Senate passes DADT repeal

And wonder of wonders, Richard Burr helped:

Eight Republicans bucked their party in backing the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, potentially risking a backlash from the conservative base while giving the historic vote a stronger bipartisan finish than many expected.

The Republican senators voting “yes” with the Democrats on repeal were Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John Ensign of Nevada, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine.

Hat tip to Ed Cone for the link.

But before you are tempted to slap a "Maverick" label on Burr, this quote is very telling:

When cloture was passed, that settled that

Translation: The battle was lost, so I decided, "What the hey?", I might as well hop on one of the floats in the victory parade.

Comments

I missed this earlier,

but Jake was all over this hours ago:

DADT repeal passed the key vote today to pass the filibuster. Now the actual vote will happen at 3 pm with a simple majority which they easily have, and then on to the President's desk. Granted this bill is a little watered down and requires additional approvals and steps even after repeal is signed, but today is still a big day.

Yeah Burr gets no credit for this

He fought it every step along the way. He voted against DADT repeal as a part of the Defense Bill (the same kind of bill it was born on so many years ago). He voted against repeal earlier this year. And he voted against it again earlier today on the only vote that mattered to overcome the filibuster. He spoke out as DADT repeal being a bad thing every time it was discussed.

He will be remember as a DADT repeal opponent from everyone who cared deeply about this issue.

Its like McCain giving Obama a congratulatory call after Obama won. That one act of support, after it has already been decided, does not make him an Obama supporter. In the same way voting to filibuster DADT repeal was the same vote, and anything that happened after that does reflect who stood up when it mattered.

Dickie needn't worry

about any sort of backlash from the right. He just got himself re-elected to a brand new six year term. Given the short attention span of most Americans these days, it'll be forgotten before the Christmas tree comes down.

What this really tells me is that ol' Dickie doesn't really believe all the hateful drivel that spews from his and so many other conservative mouths. It's simply more politically expedient to stand with all the ignorant the haters than it is to stand for enlightened reason and tolerance.

_______________________________________________

"...the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be."

Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail

Was there a horse trade

Did Hagan and Burr do a trade in which Hagan voted against cloture on the DREAM Act in exchange for Burr voting for the merits of DADT repeal?

Inquisitive minds want to know.

If there wasn't, Hagan should be criticized for (1) voting against leadership on a procedural vote (yes, I know it's the new fad among "moderate" Democrats), (2) providing cover for the Republican Party's obstruction of the DREAM Act (yes, I know she wasn't the only Democrat doing this--and then there's Joe Manchin), (3) pandering to bigots in North Carollina, and (4) most importantly of all voting against education discrimination based on ethnicity.

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

Seriously

The guy voted yes. YES. A vast majority of his GOP colleagues did not. Complain about what happened before and, now, other items after. But, seriously, give the guy credit for voting yes.

Greg

Three hours before

No. Do not give Burr credit for voting "yes" on the 50-vote threshold vote three hours after he voted "no" on the 60-vote threshold vote.

I will give Burr credit for noting this truth.

Given the generational transition that has taken place in our nation, I feel that this policy is outdated and repeal is inevitable.

And, more importantly, in Ben Smith's words in the same link:

If the Republican from North Carolina is talking like this, opposition to homosexuality has, in some broader sense, lost its political juice.

 

I must also say

No credit.

He's fought against DADT repeal for a long time.

He's spoken out against repeal.

He voted against repeal as a part of the Defense Bill back in September.

He voted against DADT repeal on the REAL vote today which was for cloture.

He fought it every step a long the way. He's said negative things about gay people along the way.

He's anti-equality in many other ways. He supports a US Constitution marriage discrimination amendment.

NC polls said most North Carolinians support repeal. He fought against repeal tooth and nail trying to filibuster it to keep it from even coming to a vote. Then once it was clear it had passed and his vote would help it along at all, I guess he saw the writing on the wall.

I'm very disturbed that this person who fought against equality on many fronts every step along the way is now being given credit because of one pointless vote that didn't come until after this issue had been decided.

I leave you with a segment from the most recent Marshall - Burr debate after Burr had said "If somebody chooses that lifestyle":

"Moderator: A rebuttal.

