I think the filibuster of the Defense Authorization Bill based on the repeal of DADT was a disgraceful, short-sighted, partisan and excessively stupid move on the part of the Republicans. The Democrats should be up in arms, should use this to their advantage in any way possible going into November. Polls show that a significant majority of Americans support repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Even the Tea Parties have avoided the issue. Democrats have the support of the nation on this one – more than they had for healthcare reform or financial reform. More than they had for stimulus or or virtually any other legislation. This is a bloody defense funding bill. Can’t they push this through via reconciliation?
At least Joe Lieberman didn’t pull the same bullshit John McCain pulled:
“It ought to go,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut. “It’s un-American. It’s inconsistent with our best values of equal opportunity, who can get the job done, not what your private life is about.”
Mr. Lieberman and others said they would continue the fight.
It’s a shame the Northeast Republicans didn’t switch sides here. They would have been on the right side of history.
party discipline is an amazing thing
Wrong question. The real question is why the Dems aren’t running ads 24/7 about why the GOP hates the troops and won’t allow an uperdown vote on the military budget.
I don’t know how many of you watch Rachel Maddow, but she featured this clip of Al Franken during or just after this ridiculous business, and it’s just fantastic.
You’re so sweet. I love to see that there are still conservatives like you (pats him/her on head).
(Note: I’m serious. You’re absolutely right.)
August J. Pollak
Hi. Welcome back from your cryogenic stasis. Let’s fill you in on the last two years.
I’m pretty sure Joe was one of the bill’s sponsors.
Is it really over? I seem to remember Reid holding 350 votes on FinReg before he finally got to 60. Are they going to do the same here?
Whatever help we can get, assuming he is actually going to “continue the fight”.
At least he’s not out there talking nasty about the 86% of Democrats who want a public option for purposes of triangulation.
I’m really confused because I thought it was the Log Cabin Republicans and GoProud that showed there were Gay Conservatives and that was the real reason behind the possible legalization of gay marriage in California and other states and the repeal of DADT.
But I guess either none of the above groups are in the military or care more about taxes, hate Obama and are such Islamophobes that they’re willing to vote for GOP politicians who don’t respect them.
Defunding the military is the best way to get rid of the deficit.
I think the filibuster of the Defense Authorization Bill based on the repeal of DADT was a disgraceful, short-sighted, partisan and excessively stupid move on the part of the Republicans. The Democrats should be up in arms, should use this to their advantage in any way possible going into November.
You, obviously aren’t a Democrat. Our elected leaders read polls in the opposite fashion. Do against what the people want.
i hereby nominate MikeJ for President
The Republicans’ opposition to equality and fairness today is yet another reason for us progressives to get fired up about the November elections. Here are five candidates who would help put DADT repeal over the top. Let’s fight to get them elected.
DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.
You’ve become very shrill since you came out as a liberal.
They can’t. They need to keep in the good graces of the Party leadership or else they will lose their chairmanships and forgo any party support when the Teapartiers primary them in the next election.
Sad but true. The Republican party has no more independent voices.
I agree with you, but I’d also like to adapt this quote from your post to second what one of the posters at LGM said: it’s also a shame that Lincoln didn’t stand by her side here – she is history anyway, and she might as well be on the right side of it.
Speaking of Senators who are history, what is Voinovich’s record on LGBT issues? He’s not running for reelection, and he’s not supposed to be a mouth breathing moron like the people taking over his party – what’s his excuse for not doing the right thing?
Wait, there are northeast Republicans?
Voinovich never does the right thing. Never has and never will. He’s a tool, just like the rest of them.
Let them filibuster, right up to the election. Best…H
Remember on the West Wing when Bruno told Josh, “You don’t want the money. You want the issue. You should have waited until the fall when the bell rings and then we hammer them with it. Then Kalmbach, Leader, Ross, Roark, Stevens — whoever gets the nomination — has it hanging around their necks that they’re nicotine pushers. Plus you get the money.”
This should be one of those moments–the republicans fell for our trap, now *we’ve* got the issue that the majority agree with, and we should hammer the republicans with it.
But most likely we will just drop the issue, issue a few halfhearted “we’ll get ’em next time” statements, and lose seats in November making the repeal even less possible.
northeast, southwest, on the moon. it doesn’t matter where they’re from. every republican in congress votes like the stupidest asshole in alabama every single time. they know who their masters are, no matter how hard they struggle on the leash.
Wait a sec – Dougie pointing out O’Donnell’s pragmatism because we can’t outlaw certain things for the general public for practical matters.
But if we can ban teh gay in the military, can’t we ban wanking?
very well put.
You know who else voted in lock-step?
yep. analogy != fail.
Ah! You know George? How delightful.
[I agree. Good mayor of Cleveland. Downhill from there.]
I fully agree, and that this vote by the wingnuts is much worse than staging theatrics votes on taxes that won’t go up till after the election. It was a craven vote by the wingers, and it wouldn’t take much for the dems to spin it into seditious as well. Not to mention bigoted and hateful, and against what the top officer Admiral Mullen has put on the official record about repealing DADT.
I don’t know what they were thinking, maybe not upsetting the the tea tard base and other repubs would reward them somehow for filibustering the gall dern defense bill to hate on gays. Maybe they are just so stuck on NO, their mouths quit working proper.
And this after decades of demagoguing even the hint that dems might question the ever escalating defense budget, let alone filibustering it. If the voters put these amoral jackals back in charge, the country deserves what they get. That is hard and cold, but how I feel. Dems can do stuff to get their message out, but at this point in time, and with very recent history of GOP governance, I put the lions share of blame on the American apathetic, simple minded voting public for ever voting for one of these cretinous bastards.
Hell yes, I know his game. Pretend to be sane to get one page 1A, the quietly cave weeks or months later, which barely makes a sentence on B-25, if that.
Moderate my ass. Worthless. A total tool.
Unfortunately, from what I’ve heard and seen, the narrative that’s come out of this is ‘Dems fail on DADT ‘cuz of partisan political ploys’. Yep. Dems fault that DADT fails, because they didn’t compromise and let Republicans at the table. Or some myopic bullshit like that.
In other words, the fix is already in, and guess who gets blamed yet again.
This is why I find myself wanting to throttle folks like Pryor and Lincoln, because no matter how many times they go the ‘princpled moderate’ route, they will always own these failures by the sheer dint of having the ‘D’ by their name. It’s just so goddamn retarded and counterproductive, and yet the always fucking do it.
The lying smearing Republicans are, as usual, being bigoted and obstructionist. That’s who they are.
You may recall this exchange:
Us: We want a public option.
Dems: We don’t have 60 votes.
Dems: We’re using reconciliation.
Us: Then you don’t need 60 votes to give us a public option.
Dems: A public option isn’t feasible at this time.
Replace “public option” with “equal rights for the people who helped elect you”.
So which is it? Are the Dems conning the GLBTs as cynically as the GOP exploits the religious right? Or are they truly *that* fucking incompetent?
But remember, it’s the Dems’ fault for not really caring about gays and playing political games, and not compromising with the poor Republicans.
this really should be demagogued from now to november. our poor troops, left to die because republicans cling to their hatred of gays above all else. america has made it clear it wants to be demagogued this electoral season. it will accept nothing less.
You have to watch Maddow & she’s so specific about why no cloture; everyone would understand. It’s on now.
Basically Rethugs lied!
That saying “NO” to everything the Democrats try to do hasn’t bitten them in the ass once, so why mess with a perfect record?
@Moses2317: this is what I like to see. Let’s fight this damn thing and elect actual progressives.
Also, too: Republicans have been on the wrong side of history for decades now. This is no different.
@TooManyJens: You have a point.
Off topic, I’m hearing there might be a poll out tomorrow that has Paladino leading or tied with Cuomo for NY-Gov and Mayor Mike Bloomberg will endorse Cuomo because of it.
It’s been like this since day 1 of Obama’s term. The GOP stays in lockstep and instead of framing it like this, Democrats fall over themselves to blame each other, or worse.
Yeah, that’s definitely the right question. Unfortunately.
Please tell me you’re joking. If not, link please, because I would be surprised and appalled to see that true.
@Nick: Um, let me guess: a Rasputin poll?
Sadly the Dems, as a pack, are too weak-kneed to actually come to the defense of gays. Quite a few Dems, like Franken, will stand up. But if the 55th Dem is a lilly-livered bed-wetter, then they won’t, as a team, stand up and fight this and club the Republicans over the head with it. Feh.
While I was on twitter,
Woodwards “Obama’s War” book/NYT has a copy & leaks
Jesse Jackson Jr has a girlfriend in DC or something & offered Blago millions for Obama’s seat//so they say on twitter
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Nick: Yeah, I’ll have some of what your smoking. Or better yet, I’ll have anything but what you’re smoking. It’ll cause drain bamage.
@Nick: What, Rasmussen didn’t cook the numbers enough in the last one? They have to be burned beyond recognition in this one?
@Kryptik: I got an e-mail saying Bloomberg will endorse Cuomo because of “a bad poll coming out for Cuomo” and Taegan Goddard said “an eyepopping poll coming out at 6:30 am” but didn’t say what. I asked my source if that was it, he said he didn’t know Goddard but said the poll would be “eyepopping”
@mr. whipple: Quinnipiac.
@Nick: A Rasmussen that leaves out the Conservative ballot line?
@Nick: Let me guess, a Rassmussen poll.
ETA: I see you posted an answer while I was posting. I still don’t buy it.
Right, and then when they come out strong like that; they say NO, not like that!! That sounds like Bush! That’s what happened w/Steele who said it was O’s war & he started it in Afghan. Woodards book/early copy is out & that is all that media will cover tomorrow! Not a good thing, per NYT article.
Where did you hear that?
The very latest Rasmussen poll has Cuomo up 54-38.
I don’t either. I’d be shocked. Nobody fucking likes Paladino even if some people flirt with the idea of voting for him. This is not Pataki/Cuomo in 1994.
But off a decisive primary win, and a potential enthusiasm gap/confidence gap, I can see it happening.
Cuomo has been campaigning like crazy. He’s not taking any chances.
Source in Bloomy’s office. Another source on Cuomo’s campaign said would only tell me “we’re not taking any chances”
From Box Turtle Bulletin:
Following today’s vote, Nicholson said called it “a failure of leadership.” Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis was more circumspect, saying:
Today’s Senate vote was a frustrating blow to repeal this horrible law. We lost because of the political maneuvering dictated by the mid-term elections.
So if Reid had the votes to break the filibuster but squandered them in this procedural maneuver, why did he do this? The answer is simple. This was never a serious attempt to pass legislation in the best interests of the American people. It was nothing but political theater, and everyone on both sides were eager actors in the drama. All the Senators had a role to play, and everyone played to the audience. Even the White House was given a bit part. They issued a statement calling for an end to the filibuster, but according to SLDN’s Trevor Thomas, there was no lobbying behind the scenes.
And now that the vote has been taken, the play moves on to its second act: everyone now gets to go home and use it on the campaign trail. Republicans, even those who support DADT’s repeal, will be able to brag that they stood up to the evil Democratic machine. Democrats will be able to blame the evil Republican machine for blocking legislation that three-fourths of the American population agree on.
What happens in the third act — when the legislation re-appears in a lame-duck session after the elections — is anybody’s guess right now. It’s shaping up to be quite a cliff-hanger, so don’t touch that dial!
And what role do we in the gay community play? It’s the same role we always play. We’re the interesting and colorful plotline. It’s not much of a speaking part, but the dance moves are fabulous. And why should it be otherwise? It’s a role we’ve played so well over the years that it’s just expected of us. And we are happy to oblige. This time, we even have Lady Gaga making a guest appearance.
But I’m only a hippie firebagger who hates teh Obama I knocked on doors and made calls for, or something like that. Never mind.
Um, the Dems didn’t “use reconciliation,” aka put it through as part of the budget with all of the reforms (like banning pre-existing conditions) stripped out.
What they did was bypass the normal process of reconciling bills between the Senate and the House (which, confusingly, is also called reconciliation) and have the House pass the Senate bill verbatim instead of putting it through a committee process and having each bill re-voted on by each house of Congress.
The reconciliation you’re thinking of (ie the way that Bush passed his tax cuts) is a completely different thing than reconciliation that we were talking about during HCR. And, yes, using the kind of reconciliation that meant that the House voted on the Senate bill verbatim did mean that things couldn’t be changed.
Davis X. Machina
Doesnt Rick Lazio still have the Conservative line?
I’m sorry, but if you and the Box Turtle Bulletin guy actually think after watching the Republicans in action for the past two years that the Republicans would have had an honest up-and-down vote on DADT, I want some of what you’re smoking.
The Republicans were never going to let the bill pass. Ever. It would send the teabaggers into a frenzy and the few Republicans who haven’t been defeated in primaries by teabaggers would have Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates coming out of the woodwork to challenge them in the general election.
Sorry, but it’s a pipe dream that on this issue — hell, on any issue — the Republicans were suddenly going to wake up and act like adults.
No, you’re a Republican who happens to be pro-gay.
you know I can forgive, despite disagreeing, the idea that Obama didn’t do enough, but blaming Harry fucking Reid is just insane. He did exactly what firebaggers wanted him to do, and even they’re not blaming him. This is crazy, first you tell us Obama didn’t do enough to pressure Senators and now you’re trying to tell us Reid never had any intention of passing it anyway, which completely negates your “Obama didn’t do enough” crap. How can Obama pressure the Senate to do something it never intended on doing? I mean make up your mind.
So how much did you give that group that helped get “faggots must die” dude’s boss elected?
After loosing his cool with the Pentagon.
I do dig my technocratic, law prof president.
They had a couple of votes that were pissed away because of election cycle showmanship. Reid seems to think he can get a do-over after the election. I want some of what he is smoking…
BOTH of my Senators voted with the Republicans today.
Yeah, they are Dems from Arkansas.
I have spent the last few months defending Blanche and reminding people why she is still better then a Republican, but I feel like giving up.
I see my stalker is back. Interesting.
Off to bed. Good night.
Well she doesn’t bitch about jobs bills, so that’s something, but she’s not THAT much better than Republicans.
