Home » Voices » Columns »

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal should not be weighed down with other proposals

By Nathan Inks on October 1, 2010 3:15 am in Columns, Voices / 8 comments

 

Since the Democrats have been in control of the Senate, one of the most frequent complaints I have heard is, “The Republicans were able to pass their agenda in the Senate, why are they blocking all of the Democrats’ bills?”

The answer to this question is quite simple: Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was a more competent Senate Majority Leader than Harry Reid, D-Nev. This was made especially clear when the Democrats tried to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy last week.

The repeal of DADT was placed in a defense appropriations bill along with the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, a piece of legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to become citizens if they attend college or join the military. While some parts of the DREAM Act deal with the military, it is by and large an issue that deals more with illegal immigration.

When Reid announced the introduction of the appropriations bill, he announced plans to tie DADT and the DREAM Act to it. Instead of introducing the three separate issues as three separate bills, Reid wanted to ram all three through at once. While DADT and the military appropriations are at least related, the DREAM Act had no place being tied to that bill.

Additionally, Reid announced that he would be placing the bill on the calendar in a way that would only allow for a limited amount of amendments, meaning that it would be impossible for Republicans to try to split the bill into three different bills. Reid expected moderate Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to go along with the bill. However, even she objected to bringing it to debate because Republicans would not be allowed to bring unlimited amendments to the bill.

Barry Goldwater had it right when he said, “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.” However, there is no way that the DREAM Act should ever be passed.

The repeal of DADT would have passed if Reid would not have tied the DREAM Act to it. Collins would have gone along with it, and Olympia Snow, R-Maine, and Scott Brown, R-Mass., probably would have as well.

Instead, Reid chose to do what he has done since he became Majority Leader: Try to ram too much through at one time. That is why the Democrats have failed in Congress. Harry Reid has done an abysmal job for the Democrats and, because of his poor judgment, the Republicans have been able to successfully block the Democrats’ agenda in Congress.

Blame for not repealing DADT does not lie with the Republicans here; it lies with the Democrats. They are the ones who sabotaged the bill by tying illegal immigration to an unrelated issue.

 

Tags

, , , , , ,

Related Posts

 
  • Chris

    You write as if DADT is more important than the Dream Act. Personally, I support both issues. I think DADT should be repealed. With volunteers at an all time low, we shouldn’t be turning people away because of sexuality. In this day and age that is ridiculous. The Dream Act is just as important. There are hundreds of thousands of teens/young adults that were brought here illegally at a young age. They have never been to their country of origin and are as American as our sons and daughters aside from their birth certificates. Leaving these individuals with no true identity and no opportunity for a legal, legitimate life is dangerous for the US. Most of these people are never going to be deported unless they do something illegal. Thus, we are promoting their illegal activities and endangering our country by refusing them the opportunity for legal status. Unfortunately, the solution also rewards their parents for their illegal actions. All we can do about that is beef up security at all borders and prevent illegal immigration.

    With that said, one could argue that the Dream Act is actually the more important, pressing issue. Each day, these individuals suffer through a life with no real direction. DADT soldiers have lives they can live. They have suffered as well. But they have so many other options. I don’t like that all of these issues were bundled together in one bill. All of them should be resolved. But don’t act as if one is more important than the other.

  • Juboy03

    You do know that the republicans filibustered the DOD primarily because of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy? If you had watched the live feed of the debate, you should have noticed that most of the speeches were against the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. But i guess we can just go ahead and blame the illegals instead( hey everyone is doing it).

  • Mikemojave

    Absolutely correct. I think Sen. Reid wanted the bill to fail so he could motivate Latinos and gays to vote in the mid-terms, it was a blatant and stupid political stunt. As someone who was kicked out under this policy I blame the Democrats for this abysmal failure and will not be voting in the mid-terms to protest their using me as a political pawn.