Marshall: I would respond to that by saying there is ample evidence that it is biological and Senator Burr obviously believes it’s by choice. That is wrong-headed and discriminatory. We shouldn't be judging people by the color of their hair, the color of their eyes, the color of their skin, or other factors that they have no control over. That's wrong in America, and what you're talking about is governmental discrimination for something that's outside of somebody's control

Burr: Secretary Marshall, I'm not sure that I referred to anybody's skin color, or to their hair color. This is a very specific group of individuals, and I made it very clear what my position was. But don't bring race into this.

Marshall: It is because of who they are by factors that they have no control over. Gender is another one of those. This country has been replete with discrimination based upon things that folks have no control over, and its time in 2010, this century, that we end that."

I'm in the "no credit" for Burr camp

He fought against against against this repeal until he saw his ship was sinking ... at which time he sold his integrity for cheap political points. Maybe Machiavelli would give him credit, but not me.

Not here

It won't earn him points in my uber-conservative neck of the woods. And some folks are making sure this vote is getting PLENTY of press.

Beth

The continuous moving target..

When President Clinton ordered the DADT policy shortly after taking office in January 1993, so-called "conservatives" assailed the policy as the beginning of the end of military discipline and unit cohesiveness. Nearly 18 years and several wars later, conservatives are defending the policy they attacked back then.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

The NC Taliban forgets US History when whining about DADT repeal

Rev. Mark Creech of the Christian Action League NC Taliban somehow forgets the training of George Washington's troops by a gay German.

Anyone wanting to know how a homo trained Revolutionary troops, google von Steuben.

Better yet, here's the link.

Better yet, here's a quote:

On September 26, 1777, the Baron, his Italian greyhound, Azor (which he took with him everywhere), his young aide de camp Louis de Pontiere, his military secretary Pierre Etienne Duponceau, and two other companions, reached Portsmouth, New Hampshire and by December 1, was extravagantly entertained in Boston. Congress was in York, Pennsylvania, after being ousted from Philadelphia by the British advance. By February 5, 1778, Steuben had offered to volunteer without pay (for the time), and by the 23rd, Steuben reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge. Steuben spoke little English and he often yelled to his translator, "Here! Come swear for me!"[citation needed] Colonel Alexander Hamilton and General Nathanael Greene were of great help in assisting Steuben in drafting a training program for the Army, which found approval with Washington.

Emphasis mine.

Give it up, Mark Creech.

Washington had plenty of use for gays in the military. He used at least one famous one to train his military.

 

This seems a bit of a

This seems a bit of a stretch. He was accused of some things on one occasion from what I can tell. It might be true or it might be enemies trying to get rid of him. There is also no indication that Franklin or Washington were aware of these accusations.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

Sign this petition against LGBT executions

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1870/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5365#english

I hope this DADT thread is an okay place to post this. With all the LGBT news focused on what just happened with DADT, we need to make sure that this isn't lost in the noise.

For the last decade the UN has condemned such executions which helps keep the international pressure on. But they've removed it. And from what I just read over on PHB there will be a chance to re-add it when they consider the resolution tomorrow. Please sign this petition.

The world shouldn't be a place where this can happen:
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/128-gays-sentenced-to-death-in-iraq

On July 19, 2005 two teenage boys, Mahmoud Asgari, 14, and Ayaz Marhoni, 16, were hanged in neighboring Iran for the crime of homosexual activity.

----

Update: To quote the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission's facebook page:

The resolution restoring sexual orientation to the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions is ADOPTED 93 - 55, with 27 abstentions!

And the US led the charge on this:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/21/UN_to_Vote_on_Gay_Executions/

Advocates want member states to approve an amendment introduced by the United States to restore the reference to sexual orientation when the full General Assembly takes a final vote, which will be webcast later Tuesday morning. The vote was initially scheduled for Monday but postponed for reasons that observers believe to be procedural.

“We’ve been working intensely with allies and partners to make sure that we win this vote,” said Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations.

In a speech on Human Rights Day less than two weeks ago, Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said she was “incensed” about the vote in the Third Committee and vowed that the U.S. would work to restore the reference to sexual orientation in the resolution. Her remarks followed a speech by U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon in which he spoke forcefully against the criminalization of homosexuality.

I'm rather happy that we no longer have Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN.