Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

GOP obstructionism works, part 973

The GOP just blocked the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell in the Senate, and the immediate conclusion to be drawn is that this is yet more proof that GOP obstructionism works brilliantly. It fires up the GOP base, while simultaneously demoralizing Dems who want their leaders to prevail despite the GOP tactics.

Republicans will only gain with their base for standing firm, and for doing whatever was necessary in procedural terms to block the measure. By contrast, Dems are likely to suffer with their base. When it became clear the vote was in doubt late yesterday, gay activists were already blaming Obama and Dem leaders for not showing the fight necessary to get this done.

The complaint all along has been that Obama has not really put his prestige on the line to rally the Senate for repeal of DADT. More recently, gay activists have wondered why Obama didn't work the phones and twist arms to get centrist Dems to fall into line. Two Dems -- Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln -- voted with Republicans to block the vote.

Now that the vote has failed, gay activists are likely to direct most of their criticism at Dem leaders, arguing -- as Richard Socarides did this morning -- that they only made a "token effort" to get this done.

In short: Republicans will be rewarded by their base precisely because they were willing to use canny procedural measures to prevent a majority vote on the measure. By contrast, Dem base voters, rather than get outraged about the GOP procedural maneuvers, may see this as another reason to remain unenthusiastic about the Dem majority. Forget all the procedural white noise. Rank and file Dems want their leaders to win, even if those mean and nasty Republicans aren't playing fair.

UPDATE, 4:12 p.m.: As for what happens next, Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is pushing for Dems to hold another vote during the lame duck session:

We now have no choice but to look to the lame duck session where we'll have a slim shot. The Senate absolutely must schedule a vote in December when cooler heads and common sense are more likely to prevail once midterm elections are behind us.

By Greg Sargent  | September 21, 2010; 3:48 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Who will win the 2012 Tea Party presidential primary?
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

In short, Democrats need to start grabbing a mic and telling their base what they stand for or pack their bags cuz their is only one party saying anything to the people...

Posted by: soapm | September 21, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Poor widdle wady Gaga

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid put it up for a vote - and he did this to the democrats.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Olympia Snowe was in favor, but voted against because she wasn't able to offer amendments.

What did she want to add to the bill? Did anyone ask? If not, why not?

Posted by: sold2u | September 21, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

A compromise is a compromise


It means both side Don't get everything they want - they meet in the middle.


Don't ask, don't tell IS the compromise - but the liberals say they don't want to meet everyone halfway - they want it ENTIRELY THEIR WAY.

Same with health care - Obama promised a compromise - and delivered a far-left bill.

Well - the country doesn't want ANY of this.


The country is willing to go for a compromise - but the liberals refuse - time and time again.

What do you want?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I'll just repeat what I added on the last blog entry.

We have no idea what played out here. Reid could have known all along this wasn't going to get past the Senate and knew Lincoln and Pryor needed to not let it pass to help out in AR. Neither Nelson nor Webb are up for re-election. Is it coincidence Pryor joined Lincoln? I don't think so. If he voted to let it proceed, it would have been used against Lincoln no doubt.

I hate to sound all pessimistic on that one but I think that's how this one played out unfortunately. Of course, what I wrote is all speculation.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

DADT *will* be repealed. There was no need for Reid to do this. A cynical, stupid move that won't even work (show their "
special interest groups" that they haven’t forgotten about them ahead of the election).

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42485_Page2.html#ixzz10CDhzCQA.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Jake2D, what are you celebrating for? Why does it make you happy? Just curious.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone explain why the White House acts like this? I simply don't understand it.

"Last night, I learned from a very credible source that the White House isn't lobbying on the Defense Authorization bill. They're not trying to get to 60 votes. The President and Vice President aren't making calls. The White House legislative team isn't working the halls of the Senate. Nothing. People on the Hill are well aware of this. It sends a signal. Has anyone, not just Senators, anyone, heard a word about the Defense bill from Obama? Think about it: The GOP Senators are filibustering a defense bill, which includes support for the troops, while we're engaged in two wars. Yet, we haven't heard a peep from Obama about that. If the situation were reversed, I don't think a Republican President would sit idly by and miss an opportunity to bash the other side for not supporting the troops. Bush did it every time.

So, the key vote that could set us on a path to ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell will happen today. We've waited a long time for this. A lot of promises were made to the LGBT community, included an end to DADT. I have to give a lot of credit to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Servicemembers United for getting us this far. They have had to fight every step of the way. In June of 2009, SLDN held a protest in front of the White House, asking Obama to keep his promise on DADT repeal. That didn't endear them to crack political team in the West Wing. Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina stooped so low that he excluded SLDN from a key meeting where DADT was discussed. But, SLDN was undaunted, the group just kept pushing and lobbying. Same for Servicemembers United. This isn't a political game for them. It's about their lives. So, today, we'll see whether the DADT language moves forward. Keep calling your Senators til the last minute. The Senate switchboard is 202-224-3121. It's not over til it's over. Senators are fickle creatures and, who knows, maybe one of the GOPers will act like a human today.

Clearly, we did not get the support from the White House that we should have expected -- based on the promises made by the President. But, we'll need to remember this next year when Jim Messina is the campaign manager for the Obama reelection and comes asking for our time, our money and our votes."

http://www.americablog.com/2010/09/tuesday-morning-open-thread_21.html

This strikes me as insanely stupid politics. Is there some rational explanation for it?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

sold2u, I'm with you, I'd like to know what poison pill amendments the GOP hacks wanted to add.

Anyone know what was up the GOP's sleeve?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The D's have no problem going after their own; this is a great example. As soon as the bill fails who do Dem interest groups attack? The Dems, even though a vast majority of Dems voted for the bill in question. If the tables were turned and Democrats voted against a bill having ANYTHING to do with defense we all know how the GOP would respond. Do I even need to spell it out?

Another example from an earlier thread: When Alvin Greene won the Senate nomination I don't remember a lot of us lefties defending him. Yet a quick gander at recent Plum Line threads will show you dozens (hundreds) of frothing at the mouth wingnuts strenuously defending O'Donnell, Palin, Angle etc, etc. We on the left admit that Greene wasn't Senate material, but it doesn't matter how nutzoid a person is, if they have a R next to their name the wingnuts will do anything to defend them.

I'm not saying those of us on the left should throw away intellectual honesty and become half-wit partisan hacks like STRF or JokeD2. We couldn't do that if we wanted to, it isn't in our nature. No, we just need to realize that the right has no morals and stands for nothing other than personal gain, then we need to hope and pray that enough Americans come to the same obvious conclusion that we have.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

From sbj on the previous thread:

But Collins said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning that she would not vote to take up the underlying defense bill unless it was open to all amendments senators want to offer.

“There are many controversial issues in this bill. They deserve to have civil, fair and open debate on the Senate floor,” Collins said.

“I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments. That, too, is not fair,” Collins said. “Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks.”

This makes no sense and is completely disingenuous.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 21, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

What happens now?

Posted by: maritza1 | September 21, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Here's one amendment:

The basis for Reid's concerns about unlimited Republican amendments became somewhat clearer Monday after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) indicated he thought a variety of legislative proposals related to the war on terror should be taken up on the defense measure.

"I've got an amendment that I'd like to introduce to the body that I think would get 90 votes: Stop reading terrorists their Miranda rights," Graham said on the Senate floor.

"I'd like to create some rational legal system that recognizes we're at war, not fighting a crime, but the only thing I can talk about is 'don't ask, don't tell' and the DREAM Act. This is ridiculous," Graham added.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10264/1089100-473.stm

Anyone know of any other "poison pill" amendments the GOP wanted votes on?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse


Why is it when the democrats were blocking Bush's judge nominations - it was a legitimate use of a filibuster -

And when the Republicans use it - it is a "canny procedural measure?"

There are built-in places in our Constitutional System which REQUIRE compromise.


A filibuster is not a constitutional provision - but as our system has evolved, some protections have waned -


The Filibuster has become a PRIME point for COMPROMISE


So - Compromise - isn't that what Obama promised the nation ???

The liberal REFUSE TO REMEMBER that Obama was elected TO COMPROMISE, NOT JAM THROUGH A FAR LEFT AGENDA.

How many times does the nation have to remind the left?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"What happens now?"

Reid voted no procedurally so it'll come up again after negotiations.

In other words, Dems will let down the base and compromise their values because our Govn't system sucks (when you don't get your way.)

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

From Think Progress:

"It is important to note that senators representing a relatively small minority of the American population sustained a filibuster of a bill despite the fact that it contained very popular provisions. According to polling, 70 percent of Americans support the DREAM Act and 75 percent of Americans support fully repealing DADT. The 42 senators who filibustered the bill, on the other hand, represent only 36 percent of the American population. Thanks to senate procedure, a small minority can easily obstruct the will of the vast majority of the public."

Posted by: bmcchgo | September 21, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan

Or, she may have wanted something reasonable. Who knows? But it is worth asking the question, to start the negotiation.

Look, it is a tight vote. Her vote is valuable, and isn't going to be free. Like it or not, that's politics.

If Reid was able to get Snowe onboard, Lincoln and Pryor may have had the cover to go along. I mean, geez, at least try...

Posted by: sold2u | September 21, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: You can't seriously call this an example of GOP obstructionism. This was a farce.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 4:01 PM


I thought you told me that I HAD no idea what was going on with this bill

NOW you say YOU had no idea???


Correct.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"The D's have no problem going after their own; this is a great example. As soon as the bill fails who do Dem interest groups attack? The Dems, even though a vast majority of Dems voted for the bill in question."

nisleib:

That's because when the Republicans are in power they don;t commit political suicide. It seems the complaint is with the White House's lack of effort. All they had to do was make some calls and tell interested people they were doing so. If the vote failed after the White House tried, I think the complaints would be directed elsewhere. I really wish someone could tell me why the Administration behaves like this. It's as if they WANT to lose.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 4:01 PM


I thought you told me that I HAD no idea what was going on with this bill

NOW you say YOU had no idea???


Correct.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

What are you blathering about LostTheBraincells?

Make a point for once. I can't read into your musings what it is your trying to get across.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"NOT JAM THROUGH A FAR LEFT AGENDA."

What far left agenda? I'm not seeing it. We're talking about a centrist agenda that is getting stymied by far right wing senators that represent a small minority of Americans in states with small populations.

This whole concept that Obama is a far left wingnut is entirely a GOP propaganda construct. I'm sorry a lot of weak minded folks buy into that.

Posted by: Alex3 | September 21, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 4:01 PM


I thought you told me that I HAD no idea what was going on with this bill

NOW you say YOU had no idea???


Correct.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments. That, too, is not fair,” Collins said. “Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks.”

Has anyone ever seen Collins and Eric Cantor in the same place? I swear she has got to be Cantor in drag. They are both dim bulbs of their respective chambers.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 21, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Sorry all. I'll stop toying with the spam bot.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments. That, too, is not fair,” Collins said. “Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks.”

Has anyone ever seen Collins and Eric Cantor in the same place? I swear she has got to be Cantor in drag. They are both dim bulbs of their respective chambers.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 21, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The only farce is that GOP politics is more important than supporting the troops

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 21, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Don't ask, don't tell IS the compromise - but the liberals say they don't want to meet everyone halfway - they want it ENTIRELY THEIR WAY."

Um, it's a little strange to be saying that when "ENTIRELY THEIR WAY" IS WHAT 2/3 OF REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WANT, NOT MENTION HOW MANY MORE INDEPENDENTS AND DEMOCRATS.

You want to be a bigot? That's your choice, but don't think you have a reasonable position that's going to stand much longer.

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 21, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

This strikes me as insanely stupid politics. Is there some rational explanation for it?

Posted by: wbgonne 4:04 PM


____________________________________

At some point, the sentiment of the country has to be taken into consideratin - the nations does NOT want the gay agenda.

The nation does not want 8 year old kids to be taught "gay issues"


The nation does not want "gay marriage" - in EVERY State on which gay marriage has been on the ballot, it has lost.


The nation COMPROMISED - the compromise IS "don't ask, don't tell" A compromise means you don't get everything you want.

___________________________

YOU ask for a "rational explanation"


The nation does NOT want the gay agenda.

At some point it will be "rational" to stop trying to JAM these things down the nation's throats.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"NOT JAM THROUGH A FAR LEFT AGENDA."

What far left agenda?

* A health bill originally written by the GOP.

* A war continued using a GOP president's tactics.

* A immigration bill originally pushed by President Bush.

* GM was given lots of money, but Reagan did this too. Remember Lee Iococa and Chrysler?

* GOP war criminals given a pass.

* Tax breaks for small businesses

* Allowed guns to be used in National Parks

* The most tax cuts EVER in our history.

Please tell me just what is so radical about what this president has DONE. Not some FoxNews/Glen Beck made up story, but what he has DONE.

As a proud liberal, I'd very much like to true liberal agenda, but I don't see it. DADT is supported by the majority of Americans. It will pass eventually. That I know, but the crowing by the right at this point is pretty ugly. Hopefully the majority of Americans will see that and react accordingly.

IMO, we are going through a very unusual period in our history and it's momentarily working in the GOP's favor. But not for long. You'll have your time and leave everyone disgusted at the antics of the extreme far right. Enjoy your moment.

Posted by: Alex3 | September 21, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - "when the Republicans are in power they don;t commit political suicide."

Bull. Terry Schiavo. Nuff said.

No, my point is that Republicans are FAR better at message discipline. Heck, discipline in general is better within the GOP. Partly this is because most GOP members don't give a rat's arse about policy and partly it is because the GOP has given itself far more control of its Congresscritters by controlling committee asignments and other congressional bennies.

And wbgonne, you don't know what is going on behind the scenes. You could well be correct, but during the 2 year campaign and since the election I've watched lefty pundits declare repeatedly, "If Obama doesn't do X, it is all over," a dozen times. Every time they are wrong.

I can hear you thinking, "Public Option..." and I don't care. The votes were NEVER there for the public option, ever, no amount of arm twisting could have gotten us there. Obama did the smart and pragmatic thing by not drawing a line in the sand. I know that is awful, I wanted the public option too, but not at the cost of the whole bill, which seems to be what Jane Hamsher (and you?) wanted Obama to do.

You may be well to the left of me, I don't know, and there is nothing wrong with that if you are. But when I voted for Obama I didn't do it because I thought he was a "progressive," I did it because I thought he was pragmatic. I think I was right, he is doing exactly what I hoped he would do.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60:

If the GOP had proposed an amendment to this bill that authorized Special Ops to track you down and kill you, would you then agree or disagree with a Dems filibuster?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - "when the Republicans are in power they don;t commit political suicide."

"Bull. Terry Schiavo. Nuff said."

The GOP overreached IN FAVOR of its base. That's the difference. Suicide is needlessly antagonizing your own supporters. That's not pragmatic, it's stupid.

And your recollection of the public option process -- which I followed EXTREMELY CLOSELY -- is not mine. The truth is that the White House MADE A DEAL at the outset that there would be no public option. I really don't want to re-hash it and you can believe whatever you like but please don't insult my intelligence.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

You voted for Obama to NOT close Gitmo?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

The other part of this -


The COMPROMISE this year - was for the Pentagon to conduct a year-long review of "don't ask, don't tell" - and the report would be considered by all.

Well - the year is NOT over - the report is still being drawn up.


So having the vote NOW is a rejection of the compromise which was recently agreed on to "wait for the review from the Pentagon"

The military is for FIGHTING WARS - not changing social policy.


Why do the gay groups think THAT FIGHTING A WAR IS LESS IMPORTANT THEN THEIR SOCIAL ISSUES?


Changing this policy now could be diruptive to our conduct of the War on Terrorism. It is not a good time to start to force changes on the military.

That is a rational explanation - for anyone who cares about being rational on ANYTHING.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

My response to you, Jake, has been held in moderation. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 21, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 3:53 PM


Why do you rejoice? Patriotic Americans who are willing to lay down their lives to protect you are being treated like second-class citizens. Why is that a joyful thing?

Posted by: wiccan | September 21, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"The truth is that the White House MADE A DEAL at the outset that there would be no public option."

Made a deal eh? With who and when?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Alex3 4:18 PM


Few people in the country want gay issues to be taught to school children before their teenage years.


Usually, these changes come in secret - few people know that the gay groups are pushing these changes.


It is only after some volunteer has to get everyone together - find out what is going on - and get the community to protect the children - does ANY of this come out into the public light.

Too many times have the liberals attempted to push through their agenda in an administrative way - and with few people in the community knowing what is going on.


Sure - you can call people whatever names you want - show your hate - and try to intimidate people into NOT voicing their opposition to YOUR agenda.

But few people in this country want the "gay agenda" taught to young school children.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

They have to have another vote because a Defense bill has never failed to pass by the years end in 48 years.

Posted by: maritza1 | September 21, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Changing this policy now could be diruptive to our conduct of the War on Terrorism. It is not a good time to start to force changes on the military.


That is a rational explanation - for anyone who cares about being rational on ANYTHING."

Please. Losing translators right and left so that soldiers can't be understood is WILDLY disruptive!

You obviously can't think beyond being scared of f*gg*ts.

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 21, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

If rational doesn't work, there's always "KEEP FEAR ALIVE!"

http://www.keepfearalive.com/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

maritza1:

Don't worry (they will take out the DADT amendment and the GOP will be glad to vote for it ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Alex3 | September 21, 2010 4:18 PM


There are people who dont want "don't ask, don't tell" at all - they want to go back to what the policy was before Clinton


So "don't ask, don't tell" IS THE COMPROMISE.

