John McCain: I'd 'Absolutely' Filibuster 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal

[Amerigo Vespucci]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/17/mccain-filibuster-dont-ask-dont-tell_n_765702.html

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) signaled over the weekend that he would filibuster any measure put forth in the Senate aiming to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during a lame-duck session following the November midterm election.

The four-term incumbent spoke about the Pentagon policy that prohibits gay individuals from serving openly in the military in a pre-taped interview for Arizona-based station Channel 12's "Sunday Square Off."

When asked how far he would go to prevent an attempt to repeal the controversial policy from being approved in the upper congressional chamber, McCain responded by saying, "Absolutely I will filibuster or stop it from being brought up until we have a thorough and complete study on the effect of morale and battle effectiveness."

The longtime senator said that it doesn't matter to him that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen have both voiced support for stopping the enforcement of the ban on gay troops.

[HughMoran]

1. What a fucking piece of garbage

Make him do it longhand - maybe he'll stroke.

[gateley]

2. I'm desperately looking for the rec button to rec your post! A +1 will have to suffice. nt

[crazyjoe]

3. Apparently, so will the Obama administration.

but lets ignore that and be offended by the "old guy"

[sabrina 1]

4. It's easier to yell at the other team.

Shameful that Democrats will not take a stand on this. The time is NOW. All the elements are in favor of him halting the dismissals, and none of his excuses come close to making any sense.

I expect McCain to do this, he's a Republican so no surprise there, or shock. That's why we elected Democrats.

Here's are some questions.

Q. If McCain were president, what would he have have done about the Judge's ruling?

A. 'He would have appealed the decision'.

Q. Would McCain have issued an Executive Order halting dismissals of Gay Soldiers?

A. No, he would not.

Q. Then how would he have handled the DADT question after this ruling and with so many people supporting ending it?

A. He would have left it up to Congress.

And that is exactly how Obama is handling it. Both are saying different things, but their actions are and would be identical.

[ruggerson]

5. what's amusing

is that the people here coming up with excuse after excuse about why Obama is appealing this decision think we don't see through their game.

[boppers]

12. A chess metaphor:

One of my cousins, after watching me play 10 or 15 games of chess, asked why I didn't "just knock the other player's king over".

It's a simple solution, of course.

[readmoreoften]

18. What? A chess metaphor! Why, I've never seen one of those here before!

Love being one of Obama's Pawns!

[boppers]

21. Do you want to win the game?

I've been a pawn for so many players that sometimes I forget that the game is not about myself.

[crazyjoe]

24. +1

[treestar]

27. Their actions would not be identical

what shallow thinking that post reveals.

[sabrina 1]

29. They would play the game in exactly the same way

it is now being played.

'Let Congress resolve it'. Would Congress behave any differently no matter who the president is? Congress already rejected ending DADT.

What does Obama expect them to do differently after the election? And if that effort fails, what will happen next year if Republicans gain seats in Congress?

If there is an answer to these questions, then I have not seen it.

In the appeal against the judge's ruling, the stated reason for making the appeal is that the military needs time to adjust to this change in policy. But commanders on the ground have stated that this is the least of the problems on the minds of the troops and the military will simply follow orders as they always do AND are doing at the moment.

And while we wait for Congress, which could be years from now if Republicans have their way as they did not long ago, many Gay Soldiers will be dismissed from service.

Otoh, if the administration were not to appeal the decision, issue an EO while they wait for Congress, at the very least it would take two years before that EO could be rescinded, maybe six. Many Gay troops would continue to serve and two years from now, with the policy already in place, as one Gay Fighter Pilot said, 'it will very difficult at that point to put it back in the box'.

If there's something I'm not aware of, then please explain it to me.

[readmoreoften]

17. Yes but it's somehow worse when Republicans act like Republicans.

When Democrats act like Republicans it's okay for some reason. Personally, I think it's worse to act like a Republican while not being one.

[HughMoran]

26. Is there a reason all of your 53X posts are negative drive-by posts?

Just curious.

[crazyjoe]

30. wow, did you read them all? are you stalking me?

since your so familiar, why don't you point out the posts that you don't like. I'll see if I can't explain them to you...slowly

[dionysus]

31. when pwned, cough up the weak "stalking" defense...