But really, are Arkansas Democratic voters better than Republicans?
This post is missing the “59-41 Senate Minority” tag.
@Cacti: It has Cuomo up 54-38 and didn’t include Lazio. Nate Silver has the goods. Scotty Rasmussen is trying to generate headline-bait by showing Paladino with momentum by comparing to previous polls which had Cuomo at 58-29.
Kind of blatant “narrative-setting” even for Rasmussen.
When you can’t answer a serious question, accuse the person of asking it of “being a stalker”
Suuuurrree they did. Funny how there’s always one or two Republicans who swear they totally would have voted for the bill, but Harry Reid looked at them funny and they just couldn’t.
And Lucy swears she’s not going to pull the ball away this time. No, really! She even has a signed document to prove it!
No need to insult Eric with the “conservative” label, even in jest. He abandoned it 3 weeks ago, remember?
@JayBear: Don’t worry, she’ll be back to change her story in a few hours.
@Jules: They both voted in favor of repealing DADT and Reid let them switch their votes at the last minute. When it came down to it, they did what was right – keep supporting them. They wouldn’t have made the cosmetic switch if they had broader support in their state.
But if Obama had looked at them funny, they totally would.
First it was “Obama didn’t fight for it and push Senators to vote for it” and then it was “Reid pushed too hard for it and didn’t compromise”
I mean does ANYONE take this person seriously?
“BOTH of my Senators voted with the Republicans today.
Yeah, they are Dems from Arkansas.”
If enough people got fed up enough with their b.s. fauxgressive representatives, perhaps they could unseat some incumbents. i find one thing that I admire about about the tea party: they don’t settle for mainstream republicans they don’t like, they fight instead and they get damn organized. They don’t sit back and snark, they are about action. I wish I could say the same for the left.
(not saying you were doing any of those things Jules, just using your example as a jumping off point).
@Joe Beese: A permanent public option would not be able to be put through by reconciliation. Period. Everything that goes through it has to have an expiration date. Why do you think there’s this great fight over the “Bush tax cuts”?
@Redshift: of course he is…media creates narratives.
On that topic, btw, this;
The narrative set was “Desperate and Angry Tornado victims SCREAM at inaffective CITY!”
A survivor of last week’s tornado myself. I was at that town hall, and that wasn’t the case at all…the whole meeting was about what worked and what didn’t. The lady NBC quoted was talking about how the city came by a cleared the roads on Friday, but never came back to pick up the debris they moved. They came tonight. There was no anger, desperation and screaming, but the media presented it that way anyway.
@Mnemosyne: The reconcilliation process was essential to PPACA’s passage. PPACA was passed through the normal legislative process in the Senate, yes. However, the House passed the bill concurrent with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which was a series of changes to PPACA.
The Senate eventually passed this bill under the reconciliation procedure. In fact, it had to kick the bill back to the House after it did, because the Senate had to strip out two provisions that violated the reconciliation procedures from the original House bill.
The fact that the House could count on the Senate to pass this supplementary reconciliation bill was part of why the health care bill got through in the first place. Without those fixes, the House may not have the votes to pass PPACA unamended. If those representatives can’t reasonably believe their changes in the form of the reconciliation bill are going to happen, then it would be a giant mistake to pass PPACA unamended and watch the Senate screw you over. Meanwhile, the Senate can’t break another filibuster, so they’re limited in what they can do. However, by having the reconciliation process available, they could reasonably assure the House of their ability to pass the reconciliation bill.
PPACA wasn’t itself passed by the reconciliation process, but it probably wouldn’t have passed without the reconciliation process.
I just want to point out that reconciliation, as used to avoid a filibuster, can only be used for budget matters if, and only if, the adopted budget resolution allows for reconciliation on an issue area. Since neither body adopted a budget resolution, they cannot use it for DADT. Even were they to try to use it for DADT, it would fail Senate rules that require reconciliation to be only used for those areas that directly impact the budget. Lastly, laws passed through reconciliation don’t automatically have expiration dates-laws that are passed through reconciliation that add to the deficit/debt must expire, everything else is fine. Hopefully that’s cleared up and we can resume wondering why we’re not using an issue like this (or tax cuts) and forcing them on to the Senate floor.
that was a really interesting post, actually. i give you a lot of credit for doing that, E.D. it was well said.
But ED, President Collins did switch sides. She was for repeal before she was against it.
I swear to Allah, when Snowe is primaried out by some teatard in 2012 and Collins follows her out the door in 2014, I’m going to need a full week’s vacation both times so that I can laugh my fucking ass off at the two of them. Fuck them both.
The northeast Republicans such as Snowe, Collins and Brown are utter fools if they think voting against DADT will stave off primary challenges from the right. They are going down if their strategy is to impress the tea partiers; the tea partiers are absolutely convinced that they are apostates. It didn’t even take more than a vote or two in Brown’s case. Utter fools.
I believe this cloture vote was only for a motion to proceed to debate the defense bill, and not leading to a final vote because the defense appropriations bill takes a while to work through numerous amendments and the like that likely wouldn’t have been completed before the election anyway.
Which makes it all the mindless for wingers to not allow it even to come to the floor. It was, or appears as a vote solely for the sake of bigotry and to satisfy gooper bigots for the election. But once a bill makes it to the floor, the likelyhood of it passing goes up, and especially for the defense bill, and it would take 60 votes for the DADT repeal to be stripped out.
That could be why they shot down this cloture, or maybe for some liberals to get discouraged like some have about voting for dems. On the other hand, everything is crazy with our politics right now, so who the fuck knows what motives lurk in the lizard brain wingnut.
you may be right, but the entire defense authorization bill obviously has a budget impact. could the whole bill, complete with dadt repeal, be passed through reconciliation?
the expiration might be a glitch, but I’m not sure. the authorization bill is good, i think, only two years, so it obviously expires, but what about all the little pieces. i wonder.
assuming there are still tea parties by then. but if so, i suspect there’ll be two ladies earnestly consulting with Lisa Murkowski on the uses and abuses of write-in campaigns.
Reconciliation was used to pass the amendments to the bill that made the House and Senate versions conform to each other at the very end of the process, but that’s not what people mean when they say, “They should have used reconciliation!” What they mean when they say that is, “Obama should have pushed through a public option using reconciliation the way Bush pushed through his tax cuts!”
Never mind that putting the bill through that way would have stripped most of the major reforms — like banning pre-existing conditions or allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until 26 — from the bill. People just wanted Obama to be the mirror image of Bush and use the same bullying techniques from the left instead.
As I understand it, DADT would have to be stripped from the bill for the bill to be passed through reconciliation since it has nothing to do with financing the bill.
ooops, now I see what you’re saying NHDem. Never mind.
@celticdragonchick, shouldn’t this question be preceded by at least a scrap of evidence that Reid did have the votes? As things stand, all signs point to his *not* having the votes, so the rest of the conspiracy theory has nothing to hang on.
yeah, i think i was reading that all backwards.
@Warren Terra: Lincoln did initially vote “yes.” Reid released her to change her vote once it was clear we did not have 60.
No, during the process, amendments that do not have anything to do with the budget get stripped by the parliamentarian. That’s why we couldn’t put recession in the HCR reconciliation bill. DADT has nothing to do with the budget.
The old wrinkled republican lips blowing corporate d*ck every waking moment is going to stand for anyone but their rich white johns they service 24/7? Puhlease. White conservative man desperate in greed going down on the zippered crotch of rich white conservative rich white man, while scrambling to get their dead asses into heaven while playing whore is totally republican these days. lol
Slut has whole new meaning these days. lol
@danimal, I really don’t understand how Snowe imagines she’ll survive her 2012 Republican primary. She should become a Democrat now, rather than doing it in a last-minute panic like Specter, and maybe Maine Democrats will have enough time to get used to the idea by 2012.
@fasteddie9318: The only way either one of those two is keeping her seat is by switching parties. But, like the blue dogs who think they can win in a Repub. district by being Repub. lite, when they are running against actual Repubs., they just don’t get it.
Hopefully they’ll do the same thing PA Dems did and say “No thanks, asshole; we don’t want you either.”
But Republicans have been such honest actors for the past two years! How could you possibly doubt their sincerity now?
(Yes, that was sarcasm.)
@Mnemosyne: The House and Senate version of PPACA didn’t differ from each other. The Senate passed it, and the House passed it afterwards. It was the same bill. There was no need to pass amendments to make them agree.
Instead, the House used the reconciliation bill to make their own amendments to the just passed PPACA, and the Senate confirmed them as a separate legislative act, amending an existing piece of legislation.
That second act amending PPACA was passed by the same process that Bush used for the tax cuts.
With PPACA in place, there’s a pretty solid case for how you can consider a public option as a budgetary item now, especially given the insurance subsidies established by PPACA. The reconciliation bill was even a revenue generator, partially thanks to the student loan reforms that cut out the middle man in student lending.
The reason a public option wasn’t in that particular act was because crafting a compromise bill in this regard was being used to win votes for PPACA, and including a public option at the same time could have scared off House members whose votes were necessary for PPACA to be passed, which was the cornerstone of how this whole strategy works.
It’s perfectly legitimate to think that the 2010 Reconciliation Act should have contained a public option. It’s quite likely that it could still be done in a future session, it just seems unlikely that the Democrats can.
anyone from Maine here? is it really this republican enclave, or is there something about these two senators that keeps them beating back every Democratic challenger? in other words, why are they there? just lucky survivors?
@KCinDC: @fasteddie9318: Snowe would be better running under the “Mainers for Snowe” Party than trying to pretend to be a Dem. She has enough time, but 2012 will be too late for her.
There may not be a ‘tea party’ in 2012 or 2014, but there almost certainly will be idiotic conservatives trying to punish apostates from true conservatism, whatever that means.
I may be misremembering, but I don’t think that is true. There were some differences relating to the mandate and it’s implementation where the House version was different, and one or two other diffs. That was why they were in the process of an informal reconciliation process (called ping ponging) (not budget reconciliation, but between versions of a bill kind) being held at the WH, when the Brown election screwed everything up and senate dems were unwilling to make any amendments before Brown was seated, and after he was seated the wingnuts had the filibuster. And House members were unwilling to pass the first senate version opposed by the unions, so the senate had to do reconciliation for those changes to be made to match the House bill. The rest of your analysis is correct in my opinion concerning doing the PO also by reconc. which there just wasn’t support for in the senate.
@General Stuck: You are. The House passed their version of Health Care reform first. The Senate then passed their own version. The plan was to go into the conference committee and return a conference report that both houses could pass, one single bill passed by both houses.
However, the election of Scott Brown put an end to the 60 vote majority. The conference report had to beat a Republican filibuster to pass, and with 59 Democrats left, the Senate probably couldn’t pull that off again.
So, instead of doing that, the House passed the same bill the Senate had already passed. The exact same text, to the letter. They weren’t happy with it, though, and that’s what the reconciliation sidecar was for. The sidecar bill amended PPACA in ways the House favored. That bill would allow them to turn the health care bill into two separate legislative actions, the second of which could be accomplished using reconciliation, thus avoiding the filibuster.
If the Senate had pulled a Lucy there and screwed over the Senate by not passing the reconciliation bill, the Senate version of PPACA, without alteration, would have become law.
@Davis X. Machina: Yes, I’m hoping maybe the poll has Cuomo up like 60-10 or some crazy shit like that, but I doubt it.
Maybe the Dem leadership was slightly undercut by the fact that Obama’s choice for Marine Corps Commandant, General James Amos, has publicly stated that he opposes the repeal of DADT.
@Nick: That’s how I see it, too. It’s the Sully syndrome. Oh, the Republicans would change their mind if only this that or the other thing. It’s also the mentality of being in the majority except for being gay/transgendered. It’s a weird sense of entitlement coupled with a sense of martyrdom.
What. the. fuck. ever. This is completely the Republicans fucking fault. They have not once negotiated in good faith during Obama’s tenure–why the fuck do we think they would now? Fuck them with a seriously rusty pitchfork, and fuck the two Dems who voted against it, too.
It’s not that difficult. Anything the Dems want, the Republicans will reflexively shit upon. Oh, and Olympia Snowe? Fuck you, bitch. I am watching Maddow now, and she’s just full of shit.
This infuriates me and saddens me and just dispirits me.
ETA (I am watching Maddow. Have I said that already?): FUCK. YOU. MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICANS. YOU ALL FUCKING SUCK.
@thefncrow: That is exactly how I described it, so I am not misremembering. When you said both bills were the same, I took it to mean the initial bills coming out of both chambers that were different, not the House, after Brown, on a leap of faith passing the different senate bill then making them identical and taking the senates word they would then do the reconciliation fix and then the House taking another vote to match everything up between the chambers.
The Republic of Stupidity
Which of course means they will slink off w/ their tails between their legs and ball up in a dark corner somewhere whimpering softly into the night…
I guess you didn’t bother reading the rest of the article, where your super cool “technocratic, law prof president” threw out the advice of his civilian advisers and his own better judgment to stay the course on his preordained war plans for political reasons. I’m sure the people killed in that theater can appreciate how finely tuned this whole operation has been for 2012, though.
The Republic of Stupidity
How about blind-sided by a bus?
Maybe this General Amos is a fantastic choice for the job from a strictly military viewpoint, but God DAMN I wish Obama and the Dems could figure out what the FARK they’re trying to do, other than find some new, brilliant way to humiliate themselves daily…
I was listening to Fox, and they had Collinssnowe on talking about how she supported getting rid of DADT, but how it was too grave of an injustice not to let the republicans defeat it with unreasonable amendments. These people have no shame. I couldn’t do it, I would break down crying asking for forgiveness.
@Eric U.: Yep. That’s the clip I saw on Maddow. I’m furious. Oh, wait. It was Collins not Snowe I saw. My fucking apologies for any feelings that were hurt by my mistake.
This this about Reid being too unyielding… I mentioned this at the tail end of the other thread, but if that’s really what happened, doesn’t that mean that Reid played this bill pretty much exactly the way the left blogosphere wants Democrats to play every bill? He didn’t compromise, even if it meant losing the vote; he forced the other side to filibuster, spotlighting their obstruction; he refused to sacrifice the DADT provision just to get the bill through. The usual complaint is that the Democrats compromise preemptively. They didn’t do that. But I don’t hear a lot of praise for their negotiating savoir-faire when it plays like this, either.
@FlipYrWhig: Yep. I agreed with you then, and I agreed with you now. I really think if the end result isn’t the desired one, then some reflexively blame the Democrats, no matter what–and I’m not even talking about the media here. I’m talking about the Democrats!
Davis X. Machina
@fasteddie9318: Snowe would simply run Indie and win 50-30-20.
Maine has almost as many unenrolled (local lingo for independent) voters as D and R put together. Two out of the last five governors were independent. Perot beat Bush 1 here.
She needs the institutional GOP vi ayn lokh im kopf.
Safest seat in the Senate. We’ve been trying to budge her for 20 years, but there’s little you can do when she routinely gets the votes of 30% or more of registered Democrats in a general election.
I’ve heard she’s doing what she’s doing because she has an intense personal dislike of Obama, going back to before his election as president. I don’t know what the cause is, but it’s real, it’s visceral, and it’s not going away.
Collins is an idiot, on the other hand, and running for Vice President.
@The Republic of Stupidity:
Or the guy’s trying to figure out a way to get his nomination past the Senate Republicans so he doesn’t have to sit in limbo for 6 months. Clearly he realizes that there was zero chance that any Republican was going to vote to repeal DADT. Even Richard Lugar, who swore up and down two months ago that he wouldn’t vote against cloture … voted against cloture.
But Republicans can always be trusted to keep their word, so it must have been Harry Reid’s fault!
They want Democrats to play every bill like that if they win. Losing doesn’t count, though they’ll swear up and down that they would totally support a loss if Democrats lost in precisely the right way. What that way is, they’ve never been able to articulate, but they do know that it’s never happened yet.
Davis X. Machina
@Little Boots: Many factors:
1.) Mainers hate politicians. They despise party politicians. Unenrolleds equal registered voters of both parties combined, more or less. We’ve elected two independent governors out of the last five. Perot beat Bush I here — in one of his three home states.
Snowe and Collins don’t look, sound, or act like what people think politicians look, sound or act.
2.) Both of them have exemplary constituent service operations in state. Legendary. Passport problems, SS issues, you name it, one phone call — done. They do fairs, graduations, festivals relentlessley. In a small state, the Kevin Bacon number between any voter and Snowe or Collins is probably ~1. They are not faceless pols.
3.) Maine is the whitest state in the Union. Neither woman is a bigot, but the Democratic party is the party of the Other People, and they get reflexive support from people who think the Other People are scary, or just from too far away.
4.) Away from the coast, this is Appalachia with lobsters. Look at the gay-rights record in referenda — loss, loss, loss…..
@Davis X. Machina:
It’s because she was in line to become the first woman president, and then this young black guy from Chicago leapfrogged over her and stole her spot.
Let’s face it, that’s 90 percent of Obama’s problem in the Senate — his former colleagues are pissed off that he jumped the line and got himself elected President before they did. He didn’t serve his time, and now he has to pay.
You know what? I am pretty much done. I will vote Democratic (no other choice, really), and do what I can to get Democrats elected, but this bullshit is just wearing me down. Every issue is so fucking predictable.
ETA: By bullshit, I mean all the whining on the Democratic side (not to be confused with legitimate complaints). Someone in an earlier thread said that the far left and far right are united in their opinion that everything is the fault of the Democrats–sounds pretty apt to me.
The Republic of Stupidity
This may be true and I still can’t help but wish the Dems would stop humiliating themselves every time they turn around.
Seems first the Dem Reps & Senators undermine Obama, then he turns around and hangs them out to dry…
This is ugly… and I’m not just talking Dems here… I would never have imagined the GOOP would try so hard, for so long, to simply bottle up a duly elected admin so completely the way they have.
This sort of utter and complete antagonism simply doesn’t bode well for our political process or country in the long run.
We have very real problems coming right at us and our elected officials seem satisfied to behave like pro wrestlers…
Davis X. Machina
@Mnemosyne: I don’t think Snowe’s ambitions ever rose to that level. I do know her patented ‘middle-moderate-sane-reasonable-no drama’ franchise in the Senate took a hit from Obama. He was peddling her product, in her political territory — and did it better. He out-moderated her, and it rankled.
Question: if Murkowski runs as an independent/write in, and manages to win, what are the odds that she caucuses with the Democrats?
@Davis X. Machina:
They may not have consciously, but there was a conventional wisdom for a very long time that it was impossible for a Senator to get elected president. I think JFK was the last serving US senator to become president, and I remember a lot of talk during the Bush/Kerry contest about how a senator could never win the presidency.
And then this little pisher Obama shows up, serves two years in the Senate and then — boom! He’s POTUS! Out of nowhere!
Well, fuck him. The Senate will show him who’s really important.
(Edited for grammar. And stray words.)
@asiangrrlMN: Collins is the one who talks like a 3rd grade Sunday school teacher.
@Nick: Good God! I live in tornado country, and it took us weeks, and the efforts of people from all over the region to clean up. The front-end loader operator working my block was so awesome, he could play pick-up sticks with that giant machine. He came all the way from Humphreys County.
@hamletta: Thank you. That is a helpful primer, indeed. She’s the one I mean, then. Bee-yatch.
Am I correct in thinking Obama could unilaterally declare DADT repealed?
If memory serves, Bill Clinton unilaterally declared it in effect; i.e., it didn’t require a congressional vote to be implemented.
I believe Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces on his own hook.
My poor understanding of the issue is this: that Obama chose to go to congress in the first place in order to prevent the re-institution of DADT by presidential fiat.
If indeed that’s the case, the president should declare it repealed as of tomorrow.
@KG: Good question. It’s not like the Republicans are showing her she’s welcome by McConnell shoving her out of her committee assignments and such. I want either her or McAdams to win (though McAdams would be my first choice, two Dem Senators from Alaska would be a GREAT legacy for Bible Spice!) and then let the cards fall as they may.
@Mnemosyne: 2008 was an outlier though because both parties nominated a sitting Senator. That doesn’t happen very often. Usually it’s a Senator against a governor or an incumbent president/vice-president.
@asiangrrlMN: It’s not just whining. The level of obstruction is unprecedented in this country’s history.
Filibusters, appointed officials and judges not even having their upper-down votes brought to the floor.
The Republican Party really has gone mad, and they don’t care if they take the country down with them.
I don’t know how you explain that to Your Average American, though.
@FlipYrWhig: Careful, you’re getting awfully close to hippie-punching. The only tactics that should be used by Reid are the ones he’s not using.
Every good liberal understands that Reid and/or Rahm are double-upside-down ratfucking the liberal cause when they try to pass progressive legislation.
Ack, I’m way too cynical tonight. Time to get some sleep.
Even the conservative Ben Nelson…
@JWL: Yes. He could. It was said that he did not because it was part of the agreement. He would not use the Executive Order, and the votes (today’s vote) would be there to push forward the debate on a repeal. Obviously, the latter did not happen, so Obama has the option of using the EO.
@Yutsano: Hi, hon. How you?
Cathie from Canada
@JWL: Yes, apparently he could. But in that case it would be easy for a Republican president to bring it back again, and this would ruin the careers of people who had “come out” in the meantime. For their sake, a legislative act would be a much better and safer long-term solution.
Now that repeal has failed, however, I would expect Obama would consider the “presidential declaration” option.
@hamletta: Sorry. I wasn’t clear. I meant the whining that anything they don’t like is the fault of Obama personally. I agree that our whole system is broken and dysfunctional. I agree that the Republicans are shitheads of the highest order. I even agree that the Democrats have been shitty about getting the message out that the Republicans fucking suck. What I don’t like is the ‘I’m not going to vote and that will show the Democrats’ mentality that I see pervading certain segments of the Democratic Party. That’s what I meant by whining. Plus, it seems as if there’s no way Obama can do anything right, and the ‘he’s the same as W.’ bullshit (or this congress is as bad as the last) just bugs the shit out of me.
@JWL: No. 10 U.S.C. § 654 starts with “(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings: ”
Congress passed the law. Only congress can pass a law striking it down.
@asiangrrlMN: An EO would only end enforcement. DADT is an act of Congress, which means that only Congress can truly reverse it. Plus Obama is already walking a delicate line with the Pentagon in not forcing this through by fiat. He agreed to wait for enforcement until the survey comes in (which I’m sure will show the grunts don’t give much of a fuck) so if he does act unilaterally it will be until then. That and he’s fighting to get Gates to stay and Gates honestly is about the only person I can think of with the gravitas to get this done.
I be good, cat is munching food and hasn’t killed me yet. My brain hurts though.
@MikeJ: This. Also. Too.
@KG: Murkowski will caucus with Democrats when Gibraltar crumbles.
@JWL: You are wrong. DADT was voted into law by Congress. This ain’t no Trumanesque situation, and Obama’s insistence that it be repealed by Congress is correct. An executive order would be shot down in court immediately, and of course would not survive a Republican presidency.
Look at the Mexico City(?) rules about federally-funded health aid. We have a Republican president: No mentioning abortion! Democratic president: A-word is OK! Republican president: No A-word! Democratic president: A-word OK again!
A military career can’t last through that kind of sit, stand, kneel wackiness. DADT needs to be repealed for good, and that means the hard work of getting it through Congress.
No. Three reasons.
1) Reconciliation makes the amendment process worse. The majority has good reason not to give the minority the ability to offer unlimited amendments six weeks from an election.
2) A standalone repeal likely wouldn’t meet the fiscal requirements of the Byrd Rule. Reid could fire the Senate parliamentarian and have Biden make a summary judgement, but thats not going to happen. No one has done that in 35 years, and several Democrats won’t stand for it. They didn’t do it for HCR, they won’t do it for DADT.
3) As impossible as (2) is, a DADT repeal attached to a Defense Authorization Bill is even less likely to meet the Byrd Rule requirements. A revenue neutral military spending bill? You’re more likely to see Jesus Christ return to Earth and announce his conversion to Scientology.
Yeah, sure you would have, Pooky. Republicans always keep their word, don’t they?
He did desegregate that way BUT he later tried to overturn another piece of legislation passed by Congress and it was decided by the Supreme Court that it was illegal for the president to do that.
People who tell you that Obama can issue an EO revoking DADT because Truman did it for segregation are making about as much sense as someone who insists that segregation is still legal because of Plessy v Ferguson. You have to go by the most recent decision of the Supreme Court and, in this case, the decision says that the president cannot overturn legislation that was duly passed by Congress.
Seriously, can you see the Roberts court allowing Obama to overturn DADT on the strength of an executive order when there’s a very clear precedent saying he can’t?
@Yutsano: Yes. I was being garbled. It would only end the enforcement. It is not a long-term solution at all. Sorry. My mind is muddled tonight, and I don’t even have a new job. I really dug the Al Franken clip on his impassioned reasoning for repealing DADT. The only reason I would be in favor of a temporary EO is because we need all the quality troops we can get at this time. Throwing out queer folks needs to stop.
Glad your cat has not killed you. Still, I would sleep with one eye open for the next few days if I were you.
@Mark S.: She’s a big, fat liar. As Rachel pointed out, Reid said he was fine with discussing other amendments. Bee-yatch.
@asiangrrlMN: I’m sorry I misunderstood you!
Harry Reid will always have a special place in my heart for the way he used to make Bill Frist step on his dick. Reid was the Roadrunner to Frist’s Wile E. Coyote, and it made my heart glad.
I’ve hated Frist since his memoir came out in the late ’80s. Our local alt-weekly ran an excerpt when it was in transition from the suburban shopper it used to be, and they were desperate for copy (and sucking up to the local elite). He came off as a narcissistic jerk.
Plus, he seems to have patronized Loretta Lynn’s plastic surgeon, the one we used to call “Mommy, Mommy, my ponytail’s too tight!”
@hamletta: No prob. I wasn’t very clear. I’m exhausted, and my thoughts are a jumble. Yeah, I have some issues with Reid, but today was not his fault. Your last paragraph is hilarious! Love it.
You have people arguing in this very thread that the Republicans were totally going to vote DADT down if it weren’t for Harry Reid.
I’m not sure what cave they’ve been living in for the past two years, but clearly it didn’t have cable if they actually think the Republicans are honest dealers who keep their word.
An executive order also has two problems.
1) Legal challenges. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, SCOTUS ruled that an executive order has to enforce existing law. An executive order repealing DADT, or prohibiting discharges based on its provisions, is hard to justify under that requirement. There are arguments, but whether they’d hold up in Court is less certain. The legal jujitsu the OLC would have to concoct to justify it would probably make warrantless surveillance look tame by comparison.
2) Implementation. All-black units didn’t disappear until 1954, six years after Truman issued Executive Order 9981. The reasons for this are manifold, but most have to do with how policies are institutionalized within the military. Having to answer questions from a superior officer regarding infractions of an executive order is one thing. Being hauled in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee and taken to task over violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is quite another.
Mnemosyne: That’s an interesting point. However, and while I didn’t read the entire Wikipedia article your link led to, that particular decision dealt with private property.
It seems to me that DODT, having been imposed by presidential fiat, could be so repealed. Again, that was my understanding of why Obama chose to go the legislative route in the first place.
If he phones for advice, I would counsel the president to repeal it immediately AND use it as a clarion call to declare “enough is enough”; that the GOP is the party of Rule or Ruin; and that the days of according them the respect due an honorable opposition are over.
I just ask he not phone after 11:00 PM. I need my Z’s, and have trouble getting back to sleep once I wake up…
@JWL: It. Wasn’t. Imposed. By. Fiat.
Law. Congress. Voting. Pass.
@MikeJ: I am impressed with your use of periods. Nicely done.
It was NOT imposed by presidential fiat. It is a law passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. The president is not allowed to bypass Congress and invalidate the laws they pass willy-nilly.
The only thing Obama could do with an EO is tell the armed forces to stop enforcing it because that’s what the executive branch does — enforcement. He cannot do anything at all to affect the underlying law. You should probably read the Wikipedia article next time as it’s all explained in there.
You want to apply a band-aid to a sucking chest wound because it’s fast. I want to repair the damage even if it takes longer because otherwise you still have a sucking chest wound, even if you put a band-aid on top of it.
I think she talks like someone (maybe a third grade Sunday school teacher) doing a very bad Kate Hepburn impression.
That final paragraph with Lindsey Graham did indeed elude me, my miserablist friend, having cracked a rib cackling with delight over the triumph of personality the Dear Leader had perpetrated over the unlettered hordes.
How kind of you to draw my attention to it.
A well noted point. However, in that same decision, it was noted that the reason the EO didn’t work was because nationalizing industry was far outside of the President’s delinated powers. In this case, composition of the armed forces is right in his wheelhouse as CinC, and a good argument can be made that Congress doesn’t get to tell the CinC how to run the military. They can defund it if they like, but they don’t have command authority. If you want to invoke the UCMJ to say Congress prohibits it, then you have to admit that Lawrence v. Texas applies, which is what Judge Phillips did when she ruled DADT unconstitutional.
EDIT – And Truman went ahead first and undid segregation and THEN the law was codified. There was no backlash – Truman won reelection and no one overturned his EO, the military didn’t asplode into fragments of the negro and now that Congress has shown that they lack the power to overturn an unconstitutional law, the President would be right to defy them.
Keep in mind Lieberman is fighting for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. He might get a few issues right, but overall, he alternates between soporific dimwit and sanctimonious, sleazy asshole.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I pretty much figured the outcome would be just this. Republicans can hold up the bill because they are Republicans and the M$M will never use the same narrative on them as they would if the Democrats were doing it. As I expected, the hue and cry has arisen that this has to be dealt with by Obama, as Rachel Maddow is saying. As usual, the outcome favors the Repubs because now the left are yelling at Obama to do something and the news will be that the Dems failed once again.
Let me know when something unexpected happens.
That’s true, but it also means their so called “New England moderate” stance isn’t worth a bucket of piss. As someone else pointed out upthread, they vote lockstep with the likes of Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint every single time.
In a sane world, they’d be handing Democrats the weapons to chase them out of office next time — “Do you want to be represented by a radical conservative like Jeff Sessions? Then don’t vote for Olympia Snowe, because she votes just like he does!” Blanche Lincoln’s terrible record is because she fears the wrath of her voters, but Snowe and Collins don’t seem to think siding with the radicals will hurt them come Election Day.
With Democrats like Jewish Steel, who the fuck needs Republicans?
The problem with Firebaggers isn’t that that they whine or don’t clap loud enough. The problem is that they won’t go out and vote for the ONLY fucking people that even remotely give a shit about the things they claim to care about.
And at this point, the can we stop pretending that people referring to Obama as “Dear Leader” are liberals or supporters of a progressive agenda? They’re fucking teabaggers or ratfuckers.
Nick seems to have some sort of obsessive compulsion regarding my posts which no other person here shares. I have told him I will no longer engage with him, and he persists.
Therefore, I refer to him as a stalker.
We may have had a couple of Republican votes.
The same two “RINO’s” who occasionally vote with the Dems on other issues.
Strange that so many people here are unwilling to believe their own leadership would play games and sell them out if that means accepting that one or two Republicans may sometimes be up for grabs…once a year or so.
You guys seem perfectly willing to pile on Reid every other day, but today you find it inconvenient because it does not fit your narrative.
The kool aid must be good.
Funny that the Republicans chose to ignore “the American people” who overwhelmingly support repeal of DADT, yet have often shrieked at Obama, accusing him of ignoring “the American people” when it comes to health care reform, financial reform…
Not particularly consistents, those GOPers.
Oh, I wouldn’t expect the Northeast Republicans to act reasonable anytime soon. They’re going to be visited by the Ghost of Mike Castle’s career every night, rattling his chains and telling them to go to the right.
@Little Boots: They could try to pass the whole bill through the process but, if a senator objected (which someone would), the parliamentarian would have to go through and strike the non-budgetary items, like DADT.
Democrats today: “Oh we’ll just try again after the election. No big deal.”
You got us, celticdragonchick. Democrats secretly hate gays, and Republicans secretly love them. The only reason the Republican caucus unanimously voted against gay rights is because the evil Democrats tricked them into doing so. There’s no evidence for this, of course, but everybody knows evidence and facts are just more Democrat tricks.
Good thing you’re not drinking any sort of “Kool-Aid” that would lead you to believe a blatantly preposterous “narrative”.
Oh, sorry, I responded to something you said in a public forum by pointing out logical fallacies in your arugment. Guess I’m just a creepy stalker!
Weren’t we kowtowing to Leiberman because we needed his bipartisan cred and legislative mastery to get DADT repeal past Republicans? This was going to be his Big Stand on civil rights?
Someone said that during health care debate. Raise your hand.
We weren’t depending on Joe Leiberman’s friendships with Republicans, were we? God, I hope not.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Maine, and the consensus is that Maine just goes its own way. They have quite a long record of electing independents to office, and I suspect Snowe will go Independent before she even thinks about going Democrat.
May have had a couple of GOP votes? Evidence?
Collins & Snowe will soon depart from the political stage. Their own step children will do them in come the next time they have to go through a primary. Maine may be more level headed than the deep south or Texas but it’s republicans are not enough different from the Deep South or Texas to allow either of Maine’s ‘Golden Girls’ to keep their day jobs.
And you know what? I may even donate money to the Tea Baggers in Maine so they get their way with ’em. I mean, here you have two supposubly moderate, level headed, mainstream republicans and they vote with the riechtwingnutz on almost every vote. If that is what is called moderate, level headed and mainstream, then you are saying O’Donnell or Bible Spice is moderate, level headed and mainstream.
I’m just sorry I’m gonna have to wait two years for the first one. It’ll be delicious to see the look of fear in the eyes of the other when she see’s her sister Senator booted by her own Republithug storm troopers.
Yes, I’m sure that John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas will all find in Obama’s favor.
In the fantasy world in your head where Republicans are reasonable people who look at the evidence and listen to their constituents, sure.
In the real world where the Republicans make vague noises about maybe voting in favor of the programs they themselves proposed and then vote in lockstep against them, not so much. Or did I miss the Republicans enthusiastically voting “yes” on the climate change bill that included their proposed “cap and trade” program?
But you keep living in your fantasy world where the Republicans aren’t bad, they’re just misunderstood and they would totes do the right thing if the big bad Democrats would let them.
None that you will ever accept, since it was public comments from Snowe, etc.
You will say that it was all clever lies meant to fool Reid, no doubt.
Just keep swinging at that strawman. You need the exercise.
I’ve never claimed any of the above. I stated that we may have had a couple of votes from the RINO side of the GOP. Snowe voted it out of committee, fer Chrissake.
I also posted where it looks like REID...not the Democratic caucus, was playing games with the procedures.
Take some reading classes. They’ll do you a world of good.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@celticdragonchick: Even if Snowe and Collins (and Reid, for the ability to bring it back for another vote) had voted aye, that only gets you to 59.
And? Lindsay Graham practically wrote the climate change bill, and he still voted against cloture for it. Again, you seem to think that Republican Senators are rational people who are thinking about anything other than November’s midterms. They’re not. If they can make the Democrats look bad, they will do anything, even go against every one of their public statements for the past year.
Let me look into my crystal ball and see what I guarantee you would have happened if Reid had told the Republicans, “Sure, you can propose as many amendments as you want,” which is what you’re saying he should have done since that’s what Snowe and Collins claim was their beef:
Jim DeMint and his merry band of assholes would have proposed idiotic amendment after amendment until the pre-election break had to be called, the bill still wouldn’t have passed, and you would be here screaming about how weak and stupid Reid was and why couldn’t he see he was going to get rolled by the Republicans?
The Republicans in the Senate are not going to lift a finger to pass any legislation until the election. Sorry that it was your sacred cow that ended up in the slaughterhouse this time, but thinking that any Republican politician was going to vote for DADT when they’re being primaried by teabaggers on all sides was just plain delusional.
Also, too, don’t forget that the bill included the Dream Act, aka letting immigrants earn their US citizenship in the armed forces. How well do you think that would go over after watching the Republicans and teabaggers use Mexicans and Muslims as punching bags for the past year?
DADT was an executive order, but it just told the military how to implement the law passed by Congress prohibiting gays from military service. It says, “well, yeah, you can’t be in the military legally, but if you don’t tell us you’re gay we won’t throw you out.” An executive order overturning DADT takes you back to status quo ante–gays out whether they say anything or not. Only Congress can repeal the ban on gays serving.
Have your irony detector serviced every 3000 miles.
If you have one installed, that is.
Shit, who here take those assholes seriously still?
@General Stuck: I think largely there are greater gains electorally to be made from being anti-gay than there are gains for being pro-gay. In that, people who support DADT repeal aren’t going to change their candidates over that because that is not their primary issue.
Which is why it is so hard to hear, even if I understand it, that now is not the time. We have a lot of social support but not as much political support.
You actually believe this shit you spouted?
You sound like a Log Cabiner with this bullshit.
No, it wasn’t. As posted by others many times, DADT was (is) a law, NOT and executive order.
@Mnemosyne: I initially thought that bringing it to a vote in the election year was the problem, but it’s pretty clear that what you say is indeed the case and has always been obvious. I wish the fuckers would stop making positive noises when there’s nothing on the line if they’re going to be this consistent on gay issues.
Here’s the thing: Republicans have had a huge amount of electoral success running on an anti-gay platform. George W Bush got elected in 2004 largely because Rove put initiatives banning gay marriage in every state that allowed them. The teabagger candidates are running around their states right now sneering about the “gay agenda.”
And we’re supposed to believe that this time they weren’t going to pull the football away until Harry Reid was mean and forced them to do it? Uh-huh. Pull the other one, Sen. Collins.
@AxelFoley: Actually Les is more or less correct. The guidelines of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are laid out in a Department of Defense Directive issued under Clinton as a response to federal legislation codifying the ban on gays in the military.
@John S.: @AxelFoley:
If you read the conversation between Bob Loblaw and Jewish Steel you will find an abrupt tonal shift from a breezier internet prose style to the convoluted and acidly polite style of a party apparatchik. May we take this as clue not read that literally? As the author I can tell you definitively; yes.
I am trying to help you with your powers of textual analysis , but you are going to have to practice on your own too.
The problem is that a lot of people seem to think that the Clinton EO that softened the total ban on gays in the military into Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is itself the ban and all we have to do is issue a new EO rescinding that one.
Of course, if we rescind Clinton’s EO, that means we go back to enforcing the actual law, which is that all of the gay servicemembers get thrown out regardless of whether or not they tell anyone they’re gay.
Saying that Obama should do an EO on top of Clinton’s EO still doesn’t do a thing to fix the fact that it is currently illegal for a gay person to serve in the US military and it will continue to be illegal until Congress overturns that law.
@Mnemosyne: Agreed. And that is pretty much exactly what Les said.
@Mnemosyne: I’m so frustrated with the inertia of the whole thing.
That’s what Republicans are counting on — people getting so frustrated and angry that they just give up and let the Republicans have their way.
Or, what digby said.
@ Woddrow Hill
Sorry, but the reply button seems to not be working
My understanding is that Lincoln and the other Dem who were no votes had initially voted yes and then allowed to change to NO by Reid after it was obvious they would not break the filibuster.
Scott Brown gets mentioned as another GOP senator who had previously signaled he would not support blocking the bill. (btw, it was Collins who voted it out of committee, not Snowe. My bad.)
So, the RINO’s have a snit because Reid didn’t want to let them attack amendments per the usual procedure, and they go on to sink it just to piss Reid off…and everybody gets to use it as a campaign issue.
Fun all around.
Of particular interest was Maine’s Susan Collins, who voted in committee for the same bill she filibustered today. To hear Collins tell it, she supports DADT repeal, but had to kill the legislation anyway, because of procedural issues — she wanted the Democratic majority to promise to allow more amendments during the debate.
She wasn’t satisfied with the response, so Collins ensured that there won’t be a debate, and the policy change she claims to support is likely dead for the foreseeable future.
In other words, in Susan Collins’ mind, Senate procedure matters more than fairness, equality, and decency towards U.S. servicemen and women. Collins — and Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown, the alleged “moderates” — sided with far-right, anti-gay conservatives over procedural nonsense.
@Mnemosyne: Too true. And I know it too. I’ll be frustrated but I won’t quit.
See the above to Woddrow Hill and the link.
Which makes more sense:
A)Two senators who are hated by the GOP base as RINO traitors are really just out to get Obama for whatever reason (even though they voted for his programs on occasion), even though it will make no difference to the GOP base that hates their guts…
B)Those same two Senators had a tantrum because Reid played games and offended their notions of Senate procedure
You seem to prefer “A”, because it fits the story line you have already settles on that affirms your notions of good and bad.
“B” requires getting rid of black and white thinking, and accepting that your own allies can screw you over if it suits them at the time.
Digby hit that one out of the park. Great link.
It may make no difference to the base, but it would make a huge difference to the other Senate Republicans who can strip them of all of their committee assignments like they just did to Lisa Murkowski.
Snowe and Collins want to stay in the Senate. They want to keep their seniority and their nice, cushy committee assignments. So why should they go against the Republican leadership and vote for cloture?
More like, they had a tantrum because Reid was wise to their games and realized that allowing unlimited amendments was just asking for Republicans to tie the whole thing up until it was time to recess for the election.
But, hey, if you think it makes them look better to portray them as whiny five-year-olds who are going to hold their breath until they turn blue because they didn’t get their way, be my guest. I’m still not sure why that’s Reid’s fault, any more than the tantrum is the five-year-old’s mother’s fault for not giving them a cookie for dinner.
A fair point.
@Little Boots: Yes. Mainers like to think they are independent, and that the Ladies are just so–Rs, but in the old Yankee sense. Socially lib, fiscally conserv. Nothing they do seems to shake this perception.
@Davis X. Machina: As a Mainer, may I just say: word. Precisely.
@TuiMel: As a Mainer, I actually thought she would lose, based purely on her hideous voice. I stand corrected.