Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:28 PM ET, 12/ 8/2010

Lisa Murkowski supports repeal of DADT

By Greg Sargent

GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski has decided to support repeal of don't ask don't tell, her spokesman tells me, potentially adding another crucial GOP vote to the Yes column and putting 60 votes within reach.

"Her vote will depend on how free and open the amendment process is, but she has reached the decision that don't ask don't tell ought to be repealed, provided that proper preparations are implemented," Murkowski spokesman Michael Brumas tells me.

With the Senate set to vote tonight on DADT repeal, this statement does not guarantee that she will vote Yes. Murkowski has given herself some wiggle room here by insisting on a "free and open" amendment process.

But this is nonetheless a step foward. Murkowski had previously been hedging on whether she supports repeal; now she does. What's more, Murkowski is saying nothing about the failure to resolve the tax deal leading her to vote No.

Also, it seems likely that if Susan Collins, the lead negotiator for GOP moderates in talks with the Dem Senate leadership, pronounces herself satisfied with the procedural offer Reid makes, Murkowski, too, could accept it.

Reid has offered Collins 15 amendments -- 10 for Republicans, five for Dems. I'm told talks are ongoing, and the offer could grow more generous. If Collins does ultimately accept, you could conceivably see more moderates than you might expect vote Yes tonight.

The botton line question here is this: Do these GOP moderates want to vote for repeal, or not? It seems like they do.

The odds are still long that this will happen. But it's still possible that it just might happen.

UPDATE, 3:39 p.m.: Murkowski's office sends over the statement indicating support that she will send out soon. Though it repeats the caveat that she needs a free and open amendment process, without specifying precisely what she wants in that regard, her statement is pretty strong, particularly this:

America is the loser when it denies those who are willing to make the great sacrifices demanded of our men and women in uniform the opportunity do so on grounds of sexual orientation. I agree with Defense Secretary Gates' view that the military can successfully implement a repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law provided that proper preparations are implemented.

By Greg Sargent  | December 8, 2010; 3:28 PM ET
Categories:  Senate Republicans, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is Obama triangulating? Naah, not really.
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

What's the word on voting for the tax cut proposal put forth by President Obama and the Republican leadership? Does a new bill have to start in the House on this, or can the Senate modify the original bill previously passed by the House last week?

I still don't see the Republicans voting for cloture without the tax bill being enacted first.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 8, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait to read these GOP amendments that are causing the big hold-up. What a frigging joke.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: Admirable job on this topic - keep it up.

One quibble: "The botton line question here is this: Do these GOP moderates want to vote for repeal."

No. Bottom line is will reid do the right thing. I'm not gonna let you forget what you previosuly had to say on this:

"My worry is that Dem leaders think that if they schedule just a few days of floor debate, and Collins balks, they'll be able to blame her unreasonableness for the failure of DADT repeal. If they do that, they will have a plausible case. The only problem will be that DADT will remain in place.

"If Dem leaders don't give Collins the floor debate she wants, there's no chance DADT will be repealed this year. If they do, there's some chance it will be repealed. And there's no serious downside to holding a week of debate, except that it might complicate the travel plans of a few dozen Senators who already have pretty comfortable lives. The latter option is clearly worth the tradeoff.

"If repeal is going to have any chance at all of happening, it's largely on Reid and Obama."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/whether_dadt_repeal_passes_is.html

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

It appears that Reid's political strategy is to schedule votes that are designed to fail to make a point. I wonder if he has decided to include DADT in this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120804596.html?hpid=topnews

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/12/senate_to_take_procedural_vote.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Posted by: jnc4p | December 8, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Why not just amend DADT to make it apply to all members of the military, regardless of sexual orientation? Don't ask or tell about heterosexual behavior either. Equal treatment for all.

That would soon put a stop to all the nonsense about how soldiers behave in their bedrooms.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 8, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Lisa Murkowski for President.

Run Lisa Run. If we are going to have a woman candidate from Alaska, at least let us have one that has proven that she does not know the meaning of the word quit.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 8, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

Where are you getting the "15 amendments" number? Everywhere else I'm seeing news, the offer is 10 amendments. Maybe they are just reporting the number of GOP amendments...but then there might be some mis-reporting going on for the following reason:

Sen. Collins wants the debate to run about average, which the average keeps being reported at 14.4 amendments...so the 15 you report here would cover that.

The haggle would then be down to HOW LONG the debate lasts, not how many amendments are being offered. I imagine the dealmaking being one of "more amendments, but less debate per amendment" or "less amendments, but longer debate" could be what's going on right now...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | December 8, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you are torturing yourself. This is not happening. Tell you what, if it happens, I'll send $200 to a charity of your choice. If it doesn't, please don't feel hopeless because you have to have energy to keep fighting for what is good and right.

Fighting is what wins battles, not finding points of agreement and working out from there (unless you are in couples therapy looking to find love, or negotiating a real estate deal both sides need to have happen, or if you are still a Barak Obama supporter).

But this is a fight, for the good people to win, the bad people have to lose.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

She sounds like a Democrat in that statement which supports my contention that what starts out progressive ends up being mainstream.


Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 8, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of the outcome, Obama failed us all on this issue because he didn't lean a million gay man march straight up to the steps Congress to put pressure on the key Senators.

Either that or its Rahm's fault.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 8, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

All this carp about how many amendments and how long for debate is just that - carp! Reid needs to agree to whatever terms the GOP wants so that we can have this chance to repeal DADT.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Reports are that the tax cut deal is unraveling in the Senate - as well as the House.


So, where does that leave us ???


The tax cut deal really has to get done (through both Houses) this week, and off the table.

Otherwise, if much of next week is taken up by the tax cut deal, all these other agenda items are going to be pushed aside.


The clock is ticking. If the democrats do not climb onto the tax cut deal - like today - and they don't get that passed through the Senate and the House right away, there will not be enough time for DADT. My guess: this whole thing is a LARK. These Senators are PRETENDING to support DADT, knowing full week that there is no time left.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

For heaven's sake, Murkowsky, homosexuals are NOT denied the opportunity to serve. Geez, do any of those voting for repeal realize this?

Posted by: mikebrooks806 | December 8, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

I expect that with Pelosi's Negative Comments on Obama's Tax Cut proposal, Pelosi may have more to getting the repeal of DADT killed than anyone else. No tax deal *could* still mean no deal on this either. And Dream Act is even more likely to die. The numbers for its support are *not* good at all.

"What's more, Murkowski is saying nothing about the failure to resolve the tax deal leading her to vote No."

Neither did Brown. It is smart not to make the commitment in so many words, but she could *still* hold out for the Tax Cut deal that 2/3rds of Americans now Support, according to Gallup. That includes even a bare amount over the 50% mark for Democrats as well. Obama got some juice with the Tax Cut Deal, but Pelosi and Reid could permanently cripple him, and DADT could still languish despite your hope that they will abandon the Tax Cut Deal. (which would be a *very* bad move politically at this point, I might add...)

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 8, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

At this point, Congress is still trying to leave town on the 17th. That can be extended - however many in Congress do not want to do that.


If they stick to that schedule, they have 9 days left. And the tax cuts deal is falling apart.


Of course, all the democrats could meet tonight, decide to support the tax cut deal and then just pass it.


That would leave the 9 days to do other things.

However, it appears at the moment that the tax cut deal is going to drag into next week. That reluctance on the part of democrats is cutting directly into the DADT time. And isn't Amnesty for illegal aliens in there too???


NOTHING has been done about inner-city violence or the gangs.


Very little has been done about drug dealers in the inner cities, or racial profiling by cab drivers.

So, it's OK to racial profile by a taxi outside the airport building, but the TSA can't do it in the building ?


It just seems like the lame duck session is just that - LAME DUCK.


Nancy Pelosi has 63 Congressman who have lost - I read somewhere they had to give up their offices already (I'm not sure if that is right) However, there are 63 staffs looking for new jobs - 63 Congressmen milling around who are either moving out of their offices or are out already.

And this DADT thing is still going on.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

@tpm:

This reminds of the late stages of the Health Care Debate ... we do have this consistent taxonomy.

1) Maine senator supports and wants to vote for Mainstream Policy X ...

2) and will vote for it if Harry Reid (D-NV) can put one hand on red, one foot on blue and still be able to spin the spinner for his next turn.

or ...

3) and will vote for it if Harry Reid can also convince Sens. DeMint, Coburn and Crapo.

or ...

4) and will vote for it as long as the clock can be run long enough so that time will run out and there won't be any vote at all.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/12/getting_to_yes.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

GO LISA!!!

Nice to know there are still moderate Republicans left.

Posted by: Alex3 | December 8, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Please, let's get everyone who supports repeal to call Reid's office and tell him to bring this to the floor no matter what the terms. This may be our only chance to get DADT repealed for a long time.

202/224-3542

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, lets bring it to the floor with unlimited debate so the jerks can tie up the Senate for the rest of this Congress!

Debate must be limited. There are other issues that need to come to the floor.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 8, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

From TPM:

Lieberman To Reid On DADT: Back Off, I Got This

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/lieberman-to-reid-on-dadt-back-off-i-got-this.php?ref=fpi

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

She sounds like a Democrat in that statement which jibes with my contention that what starts out progressive ends up mainstream.

C'mon over, Lisa, the water's fine.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 8, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

@mikebrooks806

Yes, they are.

By not being allowed to be out of the closet, then they are in fact not allowed to serve. DADT basically says "Sure you can serve, as long as you lie about yourself- and as soon as your lie is exposed, you can't anymore"

I'd try to come up with an analogy for you, but I honestly can't think of one that isn't utterly insane, which tells us something about this policy.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | December 8, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

@sue re the TPM article:

Reid is a complete @$$ and I hope anyone reading/watching this will refuse to support him in any way from this point on.

"Senate Democrats are on the precipice of getting a Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal past a key procedural hurdle tonight. But key negotiators have grown frustrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his staff for upping the pressure at a fragile moment, potentially scuttling the deal.

"I've been pleading with Senator Reid, don't hold a vote on the defense authorization bill, the repeal of DADT, until we have a good opportunity to work out a fair process for the consideration bill with Senator Collins and some of the other Republican," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) this afternoon after a Dem caucus meeting. "Senator Collins really wants to vote for the bill with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Senator Scott Brown is the same and I think there may be at least one other Republican Senator to make that clear today."

"That third Republican has since been revealed as Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski."

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

Note that Lieberman is advocating for a fair process, not unlimited debate.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I won't be here for happy hour but I was wondering if you could include this if you have a chance. Not too many people took me seriously yesterday when I expressed my concerns re Social Security and the tax cuts. This spells it out. Everyone's arguing in Congress about the Estate tax, but this is the real problem. Also, it's my understanding the Senate voted down the $250 SS check today.

http://jed-lewison.dailykos.com/

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

OT:

~GOP to Seniors: "No COLA Adjustment For You, TOUGH!"~

House Republicans on Wednesday thwarted a Democratic effort to award $250 checks to Social Security recipients facing a second consecutive year without a cost-of-living increase.

President Barack Obama and Democrats have urged approval of the one-time payment, saying seniors barely getting by on their Social Security checks face undue hardships without the COLA increase.

...Republicans contended that the nation couldn't afford the estimated $14 billion cost of the payment...

Twenty-six Republicans voted for the bill, while 141 opposed it. Democrats were in favor, 228-12.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jcpb0zj8LJ7vb_0eWGWmjfYe8ypg?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Even if Lieberman is doing the heavy lifting in lining up the votes for DADT, he's still a pariah and a rat b-----d.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 8, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

sbj is just being selfish because he knows if the unlimited debate begins, all over Democratic priorities will get pushed off the table.

Just another case of I got mine, buzz off.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 8, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Murkowski may be an enemy of a sustainable global climate, but at least she is on the side of American freedom here. Thank you, Senator, for joining with those living in the 21st century.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 8, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

228 Democrats for (which is a majority of the House) plus 26 Republicans is a majority. How could the bill not pass?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Those "R" votes are valuable. Snowe and Murkowski aren't going to give them up for free. There are going to be pet amendments attached, absolutely.

Posted by: sold2u | December 8, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

CinD said

"...what starts out progressive ends up mainstream."

Shhhh! This is the founding fear of wingnutistan.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Troll, from the article:

"The measure was brought up under a fast-track procedure that required a two-thirds majority for passage. The 254-153 vote in favor of the bill fell short of that."

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

@mike: "sbj... knows if the unlimited debate begins, all over Democratic priorities will get pushed off the table. Just another case of I got mine, buzz off."

What a bunch of garbage. What are the other priorities? Immigration rules, police and firefighters' unions, health benefits for responders to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and seniors' benefits?

We already know these will fail!

Repealing DADT has a chance if Reid can get the tax stuff through and come to an agreement on process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120804596.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Wonder why Speaker Pelosi did it that way? She has a very large majority, large enough to do literally anything she wants.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

OT, this is too good:

WikiLeaks cable: Hollywood helping to stop the spread of terrorism

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101208/ts_yblog_thelookout/wikileaks-cable-hollywood-helping-to-stop-the-spread-of-terrorism

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

sbj: "What are the other priorities? Immigration rules, police and firefighters' unions, health benefits for responders to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and seniors' benefits?"

START treaty and defense reauthorization. Jezuss, nothing important there, huh?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

@troll: "Wonder why Speaker Pelosi did it that way?"

The Dems *want* these measures to fail.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I read the two posts that jnc4p put up. I think Reid is taking a *big* gamble. But, since the only ones he can hurt with this play, win or loose, are Democrats, I say, what the heck, go for it!

Win and Obama loses on an issue that 2/3rds of Americans Support and that he has pretty much promised -- a promise only his fellow Democrats can turn into a lie. I expect a premature win here means the Tax Cuts die -- and they matter a lot more to a lot more people.

Lose, and well, he loses big and mighty. There may be no coming back from a loss this big, but if you don't care about anything else, go ahead! And if Reid is not personally invested, a permanent loss is not such a big think either!

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 8, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

It's worth emphasizing that Collins just isn't being reasonable. Looking back over the last couple of decades, a total of 10 amendments is entirely routine for this defense authorization bill, and is actually far more than the number of amendments considered most of the time.

Why not just give in and tell Collins she can have unlimited debate? Because Republicans really are desperate to kill the legislation, and the most far-right members will keep offering unrelated amendments indefinitely, running out the clock on the lame-duck session, and derailing the bill.

The aide told me, Collins is "basically asking for a unicorn for Christmas. We can't give her a unicorn."

So, is that it? Will Collins screw over gay servicemembers and blow off Pentagon requests over baseless procedural demands? That appears pretty likely.

There's also the matter of the "hostage strategy" -- Collins is part of a united GOP caucus that has vowed to kill literally every piece of legislation until Republicans are satisfied with the result of the tax debate. As of now, that includes DADT repeal.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/026980.php

Posted by: pragmaticagain | December 8, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

sbj3,

Are you suggesting that Democratic leaders would play politics with key legislative items rather than pass them? Shocking. Must be Republicans fault. D@$N YOU ROVE!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

@sue: "START treaty and defense reauthorization. Jezuss, nothing important there, huh?"

Sigh. Mike was arguing that debate over repealing DADT would mean other priorities would go by the wayside. The other priorities can't include defense authorization because that includes the DADT amendment!

As for START, the leadership is well aware that it stands nary a chance in the lame duck and, at any rate, will NOT be debated until after the tax issue is settled.

Good lord!

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

@pragmatic. She knows the Democrats have to deliver on this because the base is so mad from the tax cut compromise. She is going to ask for the world, and will probably get it.

Posted by: sold2u | December 8, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed that SBJ is feeling so disappointed in Harry Reid, considering that he was such a big backer of Harry in the past; regardless of the many campaign contributions that SBJ said he sent to that Raging Homophobe, Sharron Angle.

I wonder did SBJ mention that he made many cash contributions to Angle's campaign, when he called Reid's office to urge him to give Lazy Susan all the time she asks for?

Posted by: Liam-still | December 8, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"The Dems *want* these measures to fail."

Why on Earth would they want COLA adjustment to Seniors to fail?

Give me just one good reason.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

This Defense bill - they are trying to squeeze in Dont Ask and Amnesty for illegal aliens


Does anyone who is not insane think that after losing an election that is a good idea???


Do the liberals realize the nation is rolling its eyes at the democratic party - and walking away for good ???

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Nevermind sbj, don't bother to answer. Your comments are useless and disingenuous and I really don't give a s**t about your latest lie.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

OT

A couple weeks back, Susan Collins wanted the Bush POTUS's to weigh in on the START treaty. She got half a unicorn today. Will it be enough?

"George H.W. Bush Announces Support For START Without White House Pushing"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/george-hw-bush-announces-_n_794075.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

From politicalwire.com

Bushism Endures

Daniel Larison: "One of the stories some conservatives told themselves in 2010 was that the Tea Party movement had succeeded in getting the Republican Party 'out from under Bush.' Fresh off of a significant electoral victory aided in part by the Tea Party movement, what has been the first and most pressing priority of the Republican leadership? To make sure that the deficit-expanding tax cuts they failed to pay for in the Bush years continue to increase the deficit in the future, and to make sure that they don't pay for them now."

Posted by: Liam-still | December 8, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"I urge the United States Senate to ratify the START treaty." ~ George H.W. Bush

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1210/short_but_sweet_d53c954a-a37f-486e-94db-ca6efee55be1.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't think this Murkowsky thing is genuine - she is calculating that there is not enough time for Dont Ask before next Friday - so she can send out a "free shot" press release to try to curry favor with the special interests.


It's like a "free play" in football. The defense has already commited a penalty, so the offense has a "free play" that can be called back if they do not gain yardage.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: "Why on Earth would they want COLA adjustment to Seniors to fail? Give me just one good reason."

So they can use the vote against the GOP next year.

Politic 101.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: "Why on Earth would they want COLA adjustment to Seniors to fail? Give me just one good reason."

So they can use the vote against the GOP next year.

Politics 101.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Reid is going to call all these votes tomorrow and over the weekend.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

@troll: "Are you suggesting that Democratic leaders would play politics with key legislative items rather than pass them?"

The really amazing thing is that some folks (looking at you, ethan) can't seem to grasp this.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

And then, of course, there is this:

If you want to kill a proposed policy in Washington, one of the most devious ways to do it is with a poison pill. As a metaphor, the poison pill is relatively straightforward. You simply force something into a bill that is so politically toxic it kills the whole thing, or at least that what you try to do.

But if you‘re this year‘s minority in the House - and yes, that still means the Republicans - then you‘ve got a whole new take on the poison-pill tactic. You‘ve come a long way, poison.

This year‘s Republican lawmakers have come up with the poison s&x pill, or the poison p&rv (ph) pill, or the world‘s most cynical poison pill, depending on how you think about it. They keep coming up with ways to add the word “p&dophile” or “Vi@gra” or “r@pist” to bills that have precisely nothing to do with any of those things.

They add those things to bills so it looks like Democrats are voting in favor of p&dophiles or Vi@gra or r@pists when, in fact, they are voting for things like better school lunches.

Classy, right? Exhibit A - health reform. Republicans sent up 147 amendments last spring intended to sabotage the final bill, amendments that Democrats would have to vote down one after another to get to the final vote on health reform.

Among those 147 amendments was a real poison pill, an amendment to prohibit coverage of er&ctile dysfunction drugs for child mol&sters, an amendment that had nothing to do with health care or health reform, but everything to do with politics.

Democrats voted the amendment down so they could get to health reform. Then, come campaign time. Hello, Sharron Angle campaign ad.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Reid actually voted to use taxpayer dollars to pay for Vi@gra for convicted child mol&sters and s&x offenders. What else could you ever need to know?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978755422

There's much, much more to this story. Perhaps the righties on this blog forget how their GOP legislators have been playing this game and now you think everyone else should just play along.

Right, sbj? Unlimited debate, unlimited amendments to DADT and I'm sure you're buddy Jim Demint won't have any poison pills to add.

And you, Troll, Pelosi should have allowed for GOP amendments to that Social Security bill and I'm sure you're pal, Michelle Bachmann won't have any venom to add to it.

Right?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | December 8, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

@sbj: "So they can use the vote against the GOP next year."

Yeah mkay. That's why I told you nevermind.

For you, a comment posted at politico about DADT:

"Why don't the queers just give it up?. They are not equal, and never will be. They are deviants. People who cannot control themselves and their immoral behaviour. Americans should not have to accept their lifestyles. do they accept Christmas and everything it stands for or are they taking Jesus and the word Christmas out of the public eye because of their own intolerance and non-acceptance of Christ and the Christian lifestyle. They seem to be fine with that but no when it comes to their lifestyle then it's unacceptable and intolerant and bigoted. They don't see their own bigoted and intolerant ways, which they pas off as "separation of church and state." Their famous Jefferson line, which all of the media has permanently implanted into the Constitution. Their isn't one iota of evidence of any "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution." What it REALLY says is "The Government shall not promote nor inhibit the free exercise of religion." That is all of it for you progressives who have taken up the mantle of Jeffersons quote and ran with it. Homosexuality is immoral, deviant and wrong and nothing will EVER change those facts."