  • Melford

    Although for pragmatic reasons more than moral/philosophical reasons, I do *not* support the outright repeal of DADT, I do agree with the harsh and accurate assessment the author makes here, as far as it goes. I also have another spin to add here: I don't think Reid is the Liberal Idealist on this or many of the other measures that the Democrats support that some may think he is. I think he Leans Left on the issues, but is not outrightly so oriented. For that reason, some of the more controversial items that his apparent stupidity has blocked, may *not* have been blocked by stupidity as much as by design. You don't rise to his rank in the Senate by normally being an outright numbskull. He may have misestimated on some of these, and he may have been trying to stretch too far to get something in that he thinks will have little chance of passing after the election cycle, but you can not rule out that some of these items were deliberately thrown under the bus. For the most part, I agree with the author. I could even hazzard that two of the three, (if not all of the issues) could ahve avoided filibuster had they been in their own bills. Different Senators are likely to object more to one thing than the other, and tying them together like this when they could just as easily have been their own issue, makes resisting them easier to swallow. I could speculate that the Democratic Resolve on these three issues, if not put up together, could have fractured the cohessiveness on some votes from some senators to *not* toe the party line accross the spectrum, and for that reason, the core defense appropriations bill may have been the only thing that had a candle's prayer of making it through on its own. Harry may have known this, and thrown the dice the way he did because a long shot is better than no shot. But I think the effect it had on the oppositon coming from the Republicans was predictable when he linked these up together like this. If he wanted this to pass, he had to be hoping for more of a break from their lines than his. ;'{P~~~

  • Nylocks

    Being outed by a third party and then being fired for what you kept to yourself is not fair DADT must go. Sir you have the wrong picture in your head.

  • Melford

    I think you are right, but putting one more item into an appropriations bill like that, when it even more clearly does not belong there was a stunt. It was either a stunt to get it passed, when it has not a prayer of passing on its own, or it was a stunt to lowball an already failing proposition with the DADT on board, maybe for just the reasons Mikemojave relates.

  • Melford

    It sounds like you are talking about Major Margaret Witt, who was suspended in 2004 and subsequently discharged under the “don't ask, don't tell” policy after the Air Force “officially” found out she was a lesbian when the husband of the woman she had been having a affair with for about a year finally ratted her out.

    You really have no clue what I have in my head, so I'd ratchet it back a bit there Tonto! I actually *agree* with DADT (which is what you are attacking, I assume) but for pragmatic reasons. I *also* agree with the decision by U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton, where he took the standards of DADT, without modifiying them, and looking at the expressed aims of the policy, examined her case individually within that light. Disregarding the fact that your anger about a “third party” in the mix actually exposed a reason to kick her out *if* she were straight and messing around with a married man and reported in the same manner, the courts choice to have Maj Witt reinstated seems to be the correct choice. She could still get fired, of course, for “Conduct Unbecoming” for messing around with someone else's spouse, but let's move past that, OK?

    In her case, it seems that her co-workers already *knew* about her orientation and had no problem with it. I don't think she “brought it to work” with her, and she behaved as *all* LGBT people should. The Judge rewarded *her* for playing the way she should.

    What you fail to grasp is that DADT (whether it was designed this way or not) functions to keep the children out there from *killing* each other. The people on one side have among them some obstinate sorts who will *not* see allowing LGBT people in under any circumstances, even to the point of getting rid of DADT to just make LGBT outright something that they can go “hunting” for to discharge a person for. On the other side, you have a culture that holds in many ways that they should be “Proud, Loud and Ready to Offend” without any sensitivity to those who do not share the same lifestyle values. That is actually a Mantra of sorts by many leaders that are internally highly respected, and to be frank, if the aim is to raise *awareness*, (not long-term support) those tactics, although you may disagree with their moral or political *correctness*, are effective.

    That is an explosive mix, even in the Civilian Workplace. Now give them access to weapons, and it can very litterally be DEADLY indeed!

    You probably correctly surmised that my moral inclination is to *not* accept the LGBT lifestyle as *correct* and what should be considered *normal*. However, you make a serious mistake if you think that I propose that people who are LGBT should categorically be excluded from military service. The Judge was wise (as far as I can see here) in this decision, but it is people like *you* who attack with great venom, who *ensure* that DADT *must* be kept in place. Your attitude is all about shoving *your* values down other peoples throats, and it does not win many converts. As for me, if the attitude swings more to your brand of beligerance, my personal opinion is that *most* of the children are ready to pick up their guns and *shoot* each other, and at that point, *my* moral compass tells me to resist to save lives, and fight to keep DADT as viable as possible, even watering down this Judges ruling, which may (sadly) be before its time!

    ;'{P~~~

  • Melford

    I think it is sad what has happened to some of those you mention. However, I don't hold the answer to be as you would make it, granting blanket amnesty.

    So you can let your heart bleed red over all of these pages. I see other solutions other than yours that require people to *earn* what you want to give them for being unfortunate enough to be the children of criminals, even if their crime was *only* to come here illegally without any regard for our laws.

    I wonder how much of that attitude is transfered to these kids? If they are unwilling to *earn* that status to be here legally, I'd say they bought that disregard for our laws hook line and sinker!

    Dream On!

    ;'{P~~~