:rofl:

[crazyjoe]

36. as opposed to your thoughtful and postive posts like the one above?

"What a fucking piece of garbage"
"Make him do it longhand - maybe he'll stroke."

Ah, if only I was as enlightened as you....I can only dream

[HughMoran]

37. Perhaps you put McCain on a pedestal

not me.

[crazyjoe]

39. gee, you might call that a negitive drive-by post.

anyhow, I'm done exposing you as a lightweight. Have a nice life, and don't worry, I'm sure it will grow.

[HughMoran]

40. lol

OK bud - identity confirmed.

:thumbsup:

[Radical Activist]

33. Obama: "It will end on my watch."

Get real.

[Touchdown]

35. Mere words.

You get real.

[bluestateguy]

6. At a certain point Obama is just going to have to go the executive order route

AFter the inevitable failure at the lame duck session.

And I don't buy this bullshit that an act of Congress is required to change a military personnel policy.

The president is the commander in chief. The Top Dog, The Big Cheese. If he issues orders then everybody in uniform had better snap a salute say Yes Sir and proceed to cheerfully carry out his orders.

[ruggerson]

7. The statute has already been struck down

Just don't appeal the ruling.

He can also concurrently pursue repealing it in the Senate, if he thinks that will make it even more dead than it already is.

[boppers]

10. It's not a policy, it's federal LAW.

Here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Oh, and the commander in chief is required *by the Constitution* to be subservient to Congress on matters of the armed forces.

"Section 8: The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

It's not a presidential power, and the Constitution is explicit about it.

[bluestateguy]

13. Once again, talk to the hand, I'm not interested

Commander in Chief. Top Dog. Big Cheese. The Decider. The Commander Guy.

[boppers]

15. I was going to mock you with a "Decider" comment, but it seems you've already done that.

I'm not sure what Monarchies are left, but you might consider choosing to live there instead of a democracy.

[Touchdown]

16. Funny you mention monarchies.

The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, The UK, Japan and Denmark all allow their gay people to serve openly in their services.:rofl:

[boppers]

20. I'm not sure if this is irony, or tragic comedy.

Point well made.

[treestar]

28. Salivating at that like the right wing did

[ruggerson]

25. It's not Federal Law. It's been declared unconstitutional

n/t

[donco6]

38. Not anymore it isn't.

Oh, well, until Obama gets it reinstated through his appeal. Then it'll be law again! And we'll have no way to overturn it because of the filibuster.

The best course of action is to let it stay overturned.

[the redcoat]

8. Wow, what a maverick! nt

[Danger Mouse]

9. Now THERE'S a shocker for ya.

[Major Hogwash]

11. In that case, I'd filibuster that senile old bastard from taking an oath to office again.

Because he can't decide what side of the issue he is on.
In even years, when there is a Presidential election -- especially one when he is the GOP candidate -- he is for repealing DADT.

But, in even years, where there is just a mid-term election, and he looks to be in the minority until the day he quits -- he is against repealing DADT.

Man, McCain sure would have made a wonderful Commander-in-Chief, wouldn't he?

Should we invade, Sir?
Yes, of course!
No, wait a minute, maybe not.
Aw, go ahead and invade, what can happen?
No wait, I'm up for reelection this year.
Well, bomb the hell out of them, I might get some votes that way.
No, stop, the voters may not like a mad bomber for a President!

[Swamp Rat]

14. Time to remove this insane man from the Senate.

[Skittles]

19. homophobic bastard

[Pab Sungenis]

22. He wouldn't have a chance to filibuster it

if Obama had just agreed NOT to appeal the ruling.

Of course, that's not what happened.

The courts did the heavy lifting for Obama and he still couldn't be a "fierce advocate" enough to let them do it for him.

[Evasporque]

23. John, that's not what you said at the bathhouse last week....

Sheesh....

[VMI Dem]

32. John, chill the fuck out. We're appealing this.

[bullwinkle428]

34. Funny that Meghan fails to use the "bigoted extremist" label for

this guy as she's out there promoting her new book. Oh, that's right...he's HER FATHER!!! :banghead: