Barbara Walters | Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News | Scott Brown

Scott Brown: I'll Talk to Military Before Forming 'DADT' Opinion


On This Week, Barbara Walters asked newly-elected Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) what his views are on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

Said Brown: "I think it’s important, because as you know we’re fighting two wars right now. And the most — the first priority is to — is to — is to finish the job, and win those wars. I’d like to hear from the generals in the field — in the field — the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars."

When pressed, Brown wouldn't say whether he's for or against it but repeated his plans to talk to the military.


(Via Think Progress)

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Oh grow a pair.

    Posted by: sparks | Jan 31, 2010 5:02:35 PM

  2. As a MA resident, I have ZERO faith in Sen. Brown to VOTE OUTSIDE of party lines for ANYTHING!! He'll be receiving MUCH correspondence from me over the next two years. Gotcha on speed dial Senator!!

    Posted by: Ben | Jan 31, 2010 5:08:53 PM

  3. not as interesting when it speaks

    Posted by: stevo | Jan 31, 2010 5:34:40 PM

  4. Perhaps, years from now, we'll look back on the election of Scott Brown as the turning point in gay history, when gay men finally learned to value substance over style, brains over looks.....

    Posted by: Jeff | Jan 31, 2010 5:43:49 PM

  5. Barbara! Barbara! Barbara!

    You just let him contradict himself and worse. He said we had to win the two wars BEFORE ending DADT. PERIOD!

    Then he suddenly remembered the propaganda of the military wing of the Antigay Industry that he was supposed to be parroting and reinforced the bullshit that, well, we want to be fair and open to discussion but only military leaders in the field know anything about it, AND they should be able to trump the Commander-in-Chief. Danny want a cracker?

    Walters, like David Gregory in his interview with Trog. Boehner this morning, like Anderson Cooper in his interview last summer with the President, like countless others in the mainstream media over the last several months, just bent over and took it, failing to have done their jobs as journalists to RESEARCH opposing viewpoints and challenge such tape loops with them.

    For instance, she could have said, "Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs/NATO Commander/Iraqi vet General Shalikashvili says we can repeal now without a problem. Why is he wrong and you who have never served in a war zone, and only briefly on active duty, right?"

    Barbara, this isn't "what's your favorite color?" or "favorite movie?" or "when's the last time you cried?" but directly affects the lives of tens of thousands of gay servicemembers and their families AS WELL AS EVERY AMERICAN because, in the President's own words [that he SHOULD have repeated last Wed. night] DADT "WEAKENS NATIONAL SECURITY."

    As this and that outrageously willfully misinformed AP article yesterday merely repeating such bullshit excuses AND others demonstrate, after some courageous exceptions during Obama's first weeks in office, MSM is back to helping carry the ball for the homohating dinosaurs in the Pentagon's Jurassic Park.

    WHERE IS GLAAD and why aren't they fulfilling their mission to see that discussions of gay issues in the media are balanced?

    Posted by: Michael @ | Jan 31, 2010 6:08:27 PM

  6. As a Massachusetts resident for 55 years, the Kennedys were a lovely bunch of drunks, drug addicts, rapists and murderers. I think Brown will bring more respect to our state.

    Posted by: Name: | Jan 31, 2010 6:31:33 PM

  7. So what do all you silly fags who voted for him say now? What if he's the deciding vote in this and other gay rights issues? Dizzy queens.

    Posted by: Kevinvt | Jan 31, 2010 6:35:42 PM

  8. Jeff : Some would say gay men had to learn that lesson already with the election of Obama.

    Posted by: JT | Jan 31, 2010 6:48:18 PM

  9. Brown saying, basically, he'll leave that whole decision to the military isn't the worst, but it still reminds me of how Obama and Mccain try to get away from the whole issue, like with same-sex marriage "Just leave it to the states to decide.."

    Posted by: JT | Jan 31, 2010 6:53:51 PM

  10. @Kevinvt
    I agree with you. Punish the dems by voting for the opposition and we no get representation what-so-ever. I have no idea, sometimes, what people think. At least with the woman, we would have had an ally. Listening to this guy, he is a follower, and he will do what the party says. Hopefully voters will wake up when his short term expires. He is loving his 15 minutes.

    Posted by: CB | Jan 31, 2010 7:13:16 PM

  11. Who cares what this ass thinks? He won't vote for it either way.

    Posted by: Alexander | Jan 31, 2010 7:13:36 PM

  12. Who cares what Roy Cohn's old beard thinks?

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 31, 2010 7:34:25 PM

  13. It's interesting that the US thinks it can rebuild a diverse, faction-torn nation faster than it can revise the implementation of rules for a single hierarchical command-and-control organisation.

    Posted by: Mike | Jan 31, 2010 7:58:30 PM

  14. For Christ sakes he is not even sworn in and they are making him the Friggin President already- as it is he is a half assed senator here in MA -

    Posted by: alexInBoston | Jan 31, 2010 9:00:30 PM

  15. To qoute Joni Mitchell..'sex sells everything...and sex kills'
    and you all check political beliefs when you are at a bathhouse? Just curious........

    Posted by: dzhi | Jan 31, 2010 9:56:51 PM

  16. Scott Brown is lying.

    Prior to the election, he completed a questionnaire for the Massachusetts Family Institute and said that he supports DADT.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Jan 31, 2010 10:02:58 PM

  17. Well Chi-Town Kev,

    At this point it doesn't matter what he said in Mass. He is a Federal congresman now and will stand in line with the Republicans.

    He will not support repealing D.A.D.T!

    Posted by: Chris | Feb 1, 2010 12:16:45 AM

  18. CB : Your points are legitimate, but it still comes down to balancing how much the gay issues matter to you as opposed to every other issue (taxes, healthcare, etc etc etc). Many are giving Obama a break on his "broken promises to gays", stating he has other issues to deal with. Many gay men in Massachusetts preferred Brown on other issues (even though the lady was more gay-friendly). It's all legit, whatever one chooses, and nobody should be criticized on either side. And unless one is a Democrat-zealot or a Republican-zealot, they should agree that gay men can go with whatever party or individual they choose.

    Posted by: JT | Feb 1, 2010 1:27:04 AM

  19. What a cop out. This guy is against repealing DADT and is simply waiting for cover for his opinion. He'll go find a hand-picked selection of bigot generals, and justify his answer that way.

    Posted by: Randy | Feb 1, 2010 4:09:32 AM

  20. @Chris

    Uh, SUPPORTING DADT means that Brown is FOR the policy that now stands.

    In other words, he already said that in Massachusetts, Chris. What part of that is seemingly incomprehensible?

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 1, 2010 6:34:59 AM

  21. The selection by Massachusetts, once the most enlightened state in the Union when it alone as a state did not choose to reelect Richard Nixon as President in 1972 (then witnessed as much of the rest of the country pretended that they really didn't choose him either, after Nixon's resignation) of this moronic would-be Senator, now it makes it as jackass laughable as the worst of Southern racist states in the 1950s and 1960s.

    The one absolutely certain fact about the career of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, whatever his personal failings, was that he did more than any other American senator in US history to improve the social fabric of the nation. To all but the most rabid of Right-wingers, Ted Kennedy will be forever regarded as a great Senator.

    And Ted Kennedy's signature issue was Univeral Health Care. Granted that the current Health Care Bill leaves much to be desired; still, it was likely the only chance for Universal Health Care in the United States for the forseeable future.

    For Massachusetts to be this disloyal to the cause of his signature issue, knowing that replacing Senator Kennedy with a lockstep Republican would rob the Democrats of their hard-fought super majority, and likely forever doom any meaningful social progress for another generation, is not only tragic--for many of us elsewhere in the nation, it is unforgivable.

    It means that forty million--and climbing--Americans will never be insured for health coverage. It means the certainty of endless filibusters to block social progress. And it likely dooms the United States itself, which after the Depression-like collapse in 2008, desperately needed FDR measures to counterbalance GOP Reagan-inspired supply side inhuman policies, to its own extinction.

    The GOP may know how to obstruct and pull the strings of an easily manipulated electorate, but in coming to power, they have no solutions for our underlying problems which grow more lethal by the year.

    As a nation, the United States is now very much where the Soviet Union was twenty years ago. In denial of its economic and social collapse, its electorate to the very end kept bringing back to power those unwilling to deal with its cardinal problems.

    Ultimately, the USSR collapsed for such inaction.

    The GOP is with us on this iceberg-struck Titanic Ship of State. But they pretend that if they do nothing, and associate with the richest and in-denial passengers, that they'll somehow survive the journey. Of course that's at best wishful-thinking, even if their own money can keep them afloat for a time.

    But the Ship of State known as the United States, with its pressing issues unaddressed, is doomed to go down.

    The irony is that Massachusetts, one of our nation's founding colonies and long considered one of the most enlightened, in selecting Scott Brown to be the guaranteed obstructionist in a time of great crisis, has now also likely guaranteed the extinction of the United States itself.

    History will not be kind to Massachusetts voters. No rational thinker could excuse the selection of Scott Brown, certainly not when the nation itself is drowning into nothingness.

    Posted by: lambros | Feb 1, 2010 7:40:50 AM

  22. Personally, I think those Democrats that are highly partisan really need to shut the fuck up.

    In a state that, prior to Deval Patrick's election, had elected 4(?) Republican governors, didn't they have a clue that this could possibly happen?

    Couldn't they have found a better candidate to run. And even the candidate that they did run had all the institutional advantages inhrerent in it being the seat formely occupied by Ted Kennedy. They took the seat for granted.

    This is a midterm election year and usually the party that is in power loses seats in the Congress. In fact, they almost always do.

    And in spite of all of that, the Dems still have a nearly 80 seat majority in the House and an 19 seat advantage in the Senate (well, 18.5 if you only count Joe Lieberman for half). The Republicans were quite effective with smaller majorities.

    Scapegoat the gays, scapegoat the progressives, scapegoat the whole damn state of Massachusetts all you want, the fact is the democratic Party did not turn out it's base voters.

    Field a better candidate, run a better campaign, and put your nose to the grindstone and work to get Scott Brown out of there in 2012, if that's what you want.

    Scapegoating (unjustifiably I might) your base is not going to get anything done.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 1, 2010 10:30:25 AM

  23. In my 43 years on this planet, I've never felt particularly different from those around me, even though I'm gay. But, every time I hear a politician talking about how much work and effort it would take to put gays in the military, I feel like I'm from outer space. The firm I work at didn't need special counseling to prepare everyone for hiring a gay person. Police forces across the country openly recruit gay officers.
    Who are these people in the military that would need such special handling if forced to work next to a gay person? Everybody else in the country works next to a gay person. What's wrong with these soldiers, and are they really the people that should be defending our country?

    Posted by: stolidog | Feb 1, 2010 4:25:06 PM

  24. Scott Brown, the Playgirl centerfold, whose campaign was marketed largely with stud photo's of him and his pickup truck, and nobody has asked him if he is gay?

    Barbara Walters is famous for trying to out people in her interviews, she should have asked him if his position on DADT is influenced by the need to appear less gay? Can he have a honest opinion on the subject in today's climate?

    Posted by: JustAJoe | May 16, 2010 11:55:24 PM

Post a comment


« «Boehner: Now is Not the Time to Debate 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'« «