Is Richard Burr Out of His Mind?

His vote to allow gays to serve openly in the military is inexplicable-- even in spite of his attempt to explain it.  In fact, the explanation is fairly convoluted:

Given the generational transition that has taken place in our nation, I feel that this policy is outdated and repeal is inevitable.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

In light of this vote, I will find it very difficult to vote for Burr in the future.

Comments

[Stormy]

This vote just proves that Richard Burr is either not very conservative or not very principled.

[Beau D. Jackson]

In the 60's I gave uncle sam 3 years 9 months, 3 days and 12 hours of my life. During this stint with the military rarely did the gay issue come up, although it did come up twice in the total time I was in the military, once stateside, and once in Nam. Both times it was as a result of a gay male GI hitting on another male GI, that was the problem, and we generally viewed the gays unfavorable. So, needless to say I was shocked, when washington came up with the stats that todays military personel have no objection about gays in the military, boy we sure did. I mean I'd be really uncomfortable in boot camp in the comunial shower thinking there was someone gay in the same shower scoping out his next date attempt, another nail in the coffin of America Beau

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, I agree; and Beau, I understand entirely.

A couple of items of interest with respect to Richard Burr:

He voted in favor of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. That vote later was demonstrated to be entirely unnecessary because of advances in non-embryonic stem cell alternatives. But his vote on gays on the military this weekend suggests an emerging profile for Burr as a social liberal, as an accommodationist. That is very unfortunate.

Of interest also is his religious affiliation. My understanding is that Burr attends a United Methodist Church, but his father was a Presbyterian minister. That might explain a lot.

This was just a downright stupid vote for Burr, and I am afraid it might cost him a lot of support among conservatives in North Carolina.

I had previously felt that a significant portion of the true warrior class-- those recruits willing to put their lives on the line on the front lines-- will be driven away from the military by this type of change. But in the Obama economy, they have no where else to go because there are few opportunities in the private sector; so they might be stuck remaining in the gay military.

[George Hartzman]

"Glory is a 1989 American drama war film based on the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, as told from the point of view of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, its commanding officer during the American Civil War.

The 54th regiment was one of the first formal units of the United States Army to be made up entirely of African American men.

...the company are forced to endure the unyielding strict discipline...

After spending time doing mostly menial work,
Shaw realizes his unit is to be used only for manual labor due to their being black.

Shaw confronts his commanding officers
...whom he finds out are involved in war profiteering and corruption;
and threatens to report them to the War Department if the 54th infantry is not deployed for combat.

Shaw volunteers the 54th infantry to lead an assault on Fort Wagner.

After nightfall, he leads the men in a charge upon the fort.

Shaw attempts to rally the men forward, but is shot and killed.

Numerous other black soldiers in the regiment charge up the parapet
and die in the fighting too."

Wikipedia

[Joe Guarino]

George, the issues raised by blacks in the military then were fundamentally different than the issue of gays in the military today. The latter is based on concerns over same sex attraction occurring in close quarters over prolonged periods when unit cohesion is critical. It is also based on potential concerns over retention and recruitment; although as I stated above, in the Obama economy, the warrior class has few other places to go.

The concerns over blacks in the military were never based on legitimate concerns over military effectiveness; the concerns over gays in the military are.

[George Hartzman]

"The concerns over blacks in the military were never based on legitimate concerns over military effectiveness; the concerns over gays in the military are."

Wasn't there the same question about blacks playing quarter back?

effectiveness...

[Joe Guarino]

The operative concept, George, is legitimate concern. It is not sufficient merely to have a question or concern. It needs to be a legitimate one.

It is a lot to expect that warriors risking their lives on the front lines and on war vessels be forced to share close quarters with someone who will have a same sex attraction for them; and that unit cohesion will not be adversely affected. Unit cohesion and trust among troops is critical to military effectiveness.

[Beau D. Jackson]

Blacks in the military, and I served with many good black men, and "black quarterbacks" ????? WHAT! Are you for real, or is this a ploy to divert the conversation! Beau

[George Hartzman]

"Unit cohesion and trust among troops is critical to military effectiveness."

So what is the effectiveness?

It seems there are multiples of armys that it seems not to be a problem for.

"Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia permit gay people to serve openly."

Wikipedia

[Brandon Burgess]

All I can say is that I am thankful for all of our troops, including Beau; including the gay ones.

I am impressed with Burr's decision.

Joe, you seem to be suggesting that conservative political values and homosexuality are inherently at odds with each other. Am I reading you correctly? Can gays be truly conservative?

[Joe Guarino]

George, the American military has been the best in the world. It does not prove anything to cite lower quality armies, and suggest that proves the absence of a problem with having gays openly in the military. We have the best military, and we do not have gays openly serving.

Brandon, I think gays can have some conservative positions. But I think it would be very difficult for a true social conservative to sign on to the gay political agenda.

[Hugh]

The black comparison the the gay issue is ridiculous.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Hugh. Those advocating for gay marriage have tried using this strategy also, citing ancient miscegenation laws. But it doesn't work.

[Brandon Burgess]

Joe you are probably right. That doesn't say much for conservative values.

Hugh I disagree.

[triadwatch]

below is a few arguments on the PRO side of this argument found here

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=103

No-one now can realistically doubt the ability of a gay man or woman to be as hard-working, co-ordinated, intelligent or patriotic as one of their heterosexual counterparts. It is therefore sheer bigotry to deny those who want to join the army (and even to suffer its endemic homophobia) the opportunity to do so.

Much of the argument against the admission of gays is based on the problems caused by homophobia amongst heterosexuals. This homophobia is maintained and encouraged by continued segregation. Allowing straight soldiers to see how effective gay soldiers can be will reduce the prejudice.

my take and agree with the pro's above.

I am a republican and a conservative and am glad to see Senator Burr vote the way he did. If a person is willing to sign up for the military and risk his or her life to defend this country it doesn't matter what color or sexual orientation they are.

[MikeBrown]

Good for Burr. He did the right thing. Joe, no matter how you choose to defend discrimination and bigotry they are wrong.

Your concerns, "same sex attraction occurring in close quarters over prolonged periods when unit cohesion is critical... concerns over retention and recruitment...Unit cohesion and trust among troops is critical to military effectiveness." All the top military official disagree with you that these are serious ongoing concerns.

You know better then them because...?

Personally, I'm glad to see it. Gay marriage throughout the USofA will follow soon as unfounded fears abait.

[Joe Guarino]

Keith, the "ability of a gay man or woman to be as hard-working, co-ordinated, intelligent or patriotic as one of their heterosexual counterparts" is not the question. The question is whether the existence of open homosexuals in units on the front lines and on military vessels will diminish unit cohesion; and introduce an element of same sex attraction where there is literally no escape over a prolonged period for heterosexual troops. The problem is that effectiveness will be diminished in some of those units with this distraction.

Mike, it is simply not true that all the top military officials favor gays in the military. The Marine commandant has expressed opposition. And the rest of them know that they work for their commander in chief; and that he favors gays in the military.

[MikeBrown]

I'd didn't say they favor gays in the military. I said that they have ALL expressed a belief that the concerns that you raised are ultimately non-concerns.

[Joe Guarino]

Mike, as I previously stated, the Marine commandant has expressed concerns.

[bubba]

"I said that they have ALL expressed a belief that the concerns that you raised are ultimately non-concerns."

Not true.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=34200

Excerpts:

"'I believe that [a repeal] would increase the risk [to effectiveness] on our soldiers, particularly on our soldiers that are deployed in combat,' General George W. Casey Jr., chief of staff of the Army, told the committee, adding that he believes there would be a 'higher level of risk than is suggested in the survey.'

...General James F. Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, agreed, saying a repeal 'would absolutely have an impact on the combat forces.' Asked by Chambliss if there is the potential for an increased risk of injury or death, Amos responded that in a 'tightly woven fabric of that bonded unit -- heavily engaged, tightly focused -- I think the potential for damage is there.'

...Schwartz, of the Air Force, said he disagreed with the report's assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness 'is low.'

'That assessment, in my view, is too optimistic,' he said, calling the risk a "modest" one.

'It is difficult for me, as a member of the joint chiefs, to recommend placing any additional discretionary demand on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly demanding time,' Schwartz said, adding that he recommends any implementation of a Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal be delayed until 2012."

[MikeBrown]

My use of "ongoig" and "ultimately" are in keeping with Gen. Amos's view that the concerns you expressed he does not share going forward. Amos stressed that if the law is changed he will "get in step and move smartly" to implement the new policy.
And he also told the Senate committee that he would be "comfortable with implementing repeal."

[JC]

Brandon, I think you should recognize the distinction between "conservative values" and "social conservative" as Joe does. There is a difference.

Gay people can certainly be conservative. Depends who is setting the definition.

[Harold]

The courts are going in the direction of striking down dadt. Better the armed forces got the message from the People's House than a judicial ruling.

Wonder about the sexual harrassment thing being applied evenly when it does happens between same sexers?

We'll see if it's been well received in the forces when the re-up numbers come out a year after it's been implemented. Truth be told. Not a whimper.

Soldier's biggest concern in the trenches: Can I depend on my fellow soldiers, have you got that killer instinct? Who you doodle on your personal is none of my business so long as it don't interfere with you killing the bad guys before they try and kill us. Times have changed. It's a new dawn.

[Roger Greene]

At least the living quarters will finally get new decorations.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, thanks for providing those links and quotes. Mike, like good soldiers, these service chiefs are deferring to their commander in chief, or making a statement that they will make the policy work. But there is no guarantee there will not be adverse effects.

Harold, I agree it would have been even worse to have the courts impose this on the military. Yes, there is a potential for sexual harassment being a greater issue. It is a bit different to say whether the policy is well-received than to say objectively whether it has adverse effects. I can't be reassured when you say that "times have changed, it's a new dawn". Sometimes, changes are for the worse.

Overall, I cannot overemphasize the degree of my disappointment in Senator Burr, who ought to know better.

[jaycee]

Less than 3% of the US population is homosexual. Why should the entire military shift 180 degrees to appease the liberals who are only doing this to stroke yet another tiny special interest group for votes?
What's next? A Down's Syndrome infantry battalion?
Serving in the military is no more a right than playing on the varsity ball team or belonging to an Olympic team. The first thing done in basic training is to break each individual down and remake him as a team member. Those unwilling to conform need not apply and will not last. Those who are very different will be ridiculed and ostracized. The "hidden" homosexuals who now speak of their mental anguish have no idea how much rougher it will be when they openly hit on other same sex members on a deployment or on a small base. Expect violence and a breakdown of unit cohesion. Putting women in the combat zone is just barely below the level of a disaster, this will add even more problems to an area in which soldiers need to trust their buddy implicitly.
Harold, I see little change in attitudes towards homosexuals in the last 40 years in the military. It is not a "new dawn" for the average grunt no matter how hard the liberals work to make you believe that.

[sean coon]

"Less than 3% of the US population is homosexual."

haha. riiiiight. between GOP congressmen and catholic priests alone, we're probably pushing 2%.

y'all need to get over yourselves. you might have personal self-doubt in close quarters around homosexuals, but people secure with their sexuality don't -- particularly the "true warriors." you're so far on the wrong end of this it's almost... well, to use you're perspective, gay.

[Joe Guarino]

Jaycee, I tend to agree. We need to have considerable respect for the team demands and inherent "intimacy" associated with military troops at risk of facing combat. But I also think about the issues associated with, for instance, those in the Navy facing extremely tight, crowded living conditions when at sea. Congress has opened up a huge can of worms-- yet another internal problem the military must manage continuously because of social engineering in the political realm.

Burr ought to be ashamed of himself.

[Joe Guarino]

Sean, I expect many of the "true warriors" would be history with respect to military service if they had other options.

[cheripickr]

"Less than 3% of the US population is homosexual."

"haha. riiiiight. between GOP congressmen and catholic priests alone, we're probably pushing 2%."

Is it just me, or is there no mathematical or otherwise logical relationship between what he thinks is a refutal of Joe's statement and the guestimate presumably offered as supporting evidence?

[sean coon]

it's called sarcasm, dr. hayes. in all seriousness though, the homosexuals have been delivering fresh statistics to us libs nightly re: conversion rates. it's pretty wild how red is the new gay.

[sean coon]

joe, let me guess, the reason these "true warriors" have no other options but the military is because of obama.

did i win your big plushy?

[Joe Guarino]

The Obama economy affords them fewer options outside the military.

[Mick]

"In light of this vote, I will find it very difficult to vote for Burr in the future." Joe G
You are going to run out of people to vote for soon, Joe. But I do respect your discipline.

"Of interest also is his religious affiliation. My understanding is that Burr attends a United Methodist Church, but his father was a Presbyterian minister. That might explain a lot" Joe G
I am probably gonna regret this but .... How so?

"This was just a downright stupid vote for Burr, and I am afraid it might cost him a lot of support among conservatives in North Carolina." Joe G
I dont disagree entirely but I'd take the bet! Maybe with some odds.

I am glad to see the diversity of opinions here. Kind of surprising to be honest. Ultimately, the decision was inevitable I do suppose. I would have rather the military have been allowed to proceed as they saw fit. But DADT didnt stand for "No one knows". I hope it works out for the best. I do have faith but this could be tough for a while. Or it could be much ado about nothing (little?). We shall see. I wish them and us well.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, you said;

"I am probably gonna regret this but .... How so?"

As I have explained previously, some denominations tend to be liberal. And these denominations oft tend to be liberal especially on the social issues.

When you are part of such a denomination-- and you are a high profile individual-- it might indicate your own worldview. It might indicate where your sympathies might truly lie. You might also be subject to certain types of social pressures within your church (or synagogue).

Or that affiliation might predispose you to be weak-minded on certain matters, to be an accommodationist.

And yes, there will be exceptions to what I am stating.

[sean coon]

right, joe. because the vast majority of "true warriors" who happen to come from the lower middle class / poor class of the american socioeconomic structure had tons of options under bush or clinton or bush or reagan... only until obama ruined our fiscal surplus and plunged this country into a recession did all these college bound, cushy job having kids have to enter the military.

do you seriously believe all this or do you think that blogging rewrites history?

[Joe Guarino]

Sean, it turns out that men who moved on the private sector from the military often had enormous advantages. Employers tend to like to hire them because they often have fine attributes, and have been trained well in the military with respect to work habits and attitudes. So they were well-positioned to land positions in the private sector. And up until a couple of years ago, we had very low unemployment.

But now, of course, many of those positions are no longer there.

[sean coon]

or...

===

"As I have explained previously, some denominations tend to be *conservative*. And these denominations oft tend to be *conservative* especially on the social issues.

When you are part of such a denomination-- and you are a high profile individual-- it might indicate your own worldview. It might indicate where your sympathies might truly lie. You might also be subject to certain types of social pressures within your church (or synagogue).

Or that affiliation might predispose you to be weak-minded on certain matters, to be an accommodationist.

And yes, there will be exceptions to what I am stating."

===

have you explained that previously, joe?

[Joe Guarino]

Sean, you are right for the most part. The converse also can tend to be true-- except the weak-minded/ accommodationist thing tends not to fit conservative Christians and devout Catholics. And I don't think it should be impermissible to say all that.

I previously raised in the local blogosphere issues associated with the religious left earlier this year. But for years prior to that, it was not unusual to see many ugly, gratuitous shots taken at conservative Christians and the politicians who tend to be pro-family, pro-life.

I wonder if Burr is somehow positioning himself to run for some higher office.

[bubba]

"And he also told the Senate committee that he would be 'comfortable with implementing repeal.'"

The concerns they expressed hardly fall into your previously stated category of "non concerns". To pretend otherwise is to gloss over the problems the repeal of DADT will create going forward.

[bubba]

"y'all need to get over yourselves. you might have personal self-doubt in close quarters around homosexuals, but people secure with their sexuality don't -- particularly the 'true warriors.' you're so far on the wrong end of this it's almost... well, to use you're perspective, gay."

How much combat zone experience do you have, Seanie?

[Irvin R Goins]

We done Senator Burr - a vote for justice is always a good vote.

[Irvin R Goins]

make that Well done Senator Burr - a vote for justice is always a good vote. Our military will be stronger because of it.

[Joe Guarino]

With all due respect, Mr. Goins, it is a bit difficult to see how this will strengthen our military.

[Stormy]

"Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia permit gay people to serve openly."

"It seems there are multiples of armys that it seems not to be a problem for."

George, are you seriously using the armies of those nations as an example of military effectiveness? With a couple of exceptions, those armies couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I mean the French, seriously. And, most of those armies are very small and unable to sustain a long fight.

[bubba]

".....a vote for justice is always a good vote."

In military concerns, "justice" sometimes needs to take a back seat to safety, prudence, and effective operational control. That's why DADT was instituted in the first place.

I have yet to see an explanation from from the DADT repeal supporters why the concerns that gave us DADT are no longer important.

"Our military will be stronger because of it."

Will it be more efficient? Will it be able to carry out the mission better? Will it be more cost effective?

Tell us specifically how the military will benefit from this action.

[Jon Hardister]

Joe, you said: "I wonder if Burr is somehow positioning himself to run for some higher office."

That's an interesting thought, Joe. And you might be right. A lot of politicians have a "shoot for the top" mentality, and Burr may very well be in that category.

2012 is right around the corner and the Republican primary is wide-open. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if Burr enters the race.

[jaycee]

"y'all need to get over yourselves. you might have personal self-doubt in close quarters around homosexuals, but people secure with their sexuality don't -- particularly the "true warriors." you're so far on the wrong end of this it's almost... well, to use you're perspective, gay."

Sean, I'm falling out of my chair laughing at this! Just how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Try this--go over to lightfighter.net or Socnet.com and post this. Then wait and see how long it takes a "true warrior" to respond about the accuracy of your assumption.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, Rush raised a great question today: Is Bill Clinton a bigot because he enacted DADT?

Jon, a couple of other possibilities came to mind for me. Perhaps a vice-presidential nomination, or a future run for governor. North Carolina is now a swing state on the national level, and Burr could be regarded as a potentially valuable running mate. And his votes on ESCR and DADT will make him more of an "acceptable" Republican in the eyes of the liberal media-- you know, the "right" kind of Republican.

[bubba]

"A lot of politicians have a 'shoot for the top' mentality, and Burr may very well be in that category."

The topic of Burr running for President would not be unprecedented.

I attended a Reagan Day dinner a few years ago where Burr was a featured speaker. After he finished his remarks, one comment at our table went along the lines of "I hope we have a chance to vote for him as President one day."