Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:43 PM ET, 11/17/2010

Yes, DADT repeal could still pass, Senate staffers say

By Greg Sargent

Good news: Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal is not dead yet.

It's widely assumed that the reason the White House and Dems will punt on holding a vote on Don't Ask Don't Tell during the lame duck session is that there aren't 60 votes for it in the Senate to get it past a GOP filibuster. Senator Carl Levin, who heads the relevant committee, is talking about separating out DADT repeal from the Defense Authorization Bill for precisely this reason.

But very plugged in staffers who are actively involved in counting votes for Senators who favor repeal tell me it's premature to conclude this -- and that it could still get 60 votes in the Senate. These staffers tell me they've received private indications from a handful of moderate GOP Senators that they could vote for cloture on a Defense Authorization Bill with DADT repeal in it -- if Dem leaders agree to hold a sustained debate on the bill on the Senate floor.

Here's why this is important: It throws the ball back into the court of Senator Harry Reid and the White House. It means the onus is on them, mainly on Reid, to agree to a two-week Senate debate on DADT, including allowing amendments. Reid had previously tried to limit amendments, leading GOP moderates to balk. And Dem leaders may not want to allow this two week debate now, because time is short and it could prolong the session. But they should do it, because it's the only real chance to get repeal done. And it could get done.

The GOP Senators who are in play, according to these staffers, are Richard Lugar, George Voinovich, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. A spokesman for Lugar, Mark Helmke, tells me that Lugar would vote for cloture if Reid staged "ordered debate on a number of issues in the bill."

Helmke said he was skeptical that Reid would do this, however. "I would be surprised if the Majority Leader could achieve that in the time we have left," he said.

Kevin Kelley, a spokesperson for Collins, who supports repeal but has butted heads procedurally with Dems in the past, said: "She has indicated that she would support cloture if the Majority Leader allows a full and open debate."

A spokesperson for Snowe denied there are any discussions underway, and a spokesperson for Voinovich didn't return calls.

Sources also tell me that senators Joe Lieberman, Mark Udall and Kirsten Gillibrand will hold a press conference tomorrow urging the Dem leadership to allow the final two-week debate, arguing that this still can happen. This is no small thing: They are urging their own party leadership to do this.

Sure, there's reason for enormous skepticism that repeal will happen. The Dem leadership may balk at holding a protracted floor showdown before going home, and GOP moderates may throw up yet more procedural objections. But it could still happen, if the Dem leadership tries to make it happen.

By Greg Sargent  | November 17, 2010; 3:43 PM ET
Categories:  Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate GOP leadership flatly denies Baltimore "ambush" caused postponement of meeting
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

I am all for the repeal of DADT but it seems to me that this could be another Republican tactic to make sure nothing else gets done during this session and that they will again yank the ball just as it is about to be kicked.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Well done Ms. Gillibrand!

When she was first appointed Senator by Gov Paterson I was iffy... But Kirsten earned my vote because of her leadership on issues like this.

C'mon Harry. Let's do this.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight: The GOP is claiming that if they are allowed two weeks of open discussions on Gay Rights something good might come out of it? Does anyone buy this?

Even if the repeal of DADT did pass with huge bipartisan support (it won't) the Republicans would be out the next day telling America how, "Democrats rammed gays down our throats..."

Granted, Republicans love that kind of thing as long as it is happening in an airport Men's Room in Minneapolis, but I would be shocked if they voted to allow basic human rights, much less the right to serve openly in the military, to gays.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 17, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

So long as they are demonstrating their ignorance, I wouldn't count on anything other than cynicism from the GOP.

Appearing on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell today, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) attempted to justify the threatened Republican obstruction of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. But in doing so, he wrongly called Russia the Soviet Union — not once, but twice.

As Andrea Mitchell explained to Barrasso:

With all due respect senator…if you believe in trust and verify this enables us to put people back on the ground there and verify what the Russians are doing where as right now we can’t.

Barrasso’s claim that the treaty undercuts missile defense is also just flatly untrue. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly the head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency — who was appointed under President Bush — said that New START would “reduce the constraints on the development of the missile defense program.” This is why the U.S. military stands in unanimous support of the treaty and is calling on Senate Republicans to support it as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/17/barrasso-soviet-threat/

How can the GOP be trusted to do the right thing or keep their word on any issue?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, Rahm may have committed two acts of voter fraud, by voting using two separate addresses in Chicago while living in Washington

So - this is just like another ACORN scandal.

But it is clear. Rahm has a problem

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"But it could still happen, if the Dem leadership tries to make it happen."

Well that settles that. Not a chance. It is all about a posture for 2012 now and neither party has any leaders, let alone leadership. What a train wreck.

But hope springs eternal, which is pretty much why Obama got elected.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I sure hope this is correct:

These sorts of movements by their very natures have poor immune systems which is why they guard themselves so fiercely, why they are forced to create alternative narratives, alternate histories. They are brittle. The conservative movement, for all its ferocity and political savvy, is brittle, because it relies too heavily on its own illusions – illusions which have been made in recent years all too convincing by outlets like Fox News.

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/11/american-exceptionalism-and-anti-historicism-on-the-right/

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, speaking of Gillibrand as a leader, she should take on the DSCC job, it would be good for the committee and good for her.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"Barrasso’s claim that the treaty undercuts missile defense is also just flatly untrue. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly the head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency — who was appointed under President Bush — said that New START would “reduce the constraints on the development of the missile defense program.” This is why the U.S. military stands in unanimous support of the treaty and is calling on Senate Republicans to support it as well."

The treaty specifically excludes missle to missle defense systems. So the treaty dose not apply to them in anyway. Now if you are taking about targeting ground targets with missles, then the treaty would apply. But to emphasize the treaty excludes defense systems that we may develop that would allow us to shoot someone elses nuclear missle out of the sky.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Yes, DADT repeal could pass. Just as likely, I could jump to the moon. I've got really strong legs and I'm in great shape; it could happen.

In the last two years I've seen the Democrats move so far to the right, that Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal compared to Obama. It is a sad day when 1984 seems more realistic than 2010. Our Ubber-liberal President (snark) is tripping up DADT in the courts so that it can die in Congress.

Our two-party political system is now unified into one...a corporate-centric organization that is of, by and for the almighty dollar. ?God help us all.

Posted by: rjmmcelroy | November 17, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Re: Barrasso. Maybe he get's his news from the Simpsons.


Russian UN Rep: The Soviet Union will be pleased to offer amnesty to your wayward vessel.
USA UN Rep: Soviet Union? I thought you guys broke up.
Russian UN Rep: Nyet! That's what we wanted you to think, hahahahahaha!

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 17, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Shrink, I agree. I think working with Schumer has elevated her career bigtime. I think you're right, she is about ready to fill his shoes at DSCC.

OT, consumers spending again:

"""Consumer-discretionary stocks were strong after a second-consecutive day of encouraging results from big-box retailers. Target gained 3.8% after third-quarter earnings rose 23%, beating analysts' forecasts. BJ's Wholesale Club added 3.3% after reporting a 32% earnings jump and raising its full-year earnings forecast.

The pair of strong profit reports came a day after Wal-Mart Stores and Home Depot posted positive earnings reports, though those two stocks were among the weakest of the Dow components, falling 1.1% and 2.9%, respectively, after climbing Tuesday.

Other retailers were among the best-performing stocks, with Coach adding 3.5%, Office Depot gaining 2.3% and Kohl's rising 3.9%.

"The consumer seems to be spending again--not with unbridled optimism, but spending nonetheless," said Matthew Kaufler, portfolio manager at Federated Clover Investment Advisors. "What we're seeing here is the consumer finally adjusted to the 'new normal'... Consumers look more willing to part with that incremental dollar coming into the holiday season." """""

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101117-711700.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"I sure hope this is correct:"

Well of course I think so, I have been saying that for years. Republicans have not changed, they are who we thought they were~. The Democrats' inability to understand the fragility of the Republican Rising!, let alone attack it is what remains inexplicable.

~Dennis Green

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

At least the House is doing some serious work for the people:

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure on Tuesday to congratulate Scripps National Spelling Bee champion Anamika Veeramani of North Royalton, Ohio as well as the competition's seven other finalists.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/11/house_honors_spelling_bee_cham.html

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Another OT, this is GREAT!

-Gov't launches criminal probe into bank officials-

The federal government has opened criminal investigations into approximately 50 executives and directors of U.S. banks that have collapsed during the financial crisis.

Deputy Inspector General Fred Gibson says the inspector general's office at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has been probing the role of the executives in bank failures around the country.

The criminal investigations are separate from civil lawsuits against some 80 bank executives...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsWNCKYZz5a4VkK4CoHt5WEbzIxA?docId=8c6306aa5f29425b8869089d1d60062a

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

There are also a couple GOP sleepers who could make it interesting. Scott Brown who voted against it the first time, might come around as Massachusetts solidly went back dark blue, and his re-election is in doubt. Also, Bob Bennett in Utah could be another sleeper. His nephew is involved in the Human Rights Campaign, and he might be willing to spite his party after they kicked him out.

Posted by: jtackeff | November 17, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, the only thing that can save Obama now is retail sales. Pathetic.

And yes, Schumer is a mensch, he is the real deal, he could work with her and start, restart to rebuild confidence in Democratic politics. Wow. The momentum that was lost is almost hard to overstate.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The White House has put out a statment today on repealing DADT.

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/17/Gibbs_Says_DADT_Still_A_Priority/

"Today, President Obama called Chairman [Carl] Levin to reiterate his commitment on keeping the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the National Defense Authorization Act, and the need for the Senate to pass this legislation during the lame duck. The President’s call follows the outreach over the past week by the White House to dozens of Senators from both sides of the aisle on this issue."

Posted by: maritza1 | November 17, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

thanks maritza, that's important

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 17, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

The GOP senators don't want two weeks of debate about DADT. They want two weeks of amendments to OTHER aspects of the Defense Authorization bill.

I wish someone would cover what those other issues are and why the Dems don't want to debate them (assuming they don't). Frankly, I suspect Reid suspects the GOP will offer amendment after amendment to force votes that will only embarrass Dems. It's how the GOP runs these days.

Posted by: rmnelson | November 17, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse


Silly Dims, DADT dies in the Senate this year.

Last time it was voted on it was a bipartisan vote AGAINST repeal: three Democrat senators voted with the Republicans to keep DADT. The vote was 56 to 41 with one Republican who did not vote.

Last time around Republican Lisa Murkowski did not vote; this time she will vote AGAINST repeal.

Last time around the senator from Illinois was a Democrat; this time around it is Mark Kirk who will vote AGAINST repeal.

42 Republicans now, joined by a couple of Dims. If Jim Webb who opposes repeal votes his conscience this time, he two will vote AGAINST repeal.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 17, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Didn't I read where the military's own survey showed that repealing DADT would have little effect on military morale. Pass the darn repeal and move on.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | November 17, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Correction, last time the vote was 56 to 43. This time there are two more Republicans voting, and one fewer Democrat in the Senate to vote.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 17, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"I am all for the repeal of DADT but it seems to me that this could be another Republican tactic to make sure nothing else gets done during this session and that they will again yank the ball just as it is about to be kicked. Posted by: pragmaticagain"

It is exactly because this is just another Republican stalling tactic that I think Reid should give the republicans four weeks to debate if they want it. even two weeks debate before these supposedly convincable Republicans revert to type is two weeks that tax cut renewal stays off the floor. If the republicans talk the defense authorization bill to death, they also talk the tax cut proposals to death.

No tax cut renewal and the budget improves by nearly half a trillion a year. And no Democrat fingerprint can be found anywhere on the corpse.

Let 'em bloviate all they want. there is nothing remotely needed by the nation that Republicans will consent to passing, and so the democrats need to push every needful thing that ever arose in Congress. Republicans will oppose them and thus make this Congress worse than the Do Nothin' 80th. Remember how successful the 80th was in defeating Truman?

Posted by: ceflynline | November 17, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse


The "survey" did not ask members of the armed forces nor their families whether or not they support homosexuals in the military.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 17, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse


The attempt to repeal "could" get 60 votes and it also "could" get 54 or 55 votes, which is the more likely.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 17, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans will block repeal, the Gay community will likely blame the Democrats.

Posted by: Provincial | November 17, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"The "survey" did not ask members of the armed forces nor their families whether or not they support homosexuals in the military."

That's really dumb. Since when are the armed forces a democracy And as for their families, well, how are they relevant?
I hope DADT is passed if for no other reason that to see McCain's head explode, as a gift to many of us for the holiday season.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 17, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"The Republicans will block repeal, the Gay community will...blame the Democrats."

Provincial, I like the cut of your jib.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

About the only way the Dems will get the GOP to go with repeal is if they, the Dems, convince Republicans that they, the Dems, are against repeal. Then, once Republicans let it come up for a vote, Democrats do an about face and vote for repeal.

The one positive thing that can be said about the Republican's opposition to everything is that it makes Republicans highly predictable.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 17, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

@screwjob: "The "survey" did not ask members of the armed forces nor their families whether or not they support homosexuals in the military."

Did you even read the survey (or any of the articles about it)?

There is a whole series of questions asking servicemembers how having a gay person in their unit affected the unit's ability to work together, morale, and performance.

Then there is a whole section about the repeal of DADT.

Honestly, screwjob, are you totally flat-out ignorant or are you just a cold-blooded liar?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Just curious if this Soros comment was meant to be heard or an accident like "bitter clingers?" comments?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/george-soros-obama_n_785022.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 17, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Greg seems to be saying it is up to Reid. If that's the case DADT repeal is pretty much dead. Reid isn't going to do it unless 100 senators can line up for it. Any adversity and he'll fold.

What's up with all the right wing posts here? The closet door starting to rumble?

Posted by: Alex3 | November 17, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Republican Compromise Explained:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Cartoons/2010/February/Negotiation.aspx

Posted by: HansSolo | November 17, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Hans the only thing hard to explain is why it works every time.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

screwjob ... what a perfect name for a Republican.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

@screwjob: "The "survey" did not ask members of the armed forces nor their families whether or not they support homosexuals in the military."

Did you even read the survey (or any of the articles about it)?

There is a whole series of questions asking servicemembers how having a gay person in their unit affected the unit's ability to work together, morale, and performance.

Then there is a whole section about the repeal of DADT.

Honestly, screwjob, are you totally flat-out ignorant or are you just a cold-blooded liar?

Posted by: Ethan2010 |

--------------

Ethan -

Screwjob has been off his meds for a long time. Don't bother using facts with him. He doesn't understand facts, just GOP/teabagger dogma and talking points. Leave him be and let him curse at the darkness in his parents basement while wearing a skanky bathrobe.

Posted by: B-rod | November 17, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

It's stuff like this that makes many people pull the lever for Republicans to spite the liberal Democrats.

Special considerations for persons who happen to suffer from severe sexual disorientation in America's military is a twisted and bizarre priority, especially when our economy is in the toilet and we have a 10+% jobless rate.

No wonder the Obamaniacs have been routed and Obama is disgraced. It's truly an Obamanation.

I guess you liberals better get our military homosexualized real soon because when things return to normal DADT will rule again.

Besides, DADT is Bill Clinton's greatest, bipartisan achievement and Bill Clinton was the best, Democrat president of the last half of the 20th century. Except for Truman!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 17, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 - I disagree.

The other thing that is hard to explain is why our media lets it slide. If the media were to start up with the, "There they go again," meme every time the GOP blocked for partisan reasons, or moved the goalposts, the GOP would have to knock it off.

Even liberal bloggers that I respect and follow, like Mr. Sargent, tend to report stories like, "Yes, DADT could still pass, Senate staffers say," even though they must KNOW the GOP is just faking it again.

Let me make a prediction: Should DADT come up, and should the two weeks of debate take place, the Republicans will delay and obstruct and then blame their delaying and obstruction on the Democrats. A few months later it will come out that the whole fiasco was a GOP strategy and the GOP never had the slightest intention of allowing a repeal of DADT.

And our media will parrot everything coming out of wingnutosphere.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 17, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Whoa -- perhaps sanity may return:

In a failed attempt to kick the can further down the road and delay ratification of the New START Treaty, Sen. Kyl just ensured that New START will be ratified during the lame duck session of the 111th Congress. Kyl’s stunt yesterday pissed off and mobilized a lot of people, namely, Harry Reid.

Reid just issued a biting statement, confirming that “the Senate will be in session after Thanksgiving and will have time to consider and ratify” New START. Frankly, absent Kyl's cheap, political stunt, there might not have been as much friendly pressure on Reid to find the floor time. As Max Bergmann wrote this morning, Kyl actually managed to make himself less relevant-- shifting the attention instead, to Harry Reid and the White House.

Kyl’s blatant attempt to delay ratification of this important treaty only showcased his willingness to put politics above American national security. And it did not sit well with folks.

At a presser on Capitol Hill this morning, Sen. Lugar was scathing. “We're talking today about the national security of the United States of America,” he said. “We're at a point where we're unlikely to have either the treaty or modernization unless we get real.”

Sen. Lugar concluded: "I'm advising that the treaty should come on the floor so people will have to vote aye or nay [even if there's no deal]," he said. "I think when it finally comes down to it, we have sufficient number or senators who do have a sense of our national security. This is the time, this is the priority. Do it."

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/11/how-the-junior-senator-from-az-just-ensured-the-senate-will-ratify-new-start.html

EFFFFFFF John Kyl.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

still beating this dead horse on sexaul preference? our country going the way of the roman empire. from first in the world to extinction. catering to every special interest whiners other than what the majority of our CITIZENS want is suicide for civilization

Posted by: pofinpa | November 17, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

We are all aware of the filibuster situation in the Senate

The democrats are in a Lame Duck situation, and there is little time.

There are two legislative tracks in the Senate - if one is filibustered, legislation can move on the other track. Supposedly if he wanted, Reid could create another track to deal with the present situation.


The Republicans can filibuster the Defense bill, they have the votes. In addition, Mark Kirk will probably be sworn in on November 29th. That gives the Republicans another vote.

In addition, Joe Manchin can not afford to be seen as a "rubberstamp" for Obama. Clearly, that means that on high profile issues, the democrats really should not count on him to be the 57th, 58th, 59th or 60th vote. You get the picture.

Joe Manchin needs political cover. He would prefer to vote with the democrats only if there are 70 votes there.


So, where does this leave anything? The Republicans can run out the clock. Not a difficult concept, just like every football game.


Obama would be wise just to start constructive compromise right now. The liberal agenda is dead. Any attempts to jam anything through right now would likely do more to damage the democratic party more than anything else.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

This I'm sure isn't nearly as fun as the GOP impeaching President Clinton in the lame duck of 98 but maybe this last seesion of the 111th Congress will actually accomplish a few things.

A guy can hope.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Hans I don't blame the media. We elected Barak Obama (at great expense!) and he just keeps wandering around, as if he is going to get serious at some later date.

Look, now we know he can't fight, but he has to know that and he has to (a) understand that is what is happening, politics does not have to be a dog fight but if one side says it is, then it is, (b) he is losing the fight, (c) know that other people know how to fight and (d) let them do that.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"Leave him [screwjob] be and let him curse at the darkness in his parents basement while wearing a skanky bathrobe."


Better yet, feed him to the Troll Hunter.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 17, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

shrink2: "Look, now we know he can't fight,"

Yeah he can, and Hillary Clinton would testify to it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 17, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

OT:

-Senate finally moves to vote on food-safety bill-

...consumer advocates and food-safety activists have also joined forces behind the bill. Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser — two bestselling authors on food issues — called the measure "the most important food-safety legislation in a generation" in a joint statement.

The bill was passed by the House of Representatives a year and half ago but has languished in the Senate ever since.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101117/bs_yblog_thelookout/senate-finally-moves-to-vote-on-food-safety-bill

Thank you Nancy Pelosi for the work you did EIGHTEEN MONTHS AGO on food safety.

"Thank you" Senate Republican "Moderates" for finally breaking the filibuster.

18 FRIGGIN MONTHS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Much as I'd like to believe this, Lucy can only pull the football away so many times before Charlie Brown finally gets wise. The GOP should not need two days, let alone two weeks, to do the right thing and vote to repeal DADT. Don't fall for this, Harry!

Posted by: DCSteve1 | November 17, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Suekzoo1

Your comment at 6:19 qualifies as "intent to harass"

you should be banned

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/happy_hour_roundup_131.html

...and DC Steve, if this doesn't happen now, it doesn't happen for two years or much longer.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 17, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

sue, earlier I was ranting about that. It went away. We all thought he was playing rope a dope and that he was setting up the Republicans for a beat down. But, he either he can't or he won't.

His racism speech was all in, go or no go. He sold out the Clintons (upon whom he now depends, ooops, no harm no foul right?) as baggage laden DINOs. He was on fire...and it worked.

Now he is enervated. Something happened to him. Assimilated? The Helicopter rides? Something happened to him. He is not the same person.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

If this last election said anything, it was that we want Congress to concentrate on jobs and the economy. Health care, tax cuts and bailouts were way down the list.

DADT was not even on the list. Sure, I think that DADT is a stupid policy that should be repealed. But with all our problems right now, why is anyone even discussing this. The GOP must be laughing their arses off that Democrats are wasting their few precious days in a super majority on this item that is not on Americans top ten list of concerns.

Posted by: jeffy2345 | November 17, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"Correction, last time the vote was 56 to 43."

Yeah, FOR repeal. Repeal is the majority position. It's the majority position in the country (by a wide margin). It's the majority position in the military. It's even the majority position the GOP rank and file.

And still the GOP in the Congress stands in the way.

Why do GOP senators hate the troops?

Posted by: rmnelson | November 17, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"DADT was not even on the list. Sure, I think that DADT is a stupid policy that should be repealed. But with all our problems right now, why is anyone even discussing this. Posted by: jeffy2345"

Well, one reason is that DADT weakens an already emaciated military being asked to pursue two badly conceived wars. At least repealing DADT removes one galling policy that gives some troops a wat out with honor that ohter troops can't plausibly use. Don't want that third trip to Bush's Disney Middle east? Claim to have realized you are gay. You can't deploy because you are under processing for discharge from the military at the request of and for the convenience of the service. Honorable because that is what it took to get DADT written in the first place. You can go home while your unit deploys, but gays who would proudly and happily deploy are civilians.

DADT was pure puritanical meddling by a collection of men who would have dodged the draft assiduously had it existed. They lack the courage to go, but are quite willing to demand that those with the courage do it in an Army that has to meet the prudish standards of men who lead from way behind.

Che mai Khop?

Chai!

Posted by: ceflynline | November 17, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Gays and Democrats need to focus-group this in Islamic countries. If the U.S. military drops don't ask, don't tell and becomes an openly gay military, the Islamic world is going to go through the ROOF. They behead their gays after all. Does anyone seriously think they're going to tolerate an openly gay U.S. infidel military on their soil? No chance. Of course, the gay lobby could NOT care less, they only want what THEY want. They give a fig about the U.S. military, THIS is about advancing an agenda. And they're happy to sacrifice our policy over there to do it. Morons.

Posted by: JamesChristian | November 17, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Gays and Democrats need to focus-group this in Islamic countries. If the U.S. military drops don't ask, don't tell and becomes an openly gay military, the Islamic world is going to go through the ROOF. They behead their gays after all. Does anyone seriously think they're going to tolerate an openly gay U.S. infidel military on their soil? No chance. Of course, the gay lobby could NOT care less, they only want what THEY want. They give a fig about the U.S. military, THIS is about advancing an agenda. And they're happy to sacrifice our policy over there to do it. Morons.

Posted by: JamesChristian | November 17, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse


See who is laughing at the end of the day, silly Dims. Nothing personal, just politics. Do you have the 60 votes? No, you do not. If Barry and Harry would have been serious a year ago, they might have done something for you a year ago. In the lame duck session of 42 Republicans you get nothing. Starting January the 3rd there are 47 Republicans.

What is the Senate working on today? "Food safety".

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 17, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Won't happen. Democrats don't have the courage or stomach to fight and the President has the DOJ trashing gays to keep DADT which has been declared unconstitutional and to which 70% of the public agree it should be repealed. Not enough honor in the Senate.

Posted by: mjcc1987 | November 17, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

What kind of idiots are these Democrats? What part of the results of this election did they NOT understand? LEAVE DADT ALONE!!!! How many more times do real people (as opposed to the liberal elites) and military families have to scream at the top of their lungs, "STOP! JUST STOP THIS NONSENSE!" Quit trying to force the gay agenda on this country - especially our military - against the wishes of the voters, which this is really all about.

Posted by: klgrube | November 17, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

What kind of idiots are these Democrats? What part of the results of this election did they NOT understand? LEAVE DADT ALONE!!!! How many more times do real people (as opposed to the liberal elites) and military families have to scream at the top of their lungs, "STOP! JUST STOP THIS NONSENSE!" Quit trying to force the gay agenda on this country - especially our military - against the wishes of the voters, which this is really all about.

Posted by: klgrube | November 17, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"...If the U.S. military drops don't ask, don't tell and becomes an openly gay military, the Islamic world is going to go through the ROOF...
Posted by: JamesChristian | November 17, 2010 6:50 PM

With respect, we have openly JEWISH soldiers serving in strict Islamic countries right now-- including countries where all the local Jews have had to flee in order to survive -- and worse.

I don't think we can base our Military policies based on what "they" will think of us.

If we did, Jews wouldn't be allowed to serve at all...and fundamentalist Christians would pose a pretty big problem as well.

Not to mention that virtually all our allies have openly gay soldiers--and they have served right along side us in Islamic countries, and the roof still seems perfectly intact.

Cheers,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 17, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm so sick of having to care about this. I really wish the GOP would get off of its wide stance on the issue and stop caring so much about it. No one else does, what's their problem? They're the only ones with any real issues here, and everyone else is sick of their tiresome crap.

Posted by: Nymous | November 17, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Repealers of DADT would lose the debate. If you debate it for two weeks, then there would likely not be 50 votes for repeal.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 17, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

If you haven't served in the military, please don't voice an opinion...you don't have a clue and more importantly, it is irrelevant. Here's why: Trying to treat the military like a corporation is wrong. It is NOT a corporation. After serving 30 years on active duty, I can tell you that now that I'm "out here" in corporate America for the past 4 years that working in my corporation with gays, lesbians, Bisexual and Transgender is NO problem...in fact, it works just fine because at the end of the day, we all return to our respective "life styles" and return to work the next day and do a good job. NOW, the military isn't so fortunate. At the end of a military day in Iraq or Afghanistan, you will likely return to your shared quarters, showers and toiletry facilities...yes, you LIVE with each other. For those of you who have never served, here's the test: Would you go camping with your gay workmate over the weekend and sleep together (just the two of you) in a 2 person tent? I rest my case. Corporate America handles integration of gays,les.... etc very well...in the Military, it ain't even close to being the same.