I don't know how you can say that FORCING major changes on the military AT A TIME OF WAR - IS NOT A FAR LEFT AGENDA.

You are putting social change ahead of fighting a war - pretty far-left.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"Jonathan is the third combat veteran I personally know who has left the Army under the terms of DADT. Collectively, they represent almost a decade of combat experience, a big handful of Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars, service as aide-de-camps to general officers and as platoon leaders and company commanders in combat, and the investment of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. They have offered blood, sweat, and tears in defense of a nation that discriminates against them for no good reason.

This policy must end."

- Lt. Col. John Nagl (US Army, ret.)

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/20/don_t_ask_don_t_tell_is_hurting_the_war_effort_it_is_wasteful_and_it_is_wrong

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 21, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

All just political gamesmanship by Reid:

"Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

"... Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_military;_ylt=Ajf6AFw6kYvKze08XJ2.U_Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNnNWkwMDZxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwOTIxL3VzX2dheXNfbWlsaXRhcnkEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNzZW5hdGVyZXBlYWw

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

"... If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said."

http://www.americablog.com/2010/09/we-lost-in-senate-whole-thing-is.html

"Reid’s strategy ... was, I assume, aimed at forcing a Republican no vote which he can now use to motivate liberals and Latinos in Nevada to turn out for him in November. Which would make sense, I guess, if not for one thing: Wouldn’t he have been better off trying to pass the DREAM Act and repeal of DADT as standalone measures?"

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/21/crash-and-burn-senate-filibusters-reids-dadtdream-act-defense-package-5643/

Dems are unwise to stick with Reid... He hasn't got a clue.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - suicide is suicide.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but there were never 60 pro public option votes in the senate. Never. That being the case why wouldn't they cut a deal?

And actually if you look at the immigration debate during Bush you'll see the GOP does NOT always, "overreached IN FAVOR of its base." One of the big differences is that, as I've said before, the GOP has more control over what its Senators do than the Democrats. I would expect the GOP, given the advantages it has given itself, to not go against its base. There is NO reason Democrats couldn't give themselves the same control, but they won't. Personally, I'm not sure they should. If there is one thing you can say about a party divided (as the Democrats always are) it is that they have more than one idea, that is far more than you can say about the Republicans.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"Jonathan is the third combat veteran I personally know who has left the Army under the terms of DADT. Collectively, they represent almost a decade of combat experience, a big handful of Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars, service as aide-de-camps to general officers and as platoon leaders and company commanders in combat, and the investment of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. They have offered blood, sweat, and tears in defense of a nation that discriminates against them for no good reason.

This policy must end."

- Lt. Col. John Nagl (US Army, ret.)

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/20/don_t_ask_don_t_tell_is_hurting_the_war_effort_it_is_wasteful_and_it_is_wrong

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 21, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Alex3 4:31 PM


Just this past week, Obama was in Greenwich, Connecticut and Obama said that he had pushed through "the most progressive agenda" in decades.

So - Obama agrees that his agenda is Far Left.

Im sure you know what a "rightwing agenda" would be.

I heard the crowd in Greenwhich was pretty horrified at Obama's remarks - and they felt that Obama has been completely off the reservation since taking office.


Few people around the country want what Obama has done - democrats and Republicans - people are quite amazed that Obama appears to believe he has support for what he has been doing.


Just because someone supports Obama because they want to see the democratic party do well - that doesnt mean that person supports what Obama has actually done -


Obama's support is alot shallower and weaker than you think. The ice could break at anytime.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Alex3-

Co-sign.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"I don't know how you can say that FORCING major changes on the military AT A TIME OF WAR - IS NOT A FAR LEFT AGENDA."


And I don't know how you can say that keeping a policy ALREADY KNOWN TO HARM MILITARY COMBAT OPERATIONS IN A TIME OF WAR IS NOT A FAR RIGHT AGENDA.

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 21, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

You hold a MINORITY position - WITHIN THE GOP NO LESS - that HARMS the military NOW, and yet you expect to be taken seriously?

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 21, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Jake

If rational doesn't work, there's always "KEEP FEAR ALIVE!"

It's more like,


If rational doesn't work, call someone a racist or a bigot.


Try to intimidate people by name-calling into agreeing with the liberals.


Some post-partisan America huh?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"there were never 60 pro public option votes in the senate. Never. That being the case why wouldn't they cut a deal?"

... and then lie to their supporters and say they hadn't cut a deal and that the public option was great and they really really really wanted it in the legislation?

Do you really want to go down this road?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Changing this policy now could be diruptive to our conduct of the War on Terrorism. It is not a good time to start to force changes on the military.


That is a rational explanation - for anyone who cares about being rational on ANYTHING."

Please. Losing translators right and left so that soldiers can't be understood is WILDLY disruptive!

You obviously can't think beyond being scared of f*gg*ts.

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 21, 2010 4:42 PM

_______________________________________


First of all "translators" is not the ENTIRE military effort.

And we really don't have to "translate" anything if we are shooting, do we ???


And I object to your use of foul language - if someone doesn't agree with you, you have to twist the whole thing into calling someone an intolerant bigot -


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"If there is one thing you can say about a party divided (as the Democrats always are) it is that they have more than one idea, that is far more than you can say about the Republicans."

That's one way of looking at it. Another, more current view, is that the Democrats are unable to govern and should get booted out.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"Just this past week, Obama was in Greenwich, Connecticut and Obama said that he had pushed through "the most progressive agenda" in decades."

You're buying into FoxNews labels. And Obama is trying desperately to convince his base when he said that. Doesn't that suggest to you that his base isn't buying it?

"Im sure you know what a "rightwing agenda" would be."

Yeah, further stripping of the 4th amendment. You asked for it. You'll get it. Government tracking all pregnant women to assure live birth. Tax cuts for billionaires. Roll back of regulations for corporations. Roll back of wages. More jobs shipped overseas. Credit cards are allowed to charge whatever they want and then change the contract on a whim. Pollution sky rockets. Global warming continues unabated. More tax cuts. Deficits soar. Military industrial complex gets even more contracts. More wars. And we stay in Afghanistan and Iraq forever.

Well done.

Posted by: Alex3 | September 21, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Also you constant references to Obama when we are discussing DADT, suggests to me the movement you support is just Obama hatred.

But like I said, you'll get your way. For awhile. Then the country will wake up from its hangover and realize what an ugly thing it did.

Historians will write about the torture and roll back of rights, and wonder just what the hell happened in America.

Posted by: Alex3 | September 21, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Alex3 5:04 PM


The "base" - who know who that is


But the people at that fundraiser - they were HORRIFIED that Obama has gone as far to the left as he has.


Obama was elected to COMPROMISE - and be bipartisan.


NOW, democrats all around the country are going to get hurt in this years' elections.

Anyway - Obama has NOT had a centrist agenda - as one poster here tried to make the case - was that you? NOT sure, there are so many crazy things said here.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - I've yet to see any evidence that they did cut a deal, feel free to provide some should you so choose. If they did, I say good on them. They passed a health care bill, that is a big deal! It may not have been exactly the bill we wanted, but it was never going to be. We got more than I thought we would.

"Democrats are unable to govern and should get booted out."

What nonsense. The Democrats have passed more than enough legislation, needed legislation, in the last two years to be considered highly productive and effective.

I'm starting to see Liam's issues with you. You want to boot the D's and replace them with what? The Republicans? The Tea Partiers? Most of those folks aren't qualified to sit in a corner eating bugs for a living. Is Liam right? Are you a concern troll?

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"Another, more current view, is that the Democrats are unable to govern and should get booted out."

Um, what?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Alex at 5:04


Credit cards are allowed to charge whatever they want and then change the contract on a whim

___________________________

That was Torricelli - democrat and the democrats in the Senate who pushed through the credit card bill.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 4:04 PM
"Jake2D, what are you celebrating for? Why does it make you happy? Just curious."

I briefly wondered the same thing, then decided that Jake2D is celebrating because the Republicans won (or the Democrats lost). It doesn't matter at whose expense.

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 21, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Alex at 5:04


Credit cards are allowed to charge whatever they want and then change the contract on a whim


________________________________


YOU can add Biden and Dodd and Barney Frank to the ones who were pushing that credit card bill that you hate so much.


It was a democratic bill.

The democrats SOLD YOU OUT - one day you will realize that.


.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"Another, more current view, is that the Democrats are unable to govern and should get booted out."

"Um, what?"

Ethan: I think that sentiment is exactly what the Democrats are confronting in November. Americans are even prepared to give Lunatics power b/c the Dems are in an internal war and can't govern. That's how I see it.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Alex3:

The government doesn't track anyone right now to assure that "REAL" murders aren't committed. No Republican running for office is proposing that pregnant mothers be tracked. What are you talking about?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"I'm starting to see Liam's issues with you."

What you're starting to see is of no concern to me.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest - You have the reading comprehension of a first grader. Seriously, lead chips are not interchangeable with frosted flakes.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Greg, what does this mean for Tax Cuts for the Wealthy?

Posted by: Alex3 | September 21, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Can we all AGREE now -


Harry Reid has to go..........


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Alex3:

Please name ONE Republican running for office that is proposing pregnant women be tracked "to assure live birth"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"Greg, what does this mean for Tax Cuts for the Wealthy?"

I don't know what Greg thinks but I think this bodes very poorly for the tax issue. As I've said before, if Obama leaves taxes to Congress they will almost certainly screw it up b/c the Republicrats are out of control.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - Yep, concern troll. Liam was right.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

One last point: It has been my experience that those accusing others of being "concern trolls" are often guilty of that themselves. So buyer beware.

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - See ya! Have fun at the Sarah Palin rally!

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't get the liberals.


They want the Republicans to work with them to get something through Congress.

Then the liberals want to run around yelling about all their "accomplishments" and pushing it in the faces of the Republicans.

So, what do the liberals want - someone to work with - or someone to trash.

It really doesn't work both ways, does it ?

The center of the country has taken its support away from Obama -


AND now the left is upset with Obama as well.

So where does Obama stand ?

What is left? Is it possible that Obama has support left only among those who want to see the democratic party do well ?


Is there any support left for Obama all by himself - if one takes out all the other motives which have nothing to do with Obama.

Health care is going to get de-funded - and mostly repealed - the country will MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

these are the tactics the Democrats used when they were in the minority. Liberals defended these tactics then as appropriate for the situation.

Now the tables have turned and the whining is as music to the ears.

the goal is pretty straightforward: stop the leftward march now, then undo the damaging legislation at the earliest possible time, but whatever means necessary.

it will be fun to watch the liberals get their undies in a wad over the methods their opponents use. It will be fun to see how they respond when thier own legislative tactics are used against them.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Alex3:

That's fine, you don't have to answer. To point out your other logical fallacies ...

1) further stripping of the 4th amendment

Read up on Franklin Roosevelt (OSS) and Bill Clinton (Eschelon) someday.

2) Tax cuts for billionaires (along with "Deficits soar" below)

You realize that even the DEMS are pushing for a "tax cut for billionaires" (at least their first $250,000 in income), right? The "middle class" tax cut will outstrip any tax cut to a few billionaires.

3) Roll back of regulations for corporations

Google: gulf oil spill usgs scandal

4) Roll back of wages

Wages have dropped more SINCE Obama took over than before.

5) More jobs shipped overseas

As if Obama is doing anything to improve the economy here and prevent further job loss?!

6) Pollution sky rockets / Global warming continues unabated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Quality_Index#United_States

The air quality index in America hasn't been this good in decades (I also disagree that global warming is man-made ; )

7) Military industrial complex gets even more contracts. More wars. And we stay in Afghanistan and Iraq forever.

Obama sure isn't cutting back on that (never closed Gitmo either ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"Ethan: I think that sentiment is exactly what the Democrats are confronting in November. Americans are even prepared to give Lunatics power b/c the Dems are in an internal war and can't govern. That's how I see it."

It may be what Dems are confronting... but it's garbage and you know it.

Dems are in an internal war? Um, no, no they're not. Dems have always had a wide range of opinion in the party due to the wide disparity among the members (regional, ethnic, religious, etc). The GOP doesn't suffer those disparities to nearly the same degree. You know that too.

As to governing, it's no secret that the corporate concentration of power owns the entire GOP and I would say about 1/3 of the Democratic Party. That leaves a majority of the Democratic Party available to fight for the common good. If you, somehow, want to blame that on the Dem party apparatus, I don't see how you logically could.

As you have astutely pointed out time and time again, it is the concentration of power that pollutes the political governance of the country. It is not the ideals nor even the agenda of the Democratic Party that renders it "unable to govern," it is the corporate influence over the combined COMPLETE Republican Party and the corporatist faction of the Dems. It is sad and disgusting and dangerous for our country, but it is NOT the Democratic Party itself that is to blame for any lack of governance, imho.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Can we ALL agree now


Harry Reid has to go ............

This should be something right and left can agree on NOW.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I think we can all agree that DestroyTheRainforest needs to go.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

No it is much simpler than that. The public is rejecting the far left "majority of the Democratic Party."

As foe DADT, Senate rules are a safeguard against radical change by transient majorities. Don't hate the player, hate the system of government.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_92.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 21, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid had three poison pills in the Defense bill


One was don't ask.


The other was the immigration laws.


Clearly, the other thing was the Republicans were not able to put amendments in concerning the war-making powers.


So Harry Reid would NOT allow amendments which were specific to DEFENSE


But, immigration, an unrelated topic, Harry Reid put IN the bill.


This is what we have - Harry Reid NOT doing his job, just playing politics for his November election.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Funny how times change. I can remember when people would pretend to be gay in order to ~avoid~ military service.

Posted by: CalD | September 21, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

To be fair, granting citizenship to immigrants who serve in the military probably was "related" to the defense bill.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, I can vouch for wbgonne not being a concern troll, but he is a concerned citizen. His opinion of the way the Administration has ushered in their so called "progressive" legislation is an opinion shared by many. He may be both frustrated and disillusioned, but he is most definitely NOT a concern troll.

He doesn't need me to speak for his views and he knows we don't agree on everything, but I will vouch for his commitment to moving this country forward in the same way you probably want to. We all have different ideas of how to get there.

Regarding trading away the public option in a deal with the Hospitals and insurance industry, there was a NY Times article that was later substantiated by several off the record sources that said exactly that. Between that and Dorgan's bill which had support on a Thursday and was dead by the following Monday, the HCR negotiations were seen by some with a completely different perspective than they had been prior to both of these events.

I was still working for OFA around this time last year and was at a weekend training session where some words were exchanged between myself and a few of the staff indicating everything I needed to know about the PO.

I am still a supporter of the President and other Dems, but I have no illusions that either their policy or priorities are the same as mine. That's why I work for individual candidates and legislation.

Anyway, here's an excerpt from the NYTimes piece and the link:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

“We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,” one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Posted by: lmsinca | September 21, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

To add insult to injury, Obama's pick to head the U.S. Marines admitted to Congressional panel today that he opposes the repeal of DADT:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grHLcTA5VMaxM1KPtvrf3OTOfZuQD9ICC2PG0

(mikefromArlington, wiccan, and carolanne528: is he a bigot too?)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

In short, Democrats need to start grabbing a mic and telling their base what they stand for or pack their bags cuz their is only one party saying anything to the people...

Posted by: soapm

It's no mystery why the Republicans are ahead in the polls. I will never agree with Republicans politically, but I will never accuse the party of political incompetence. It's impossible for me to get excited about the party that nominally represents my interests and more milquetoast leadership from Harry Reid.

Wake me when there's a genuine, unappologetically liberal party. "Further rightward" should not be the only form of political discourse.

Posted by: jbanks979 | September 21, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Repubs will cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Posted by: kurthunt | September 21, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Well, on the other hand, if the Dems HAD managed to repeal DADT It could only have thrown more fuel on the Right Wing's Culture Wars.
As I recall Carl Rove used the boogie man of the gay soldier (and teacher too) very effectively when the Bush Team felt in the least threatened by any real Bread and Butter concerns eminating from the Democratic minority.
Now, at least the Dems can point to the Gay baiting Republicans and blame them for not throwing out DADT

Posted by: oregonbirddog | September 21, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

"And I don't know how you can say that keeping a policy ALREADY KNOWN TO HARM MILITARY COMBAT OPERATIONS IN A TIME OF WAR IS NOT A FAR RIGHT AGENDA."

You do know we will be 'at war' for the next 20 years, thanks to Bush's invasion of Iraq, right?

And funny how the Israelis, who have been in a state of war or siege for their entire modern existence have no problem with openly gay soldiers.

Why is it that you think Israeli soldiers are tougher and more disciplined than Americans?

Posted by: TheHillman | September 21, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

no, the message is...
we don't vote for what we don't get a say in...
shut us out...
we vote no...

Posted by: DwightCollins | September 21, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

While I would obviously prefer that democrats win... I demand that they visibly try. The Dem base understands, at least a lot of us do, that Republicans are using logistical maneuvers to skew the debate.

We are demoralized that the Dem leadership doesnt appear to be fighting back. They compromise with themselves and then compromise with Republicans until they get nothing...

Posted by: gayrevels | September 21, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, on the other hand, if the Dems HAD managed to repeal DADT It could only have thrown more fuel on the Right Wing's Culture Wars.
As I recall Carl Rove used the boogie man of the gay soldier (and teacher too) very effectively when the Bush Team felt in the least threatened by any real Bread and Butter concerns eminating from the Democratic minority.
Now, at least the Dems can point to the Gay baiting Republicans and blame them for not throwing out DADT

Posted by: oregonbirddog

Any democratic politician who lives in constant fear of Republican retaliation instead of standing up for what's right unapologetically deserves to lose their elected position.

It would have been politically smarter with their own base to vote yes and force Republicans to defend their actions. Pandering to the right wing has never won a democrat a single additional vote.

Posted by: jbanks979 | September 21, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Don't ask don't tell is the compromise and it's only the upcoming election that the Democrats have decided they need action, any action to try and show voters something they have accomplished. Sorry but chalk up another failure from Harry Reid.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | September 21, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Reid deserves the blame. In his shortsightedness, he denied debate on the bill and Republican amendments costing Susan Collins support. Furthermore, he attached a number of controversial Democratic election-year priorities which lessened the bills chances of passing- why?

Moreover, the Arkansas Democrats, Senators Blanche L. Lincoln and Mark Pryor, sided with all 40 Republicans present in opposing debate.

"Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had urged his colleagues to allow the debate to get underway."

Posted by: moebius22 | September 21, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"I demand that they visibly try. The Dem base understands, at least a lot of us do, that Republicans are using logistical maneuvers to skew the debate.

We are demoralized that the Dem leadership doesnt appear to be fighting back. They compromise with themselves and then compromise with Republicans until they get nothing..."

Exactly, this has been my gripe with the Democrats for 30 years.

Some wingnut posted earlier, asking why it was not viewed as obstructionism when the Dems filibustered Bush's Supreme Court picks. The reasons it wasn't were, first, that one pick was totally unqualified to be a lower court judge, much less an SC Justice & the filibuster provided time to make that clear & the nomination was withdrawn. When it came to filibustering the choice of Roberts & Fascito, the Dems rolled over upon receiving disingenuous assurances about the kind of jurists they'd be. Look how well that turned out. The only justice those two support is the justice of deference to unbridled economic power against the rights of the individual.

Posted by: kg1957 | September 21, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Again we're reminded of what our government and Pentagon have in store for the military. Somebody else's kid, right?

Posted by: phvr38 | September 21, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

...what is so hard to understand?

Obama is the president, not the Senate Majority leader or the House Whip. The Republicans learned one lesson in 2008: united we fall, divided we stand. They may not agree on everything but they know that if they don't stand together they will die as individual members.

The Democrats are going to have to embrace and expand on that strategy or fade into the mist of history, it's that simple.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | September 21, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

LOL I mean hell, the Republicans look like the Iraqi insurgents, like the Taliban. Like al Queida. Like the Russians in WWII, after Stalingrad.

They may not be winning, but they're not losing. Certainly they are not taking massive losses. Just biding their time and bleeding the Democrats to death.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | September 21, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

It was a major mistake by Harry Reid to tie this up with granting legal immigrant status to illegals who go to college here, otherwise he would have had Collins vote in his pocket.

I'm a Democrat, but I would have been against that amendment too.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 21, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

kg1957 wrote:

"Some wingnut posted earlier, asking why it was not viewed as obstructionism when the Dems filibustered Bush's Supreme Court picks. The reasons it wasn't were, first, that one pick was totally unqualified to be a lower court judge, much less an SC"

There are no qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. For instance William O. Douglas, considered by many to a great justice, never actually practiced law, becoming a professor after leaving law school and then a succession of government jobs. You may not like Clarence Thomas, but there is no basis for calling him unqualified.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 21, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

This is why I won't call myself a Republican. I believe in personal liberty and small government. Dictating the way in which people choose to express their love is the opposite of that.

Some day, gays will be allowed to serve openly. There are too many of them and they are too brave for their contributions to be ignored much longer. This is postponing the inevitable.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | September 21, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

thehillman wrote:

"And funny how the Israelis, who have been in a state of war or siege for their entire modern existence have no problem with openly gay soldiers."

I think we're comparing apples to oranges. Military service in Israel is complusory for all non-Arab citizens, men and women. The only exceptions are for those with obvious physical and mental problems, and those members of the ultra-orthodox relgious community. Gays HAVE to serve. They don't have a choice.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 21, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

you imbeciles celebrating a small minrotiy in our senate stopping our elected leaders from even voting are in for a rude surprise if republican't teahadis come to power. They are TELLING YOU they intend to skrew you, me, and the entore nation if they only get a chance. They PROMISE they wil do it, and you cheer for them. Too frustrating to even contemplate. politics is not some sprt, some game. Your life, my life, the economy of the nation, the lives of billions of people around the globe will see serious, immediate and consequential negative effects if there is a republicon majority. Even the idea of republicons having more than their current 41 votes in the senate should alarm anyone who pays attnetion to politics in even the remotest way. But unfortunately so many don't They take their cues from phony news shows, demagogues, and television ads instead of doing even the most bare bones homework.

It is the same dilema facing our educational system. Every kid thinks the teacher should just tell them what they need to know for the test instead of ever thinking, looking, or investigating for themsleves. Same way people, especially conservatives, behave as adults. "Oh please mr. beck, me limbaugh...please tell me what I think today because actually doing ten seconds of homework would be soooooo hard for my tiny brain......"

Posted by: John1263 | September 21, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

For the moron comparing the blocking of 13 bush judicial nominees (less than 1%) to the past 3 years of constant relentless abuse of the filibuster -- republoicons blocked more than 100 Obama nominees using filibusters and holds. The republicons broke the record for the numnber of filibusters in a session the past three years running. They had more filibusters in the past two years than all filibusters from 1964-2007 combined. So no, filibustering a tiny handful of judicial niominees - several of which did not even meet the bare bones minimum requirement of getting a "qualified" rating from the ABA is not even remotely the same thing.

Also - pubbies were screaming like babies about the use of reconciliation to finally get universal health coverage passed over the nattering naybobs of negativism that is todays teahadi gop -- but they were cheering for the same procedural move when republicons used it to trn the Clinton/Democratic surpluses into record deficits in 2001 with the bush
"welfare for millioniares" tax cut.

Posted by: John1263 | September 21, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

It's news to me?

I thought Nancy Pelosi was the speaker of the House? Is she in the GOP?

What about Harry Reid? Did he vote to reapeal DADT? Is Harry a D or an R?...

What about Barack Obama? Is he in the GOP too? How strange...

I guess all the lemmings that buy into this (crap) think Lady GaGa's opinon really matters! Or Gred Sargents...

Please do research first before you blame the GOP for everything...

Glenn Beck, at least knows who runs congress, not like some Talkiing Heads...

No offence to David Byrne...

Posted by: ReddStripe | September 21, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

john1263:

Agree with some of what you say but disagree about the ABA. The Ivy League, and Harvard in particular is attempting to put a stranglehold on the important judiciary appointments in this country. As you knwo 6 of the 9 current justices are from Harvard alone. It's actually even more exclusive than that since Ginsburg attended Harvard Law before transferring to Columbia, and the other two justices went to Yale. Effectively speaking, unless you went to Harvard or Yale you are not considered fit to be a Federal justice at a high level. This is not an accident but completely within the efforts of the leadership of the ABA to restrict who they consider qualfied. Seldom if ever in our nation's history has the admission to our nation's highest levels of judiciary been restricted to such a small group of eligibles.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 21, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Adam Serwer nails it:

In their tactics and on the issues, our homegrown American Taliban are almost indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban. The American Taliban -- whether in their militaristic zeal, their brute faith in masculinity, their disdain for women's rights, their outright hatred of gays, their aversion to science and modernitiy, or their staunch anti-intellectualism -- share a litany of mores, values, and tactics with Islamic extremists.

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/adam_serwer/2010/09/still_american_taliban_ctd_dra_content.html#121585

Today's teabaggers and republicans: indistinguishable from the Taliban.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | September 21, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.


Minority Rule works. The Obama Administration continues to rule despite America being against his policies.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | September 21, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

The GOP should stop wasting everybody's time and sign the damn bill.

Besides, over half of the Conservatives in the military and the Congress are gay.

They're not fooling nobody, but themselves, so they might as well shed those demons and bring it on out into the light for everyone else to see.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 21, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

My gay dollars, gay canvassing, and gay votes will not longer be contaminating the backstabbing party of Barack Obama.

Best of luck to straight Democrats and their straights-only party.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 21, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

former democrat please stop being an ass.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 21, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, who cares? You'd think we have a bunch of bigger problems to deal with.

Come Sargent....lay some Ground Zero Mosque news on us! You haven't defended the Mohammed Atta Memorial Shrine in almost two weeks.

Ya gotta be missing JournOlist

Posted by: luca_20009 | September 21, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest, your ignorance and hate is quite apparent. People like you are a dying breed and by reading all your ridiculous hateful, negative posts and comments you surely realize this fact.

Posted by: Gary12 | September 21, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

The policy is working. Leave it in place. Unless you want to destroy morale in the military completely.

Homosexuals can serve in the military. They are not discriminated against. The nature of military life demands that the rights of heterosexuals, who deserve to have sexual privacy, be respected. The vast majority of those who serve in the military are heterosexual. Why should they surrender their rights to sexual privacy?

Woman in the military are not forced to room or share sleeping quarters with the opposite sex. THeir rights to sexual privacy are respected. Why should those who are homosexual be given the privilege to invade the privacy of heterosexuals?

Posted by: theduke89 | September 21, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

I'd say Greg's ending pretty much sums up why democrats lose and cannot get their agenda kicked into gear.
Because they do not focus on the ones they should be and going after republicans
Instead, every set back and defeat is not seen as the republicans prevailing but, something to blame Obama for.
I don't know what these people expect or think what a president can do. But, alot of the disappointments stem not from obama not getting things done. He has accomplished a remarkable amount.
And he has prevailed over the republicans and the media pushing against him and demonizing him to the public 24-7.
but, instead of helping him and the democrats, oragainzing and fighting back, instead we get a bunch of pouting lefters who ignore the deeds of the republicans and just blame the president.
they do this constantly. And for the last 30 years that is all they do.
And that is why we lose and the public keeps voting for republicans.

Posted by: vwcat | September 21, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

I know this is statutory law, but it'll never hold up to a presidential challenge. If Obama orders it repealed and then claims in court that the law interferes with his Commander in Chief power, he will win.

So why doesn't he just do it?

Posted by: sportbri | September 21, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

So why when Americans attempted to oppose The Bamster's health care debacle, they are portrayed as angry haters, yet when liberals oppose the "don't ask, don't tell policy" they are seen as heroes?

Posted by: fakedude2 | September 21, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

So why when Americans attempted to oppose The Bamster's health care debacle, they are portrayed as angry haters, yet when liberals oppose the "don't ask, don't tell policy" they are seen as heroes?

Posted by: fakedude2 | September 21, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

This is the kind of stuff important to Republicans. Not the country, but purposely obstructing things and picking on gays. What a pathetic disgusting party of fools they are.

Posted by: johng1 | September 21, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

So, for those of you (uncounted though you might be) who apparently don't bother to read the details, the amendment which the GOP refused to consider did not repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.

it simply would have authorized the Pentagon to ignore it if, after the completion of its current study of the policy (due in December), the President, SecDec, and Admiral Mullen certify that such a policy would be in the best interest of the country.

In other words, the GOP is unwilling to permit debate on a proposal to allow the Executive to actually do something with the results of the study the GOP insisted we needed.

Just about sums up their attitude, even when they were in charge.

Posted by: thmas | September 21, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

There is little you can compromise with Republicans on. The Democrats dont realize they are dealing with a Bully on the block. You can't deal with a bully being nice. They need to toughen up and start taking it to them. Republicans are there to block them, it is irrelevant what it is they are blocking.

Posted by: cirrus_nine | September 21, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama ordered the issue be studied with a report due December 1. Why the heck would anybody want to decide before then, other than to score political points.

Posted by: doug7772 | September 22, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company