Back in 2006, when John McCain was still John McCain, he said that the time to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be when military leaders called for repeal. Then, when military leaders called for repeal, he demanded a full study of the consequences.
Now the study is done and the military leadership still wants repeal, and McCain has moved the goalposts. They need to think the matter over another year. Then we can talk.
PolitiFact.com excavates the record and rates McCain’s position a “full flip-flop.” What a shabby sunset to a great career. And what a sad comparison to the man whose Senate seat McCain occupies, a fellow named Barry Goldwater.
22 Comments for “McCain’s ‘Full Flop’ on DADT”
posted by Scott on
*sigh* It’s hard to believe that at one point, I held this cretin in high regard…
posted by Doug on
McCain has totally lost the mantle of ‘war hero’. He will now be remembered as a bitter little man with no integrity or honor whatsoever. A sad commentary and for what purpose.
posted by Carl on
Sen. McCain will always be seen as a war hero — that’s not going to go away based on his rabid opposition to repealing DADT. I still respect him for what he went through and many people still do.
What will go away is the carefully built media image about how reasonable and fair he is and how he hates modern politics and how he is a maverick and unpredictable. His behavior is grindingly predictable, and partisan, and sad to watch, because it seems to be all about bruised ego, not about what is best for the troops.
But of course there are many in both parties who are very happy to keep DADT in place and to oppose any legislation which does not follow a hard right social conservative line. McCain just happens to be one of the most vocal, and I am guessing, most happy to keep this type of legislation in place. He knows if it doesn’t pass now, it never will. And if it did somehow come up again next year and have a chance of passing, he would probably say the same stuff he is saying right now.
posted by Carl on
It’s also quite interesting to see how full-throated some of our “liberal media” seem against repeal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113005292.html
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith//2010/11/what_beliefs_ban_gays/all.html
posted by mattw on
The Washington Post has Marc Thiessen writing for them. They are hardly “liberal.” They are a step or two from Fox News these days.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The sad thing is that there will still be plenty of need for conservative voices after the repeal of DADT, as Congress debates the many specifics of policy for a post-DADT military. (For example, some gay activists will be pushing for same-sex partner benefits the day after DADT ends, but there are logical arguments for taking up that issue later rather than sooner — perhaps not until after there is federal recognition of civil unions, for example, even if that takes 10 or 20 more years. There are also arguments for NOT waiting so long, but in any case, it’s desirable to hear from both sides.)
So McCain could acknowledge that the military itself is freakin’ ready to begin the process, and still have his legacy as a “wise conservative” who urges gradualism and caution while post-DADT policies develop over the next several years.
posted by Nunja Business on
A sad sunset in an otherwise great political career. Oh please, go back and do a little fact checking, this guy has always gamed the system to his advantage. The American people saw through his veneer of moral rectitude during the election of 2008, and now the full throttle, vain McCain shows his true colors. Anyone who believed this guy at his word on DADT, and a host of other issues, must be naive and easily led by a craven, bitter, and cynical career politician. He gets no kudos from me on any front.
When dusk comes, and his long career is over, I will give thanks and wish him a heartfelt GOOD RIDDANCE!
posted by TommyJ on
Indeed. On certain issues I tend to favor the Republican Party; i.e. I support the 2nd amendment as an individual right, was raised as a ‘good’ Catholic (with all the guilt that entails) and [at least initially] supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I am somewhat iffy about the result, I have to give McCain credit for taking on a major electoral reform issues [my own views on campaign finance will probably offend the left and right]. Yet, McCain just moved to the cultural right in 2008 [with Sarah Palin] and then pulling this stuff on DADT. Oftentimes his daughter makes much more sense., but I am not sure if their is still room for the type of moderate-liberal Republicans . Is she [McCain Jr] the future of the GOP? I am not sure. The Tea Party movement seems to be just another gimmick that will not be good for gay citizens.
posted by BobN on
The sad thing is that there will still be plenty of need for conservative voices after the repeal of DADT, as Congress debates the many specifics of policy for a post-DADT military
Once the Congress repeals DADT, all the issues dealing with the practical aspects of gay people serving will be addressed by the military and within the military, to the extent possible under DOMA. Congress will not be involved in making those decisions, except insofar as they have set the boundaries with DOMA.
Of course, there will be pressure to repeal at least the federal recognition aspect of DOMA (which is already well on its way to being ruled unconstitutional) and the Congress will fight over that, if the courts don’t get there first. And, it’s true, that having men and women fighting for this country with spouses who cannot receive pensions, etc., will be a hard argument for “conservatives” to fight against, but I have no doubt they will. And McCain will lead that anti-gay fight, as well (assuming it suits his political goals at the time).
posted by Throbert McGee on
Ahem. As it says in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, “Congress shall have power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.”
Moreover, DOMA has absolutely nothing to do with such “practical aspects of gay people serving” as, for example, whether the sodomy clause of the UCMJ needs to be revised; whether money should be spent on retrofitting communal showers to provide for individual privacy; who bears the burden of proof if a gay servicemember believes he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation; etc. All of these issues would be decided by Congress — in consultation with the military, yes, but our military is civilian-controlled.
There are, of course, little details of implementation that would likely be worked out within the military, by the military, without direct Congressional involvement.
For example, it would take action by Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the military’s Equal Opportunity training programs that are intended to prevent discrimination and harassment — the military can’t just decide, “adding an anti-homophobia section to the training seems like a great idea; let’s do it!” However, I would hazard a guess that it would be up to the discretion of the military, not Congress, to decide whether specific usages such as “that’s so gay” or “quit whining like a faggot, soldier” amount to violations of the anti-discrimination policy.
posted by Carl on
“but I am not sure if their is still room for the type of moderate-liberal Republicans .”
There isn’t. For all the hype of Republicans not focusing on social issues, I have heard no Republicans in Congress speak in rebuttal to McCain and Graham working to convince the public that allowing gays in the military is an affront to what the troops want and that it is a danger during wartime.
What they are doing is setting up a situation where Republicans in Congress will never accept a repeal, because there are always going to be some troops who will not want a repeal. We are likely always going to be in some type of conflict somewhere. So that means any time any sort of repeal might happen, we will hear a) any attempts to repeal are wrong/flawed/biased and b) why don’t you try repeal at (fill in the blank later date, as the can is kicked down the road again).
This is why I don’t believe that any type of procedural games would have helped DADT get repealed. There is very strong moral objection to this from the GOP, and some in the media are happy to help them spread the idea that this is a danger to troops. That will not change. It doesn’t matter how nice gays are to Republicans or how often gays tell Democrats to stop being wimps.
posted by BobN on
Ahem. As it says in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, “Congress shall have power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.”
To have a power and to use it are two different things. The Congress only very rarely involves itself in military policy except insofar as it passes the Defense Department budget, picking and choosing weapons systems, etc. DADT was an aberration.
The Congress will not, I hope, try micromanaging showering, for example.
As for DOMA, it precludes pension benefits for the spouses of gay servicemembers. That’s just one issue. Did you read the survey report? It recommends altering military rules on life insurance and other aspects of compensation/benefits to include non-married partners when possible and explicitly says that DOMA will not allow fully equal treatment.
You can bet that once gay servicemembers are serving openly, the military will begin to call for federal recognition of those relationships.
posted by Jorge on
There isn’t. For all the hype of Republicans not focusing on social issues, I have heard no Republicans in Congress speak in rebuttal to McCain and Graham working to convince the public that allowing gays in the military is an affront to what the troops want and that it is a danger during wartime.
McCain’s opposition does not fall into the category of social conservatism.
As for Graham, from his last appearance on Fox News Sunday I think he deferred to McCain, but it was very clear to me that he was willing to give wiggle room. He stated repeal is a campaign promise that he does not believe will pass this year when we have more pressing issues. Graham is bipartisan on a lot of political issues but he’s made the decision that he cannot be bipartisan at this time. We’ll see what happens.
posted by Carl on
“McCain’s opposition does not fall into the category of social conservatism.”
I think this goes hand in hand with social conservatism. Opposition to gays in the military is a big part of the social conservative movement. At the moment it seems like we’re only a few steps away from a return to “They will be showering together and who knows what might happen.”
posted by Debrah on
It is most curious that McCain has chosen to make DADT such an issue now.
But as Stephen Miller illuminated, it was the elfen magic of Harry Reid that provided the real obstacles.
posted by Throbert McGee on
That’s a pretty big honking “etcetera” — as it includes, for example, every letter and comma in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and also Title 10 of the U.S. Code. By design, civilians control our military, primarily via the Legislative branch.
The milblog Blackfive currently has two essays and comment threads going on the DADT issue — one pro-repeal and the other anti-repeal.
I recommend reading them both, but perhaps particularly the one that favors keeping DADT, so that you have a clearer idea of the actual arguments made by real-life veterans (you will note, for example, that “shower privacy” is nowhere on the list of concerns), the better to tailor your own arguments against DADT.
posted by Throbert McGee on
That’s a pretty big honking “etcetera” — as it includes, for example, every letter and comma in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and also Title 10 of the U.S. Code. By design, civilians control our military, primarily via the Legislative branch.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The milblog Blackfive currently has two essays and comment threads going on the DADT issue — one pro-repeal…
posted by Throbert McGee on
…and the other anti-repeal.
[Editorial comment: Goddamn stupid-ass simple-minded spam filter. — Th.M.]
I recommend reading both of the Blackfive threads, but perhaps particularly the one that favors keeping DADT, so that you have a clearer idea of the actual objections raised by real-life military veterans (you will note, for example, that “shower privacy” is nowhere on the list of concerns), the better to tailor your own arguments against DADT.
posted by Jorge on
Well I read the anti one.
“The single appropriate determining factor in answering the question “Who should serve in the military?” is the needs of the military.”
That essay places an extremely strong emphasis on this point, and I must say that, as usual, this country’s America first people have a habit of justifying evil by national necessity and other so-called “objective” standards.
I do agree that the needs of the military is the strongest determining factor and a mandatory consideration, but whether a course of action is right or wrong is not irrelevant. Every day the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy remains in effect is a commitment to an abomination, and if we truly are the best, we will at least try to find a better answer. That is precisely why we have civilian control over the military.
posted by Jorge on
Anyway, it seems to me that in this climate, we should look for ways to move forward.
I’d like to suggest that the Pentagon, if it has not already done so, should create an action plan for how and under what timetables a repeal of DADT should be best implemented. Since the Marines want to lead the way so much should it be repealed, they should be permitted to lead. Obviously, the Pentagon has created just such a plan. Unlike the government, when they create a new policy, they think about how best to put it into effect.
I’d suggest that the President and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should state what specific conditions are necessary for them to be willing to authorize a repeal: when specific goals of the action plan are successfully achieved. I believe these actions will call the opponents’ bluffs and create slightly stronger support for the bill. Proof that repeal is untenable or very difficult will be required in response.
So anyway, the health care bill was 2000 pages. The comprehensive report, and the impremention plan combine to about 250 pages. I’d rather play video games instead. But we learned that when people read the Arizona immigration bill, mountains moved. So we probably should read the study, too.
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport-SPI_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf
posted by Carl on
“But as Stephen Miller illuminated, it was the elfen magic of Harry Reid that provided the real obstacles.”
I do wonder what would have happened if Reid had cooperated with the Republicans on what they wanted. When you take away the Democrats like Mark Pryor who won’t vote for repeal, would you have all the votes, especially since media favorites McCain and Graham are out there leading a public opinion campaign and media campaign against DADT, and with Tea Partiers already planning to run primary campaigns against the few quasi-moderate Republicans who are left?