Posted by: powerange | November 17, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Let's put this to a fair vote. Only veterans and current members of the military get a vote, everybody else has to abide by the results.

DADT would be gone in a heart beat.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 17, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Would you go camping with your gay workmate over the weekend and sleep together (just the two of you) in a 2 person tent? ...Posted by: powerange | November 17, 2010 10:27 PM

Of course. Why not?

I am gay. I've used to go camping with my best (non-gay) friend all the time. Why wouldn't we? And I have in the past gone camping with others, including people I worked with. Shared a hotel room at least twice while on a business trip with a colleague-- a married man, and a good guy.

I really don't get your point.

There isn't a high school in America where gay students don't share the same showers, locker rooms and bathrooms as their non-gay classmates. And college dorms don't have separate facilities for its gay students.

And it simply isn't an issue. Nor is the reasonable "solution' to this non-problem to expect only gay people to have to lie in order to risk their lives for you and me.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | November 17, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

So important....really, this is all SO important to the nation. Now I've got people telling me that I was showering with gays all those years, and didn't know it....I'm glad.

Posted by: keyboard1 | November 17, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me or is the left stuck in 1994? The lot of you HATE the fact that Clinton didn't fall on the Sword for you in the '96 cycle by following through with his overwhelming unpopular proposals like Hillarycare and Gays serving openly in the Military, so you are going to force B-HO kill himself politically to rectify Clinton's cowardice.

You simply don't care that Americans don't want further Govt. Involvement in their Healthcare or Misguided people undermining the cohesiveness of our Armed Forces; Injustice shall Pervade unless ignorant America appeases to your political tantrums.

If I'm just your prototypical Christian Wingnut, then why didn't the now extinct Blue Dogs campaign on repealing DOMA and the Public Option? BECAUSE CENTER RIGHT AMERICA THINKS OF THOSE POSITIONS AS EXTREME.

You may impose these things on us against our will, but the NORMAL people in Flyover Country will not remain silent. The more the Gimmecrat Party governs against our will, the greater the odds of it becoming a Regional Party that secures the urban vote and the coastal regions, but fails to add enough people to their coalition win National Elections.

Bottom line: If you push a New Left Agenda in America, you will be a permanent Minority Party.

Posted by: athwarthistory | November 17, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

See who is laughing at the end of the day, silly Dims. Nothing personal, just politics. Do you have the 60 votes? No, you do not. If Barry and Harry would have been serious a year ago, they might have done something for you a year ago. In the lame duck session of 42 Republicans you get nothing. Starting January the 3rd there are 47 Republicans.

What is the Senate working on today? "Food safety".

Posted by: screwjob22 |

-----
And this is good, holding up the repeal of DADT, the policy that is SELF-EVIDENTLY UNCONSITUTIONAL? And these are the nutjobs you support for, these Republicans who do not believe in the first ammendment freedom of speech? What kind of person are you anyway, that you would gloat in continuing a policy that ruins lives every day?

Posted by: nyrunner101 | November 18, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

The "gay agenda?" Ending an unmotivated discrimination policy is "gay rights?" Jeez guys go watch "leave it to beaver" some more. I may be posting from outside the country now but you guys sound like you're posting from Iran.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | November 18, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Hint, athwart, nobody cares about judgments of extremtity coming from a guy who writes like a third grader.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | November 18, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

"The Republicans will block repeal, the Gay community will likely blame the Democrats."

------
Maybe they'll hold responsible the party that promised it, and took their votes and money on that promise?

The party that made the study the centerpiece of the argument. The party set the study date release for Dec 1, in a clear attempt to kick the vote into lame duck or 2011.

When any person who had even the most basic understanding of American political cycles could have seen there wouldn't be the votes?

It's a nice simplistic understanding to say, "Oh, aren't those Republicans mean to the gays. We made a totally FUBAR plan to help the gays and the gays are so unappreciative of our good work!"

This whole "plan" has been so poorly executed the gay community can rightfully surmise it was astonishingly incompetent political malpractice or purposeful malfeasance.

