Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Burr, Ensign Back DADT Repeal

In a surprising move, after voting against cloture earlier in the day, Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and Sen. John Ensign (R., Nev.) both voted to repeal the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexuality. The measure passed by a 65–31 margin this afternoon. Other Republicans voting in favor of repeal: Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.), Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and the Maine ladies, Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins.

Burr said it was not a difficult vote to cast, despite his state’s being home to Camp Lejeune, the largest Marine Corps base on the East Coast. Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, had been one of the most high-profile opponents of repeal. “Hopefully we all think independently here and we listen; we don’t have to be lobbied or influenced,” he said.

Burr told reporters that he supported repeal because “this is a policy that generationally is right,” but said he “didn’t necessarily agree” with those who have characterized the issue as a civil-rights struggle.

“A majority of Americans have grown up at a time [when] they don’t think exclusion is the right thing for the United States to do,” Burr said. “It’s not the accepted practice anywhere else in our society, and it only makes sense.”

Burr explained that he voted against cloture because he “vehemently objected to making a policy change of this magnitude at this time . . . when we’ve got troops deployed.” He also wished Republicans had been allowed to offer amendments to the bill.

“Even though this bill has now passed, it should never be enacted immediately,” he said, expressing concern over how and when the bill would go into effect. Burr said he hoped the implementation process would address his concerns and those of military officials, like General Amos, who had come out against repeal. “The speed with which this was done ignores their input and their concerns,” he said.

After he left the Capitol, Burr’s office issued this statement:

“Given the generational transition that has taken place in our nation, I feel that this policy is outdated and repeal is inevitable.  However, I remain convinced that the timing of this change is wrong, and making such a shift in policy at a time when we have troops deployed in active combat areas does not take into consideration the seriousness of the situation on the ground.  But, the vote this morning to invoke cloture on this bill indicated that the broader Senate was prepared to move forward with a change, and despite my concerns over timing, my conclusion is that repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is the right thing to do.”

Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) told National Review Online he wasn’t surprised by Burr’s vote. And though he echoed his colleague’s concerns about bringing up the issue during a lame-duck session and in a time of war, Corker suggested that under different circumstances and after greater consideration, more Republicans would have supported repeal.

“It was something people knew was going to happen,” Corker said, pointing out that apart from Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), few other Republicans put up much of a fight to stop repeal. “You didn’t really see anybody in there talking about it much, right? It wasn’t impassioned at all.”

Ensign, for his part, departed quietly:

Before the vote, Ensign said the choice for him was a struggle between what he personally thought was the right thing to do, and the circumstantial concerns of various military chiefs.

That’s why, he explained, he had voted against taking up the measure.

But in the end, once the question on the table, it appeared personal conviction won out over political circumstance. “My personal feeling is that it should be repealed,” he’d said before the 65-to-31 vote.

Ensign left the Senate chamber quickly and quietly . . .

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   135

EXPAND  

Dave Crawford
   12/18/10 16:31

For the umpteenth time: It was not the military's policy, it was Federal Law, passed by Congress during the Clinton Administration. Perhaps people on NR could get their facts straight.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 16:31

Burr? Burr? Oh, that won't go over well in the New NC (which just flipped Republican on Nov 2nd). Has Burr forgotten how many military bases there are in NC?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   Jason
   12/18/10 16:33

If they were for it, why did they vote to block the vote? More evidence that the filibuster rule needs to go. Blocking a vote just because your side is not going to win is undemocratic.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 16:39

If it was not for the filibuster rule, nightmare act would have passed.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 16:39

If it was not for the filibuster rule, nightmare act would have passed.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
SadieMN
   12/18/10 16:39

Good for them....good for the United States of America !

"Governments that permit homosexuals to serve openly in their military service include Taiwan, Australia, Israel, Argentina, Canada and all countries of the European Union and every original NATO signatory except the United States and Turkey".

Jesus didn't tell us to change one another, He told us to
love one another. Now we can add US of A to the above list. Merry Christmas !

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 16:43

"Blocking a vote just because your side is not going to win is undemocratic."

Why, democracy can't have rules beyond the brute force of a simple majority? The Senate is a particularly deliberative body. Any mechanism that increases deliberation, rather than decreases deliberation should be welcomed, not shunned; Cooling legislation in the Senate's saucer, and all that.

Personally, I think any bill that can't get at least 60-votes in the Senate, is probably either unneeded, or premature.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Clint
   12/18/10 16:51

"Blocking a vote just because your side is not going to win is undemocratic."

Um.

That's not what happened here.

Two senators voted to "block a vote" then voted *for* the bill. They were "blocking a vote" that their side was going to, and did, win.

I can't speak for those senators, but perhaps they felt such an important issue shouldn't be decided during a lame duck session?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 17:23

Each of these Republicans who voted for it needs to be primaried by patriots.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 17:32

So, I guess this means that the old drill instructor taunt about "Only 2 things come from Oklahoma City, Steers & Qu**rs and I dont see no horns boy!" will no longer make any sense?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   Jason
   12/18/10 18:07

Scott, the filibuster is used to block votes, not prolong debate. This is indisputable.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 18:15

SeanB. Patriots? I wouldn't mind Mosi Tatupu and Steve Grogan as Senators.
Surely you can't mean those who voted to allow decent and honorable gay Americans to serve their country don't love their country?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 18:15

Huh, I wonder why they called it a cloture motion. I always thought it was a motion to end debate. I'm glad you set me straight.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kathryn
   12/18/10 18:17

A sad day for the United States Military...another reason why the Lame Duck Congress should not take up treaties, game changing rules for the military that mostly they despise or at least think are beneath them, and enormous finance bills laden with earmarks.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Gunther
   12/18/10 18:17

Finally we get a democratic vote on a policy regarding gays that does not require a judge or court. Regardless of how one feels about gays, it will be hard to argue that this is illegitimate or that somehow the minority is "forcing" its views on the majority. It's the majority making its views known on the issue.

Bravo, Congress...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 18:17

@Jason - did you read the article and understand this quote from Burr

He also wished Republicans had been allowed to offer amendments to the bill.

Under normal leadership in the Senate, Senators can offer amendments and changes to the original bill. Dictator Reid does not permit this.

Who knows, maybe some of the amendments would have actually improved the bill. If worse, they can be voted down.

Dictator Pelosi also refused to let any Republican offer anything, to any bill. I hope she enjoys her private jet trip home for Christmas - after Christmas, I hope she gets groped at the airport.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   Jason
   12/18/10 18:18

Ok Scott, if the filibuster just prolongs debate, when will the debate end on the DREAM Act? According to you, the senate has just voted to keep debating it, so eventually they'll be done, right? Wrong, the DREAM Act is dead. Why? It's been filibustered. The filibuster blocks legislation.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Gunther
   12/18/10 18:19

Finally we get a democratic vote on a policy regarding gays that does not require a judge or court. Regardless of how one feels about gays, it will be hard to argue that this is illegitimate or that somehow the minority is "forcing" its views on the majority. It's the majority making its views known on the issue.

Bravo, Congress...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/18/10 18:24

"Blocking a vote just because your side is not going to win is undemocratic."

It is undemocratic. But the Senate is not required to behave in a democratic fashion. It can set whatever limits it likes to cut off discussion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   Jason
   12/18/10 18:29

Thanks, flenser. I know the senate can do what it likes. I'm suggesting that what it likes is bad, and that getting rid of the filibuster would be good. It would make the senate more democratic, and I think the senate would be better if it were more democratic.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact