but even then, its hard to see how 41 Republican Senators are going to close ranks behind a policy the majority of their constituents want to see gone.
This might get interesting politically because it’s an issue of extreme passion for the far right, and they have enough influence to make a fuss for sure, but a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is broadly popular. I think the moderates will be hesitant to join a filibuster on this one.
I’m all for repealing DADT, but this looks suspiciously political. HCR didn’t work, so let’s throw a bone to the gays and to the left. Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with that… I’ll wait until I see what the actually policy change is before I applaud, though.
It’ll be interesting to see if my brand new Republican senator would be willing to join a filibuster against repealing DADT. I’ve seen it written that he’s opposed to repeal, but nothing definite. Certainly he’s been a longstanding opponent of gay marriage or even civil unions while a Massachusetts legislator. But filibustering DADT repeal certainly isn’t going to help him in 2012 in Massachusetts.
Nate Silver made a pretty strong case that his NCAA basketball tournament picks were politically-motivated. I’ve never seen coverage of a president’s bathroom breaks, but if there were, those would surely be politicized too.
i don’t think him showing the teeniest bit of spine call to repeal what is, without question, a pointless and discriminatory policy, 12 months after he took office is going to re-establish his bona fides with those on the left who are disenchanted by obama.
You make it sound pretty cynical, but I have to agree. Call me a cynic. I think it’s a purely political move. Universal Health Care has turned into a debacle, nothing else seems to be going their way, yeah I think this is a political move to try and gain some sort of “political capital”.
