Talk Elections

Seriously they are threatening to filibuster military spending to oppose something around 70% of the population wants. Is there any political benefit here at all?

Only if the Democrats can effectively use it as an example of how the GOP is impeding progress more generally. With the economy as crappy as it, this is not an issue that people care about too much. The Dems are going to be reluctant to take on a gay issue so close to the election even if polls show it would be to their advantage. They just don't have the guts. I don't think it's going to matter.

I don't think it will hurt the GOP because it's exactly what's expected of most of them.

No one cares about DADT.

Filibustering military spending is not the type of thing that looks good in a 30-second attack ad.

This post shows a serious disconnect with reality.

To be fair, provided its actually repealed, most of the Republicans who would have actually been hurt by it either lost in the last two years, or voted for it in the house. When its gone, they can say they supported it "in principle" but were conerned about readiness, and listening to the military comanders, and that they are pleased it worked with no problems.


The only glaring exception to this is likely Scott Brown, who will almost certanly suffer from his position and has zero updside. But as Mr. Moderate noted, who is usaully pretty pro-GOP in MA, Brown has a real problem on Gay issues.

Who would vote based on DADT alone that is not likely to vote Dem in 2012 already? I hardly think it, or Gay issues in general would be what sinks Brown as long as he continues to oppose FMA, and not come out against the 2004 MA Supreme Court Decision legalizing it.


Rowan is actually pretty right. 70% may support repeal, but are you seriously going to argue that all 70% will vote on that issue alone in the elections. Especially with issues like the economy, Immigration (55%-60% support the AZ law), Health Care (A majority at least wants major changes), Defense issues etc etc. All of which in my opinion are more likely to swing a vote then DADT which doesn't directly effect a large number of people unlike those issues above.

People, please note that BRTD is not talking about DADT, but rather filibustering military funding because a watered-down version of DADY is included in the bill.

That said, the effect will be massively minimized by the fact that the GOP doesn't have the votes to actually carry out a media-engulfing filibuster.  It'll possibly make its way into a campaign ad or two, but I'd be surprised if it made a significant dent outside a couple races, and pretty much only so in the context of said campaign ads.

The GOP needs to cement its support among the bigoted Democrats throughout the South and areas like Murtha's district.  It's nothing but pure political calculation: most people, even Republicans, oppose DADT, but they have better reasons to be voting Republican this year.  It's the people who hold liberal economic views and stand to benefit from health care reform who need to be reminded that gay people are less worth than the fecal material they excrete on an hourly basis.

In any sane country, it would be an issue that would piss some people off, but you must remember that our right-wing is mostly populated by lunatics on any international first-world comparison. Sadly, I don't see opposing the repeal of DADT hurting anyone.