Posted by: swooledge | November 18, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

@Cheopys1:

What pray tell put me back in Third Grade? My use of Caps in lieu of italics or Bold Script? Because I called the Dems "gimmecrats" to signify that they are plundering authoritarians that must act outside of democratic channels in order to achieve their policy goals? You can't refute the substance of my premises, so instead you revert to an ad hominem attack; I should be worried, you seem quite adept at diagnosing childish behavior through painful self-examination.

If the Left couldn't lie and obfuscate, they wouldn't muster more than 30% of the vote.

Posted by: athwarthistory | November 18, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

In response to : "But with all our problems right now, why is anyone even discussing this?"

I agree. Even though I fundamentally understand why we want to get rid of this policy because it is insutling to gay people (and if the Right is for something I am automatically VERY AGAINST IT), I really don't understand why we are focusing on this now, when the goal is to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

You think we are buggered now? Just wait until the rich get even more money put into their pockets and then use the excuse that there is no money to help the states and then thousands of workers get laid off.

And yes, the rich will create lots of jobs....in India. We are on a course that is going to end with this country resembling the movie "Road Warrior."

I am always for Gay causes, but we always seem to make a big issue of the wrong thing at the wrong time. Bush defeated Kerry because the right whipped up the Hysteria over gay marriage. I am sick of these issues allowing the Tea Baggers to frighten a lot of rubes into voting corporatist policies. (Don't get me wrong, I think gays should have the same rights as straight people as far as hospital visitation, inheritance etc. but arguing over that word "marriage" is really not helping at this time)

I more radical solution that I propose would be for the government to eradicate the word "marriage" for straight people. Civil Union for all and let the Church call it marriage.

Posted by: pigbitinmad | November 19, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

@pigbitinmad, et al:

Speaking of Plundering Authoritarians! Yet another member of the dread 30% has reared their ugly head; maybe we can learn from him(it?).

He makes the claim that equality of Sexual Preference is important to him, but no so important that he would willing forgo the lame duck opportunity to lock in higher tax rates. Put aside his misunderstanding that the Gimmecrats will have to indulge their Gay Donor Base if they are to rely on them in future elections( I'm sure the Left is growing restless because a record number of Gays, some 30% if I recall, voted Republican on November 2ND); our specimen is willing to sacrifice so-called Gay Rights(again) so he can be assured that his Wealthy Bogeymen cannot amass more of their own earnings.

Yes, I said THEIR own earnings. He is convinced that their Greed is the Driving Force behind the current Malaise. An All powerful State that Taxes it's Citizenry through many redundant mechanisms will never personify Greed in his eyes. The State is justified in every act of theft, so long as it shares the spoils with the various constituencies within his Political coalition. The State can never have enough, only those outside of the State can be greedy.

What of those of us on the Right who would rather redistribute the ill-gotten Resources of the State rather than the other way around? We're the exploitative monsters you seek to disenfranchise. Why? Because you can't stand that we've earned the resources that you rightfully deserve.

The whole lot of you will destroy the economy in your Crusade against Wealth, never realizing that you're turning your so-called Public Servants into the Very Robber Barons you hate. Through your own GREED, you will choke the golden goose, and in so doing, empower greater tyrants than the ones you've vanquished. Why? Because your type cannot stop coveting your neighbor's possessions long enough to see what pawns you are.

As for the aforementioned "Gay Rights", it is my understanding that with few exceptions, Contract law already empowers individuals to decree "hospital visitation, inheritance etc." through Power of Attorney. The Left wants to confer special protected status on all members of their Coalition, to the point that it undermines the notion of equality under the law. Gays have the same right to marry as others do, just not the same gender. Only in a few instances have various States moved to abridge their individual rights(like everyone else), and those can and have been litigated.

Crusading against Canards is the Primary reason we've neglected the Pressing Matters of State. Look Past the Agendas and think for yourselves.

May God Bless, Athwarthistory

Posted by: athwarthistory | November 19, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

As a veteran, I am really scarred about what happens to our military readyness if DADT is repealed. Repealing DADT would be a mistake, I have listen to all of the argument from both sides, but it all come down to this, TRUST. Most of america may want this repeal, but most of america is not in the Military, Most of the Military may also say they want this repeal but most of the Military do not serve on the front line, on the front everything depend on you believing the man next to you thinks the same way you think, this is what create the link between you and that link helps you survive. There is one other thing, the very fact gays want the be acknowledged by talking about there perversions tell me you are not military material becaus the military is about defending this country not all about me me me!!

Posted by: ToddPollard | November 21, 2010 7:15 PM | 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