That's for you. That's what YOU support with every vote for the right.

Heckuva job.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

@prags: "They add those things to bills so it looks like Democrats are voting in favor of p&dophiles or Vi@gra or r@pists when, in fact, they are voting for things like better school lunches. Classy, right?"

Rather like the Dems forcing a COLA vote that requires 2/3rds majority knowing that it will never pass so that they can use it in Angle-type adverts themselves?

Gimmee a break!

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010 ""The Dems *want* these measures to fail."

Why on Earth would they want COLA adjustment to Seniors to fail?

Give me just one good reason."

Because in preparation for going into the minority for the next two years, they are shoring up relations with their base, which prefers to go down on principle rather than compromise, as evidenced by the reaction to the tax cut deal between the Republicans and President Obama.

These quotes are illustrative of the problems with that approach:

"In theory, these votes were supposed to demonstrate that Republicans were favoring the rich at the expense of the middle class. In practice, however, it demonstrated something else: Senate Democrats weren't strong enough to get what they wanted."

"But in this situation, she said, it's a serious political risk. To understand why the Democrats are making a show of their own weakness, she said, the public needs to understand the roots of that weakness, the clogged-up complexities of Senate rules.

"The question is...who gets blamed when they fail?" Binder said. "More often than not, it goes that the majority gets blamed for failing to govern, more than the blame gets passed to the minority."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120804596.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: jnc4p | December 8, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Prag,

I cannot understand why anyone would not vote for a bill to prevent pedophiles from getting ED drugs paid for by taxpayers.

And I'm not condemning the action, merely pointing out how procedures are used to ensure outcomes, one way or the other. The House is not the Senate. The majority, in the House have so little I clients that any bill that fails, was purposely ment to. Yes, I'm saying Speaker Pelosi's intention was for this bill to fail.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Because in preparation for going into the minority for the next two years, they are shoring up relations with their base"

So stiffing Seniors is a way to shore up relations with the Dem base... Got it.

Are you on meth?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/happy_hour_roundup_143.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 8, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Susan Collins wanted the Bush POTUS's to weigh in on the START treaty. She got half a unicorn today.

Posted by: suekzoo1
+++++++++++

Susan Collins got H.W. (41) Bush. By my reckoning, that is at least 7/8ths of the unicorn.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | December 8, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Susan Collins wanted the Bush POTUS's to weigh in on the START treaty. She got half a unicorn today.

Posted by: suekzoo1
+++++++++++

Susan Collins got H.W. (41) Bush. By my reckoning, that is at least 7/8ths of the unicorn.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | December 8, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

sbj3,

It's impossible for Ethan to believe that Saint, er, Speaker Pelosi would play politics.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

Go ahead and answer:

Stiffing Seniors is a way to shore up relations with the Dem base?

How so?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"We tried to give seniors a COLA of $250 but those evil Republicans hate old people and voted against it!"

Understand yet, ethan?

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

So Democrat's can point to the heartless Republicsns who took the food (dog food, no doubt) right out of Granny's mouth by denying her ampitince of an increase. If you want to savSocial Security and keep Granny in food versus starving to death, vote for me. It's a campaign gift to the base.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"So Democrat's can point to the heartless Republicsns"

What utter insulting BS. Do you really think that every single Democrat doesn't already KNOW that? Do you really think that after 8 years of Bush that we don't know that? What are you, on mind-altering drugs?

Democrats actually want to HELP people.

Is that so hard for you to understand?

Maybe it is hard for you to understand. Maybe it is, because just look at your own side.

Honestly. You screw the poor. You screw the unemployed. You screw the Seniors. You screw the disabled. You screw the Veterans. You screw Hispanics and African-Americans. Your whole ideology is based on the idea that you give the rich and powerful everything they could ever want and then turn around and tell the rest of the world: TOUGH SH*T.

You and your ilk don't give a s**t about any of these people. You don't give a s**t about the vast majority of Americans, yet you wrap yourself in the flag and pray to Jesus (who taught love, peace, forgiveness and care for your fellow brother and sister).

You are truly functional sociopaths of the highest order.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

You forgot to add that we want to scr*w apple pie and baseball.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010 ""Because in preparation for going into the minority for the next two years, they are shoring up relations with their base"

So stiffing Seniors is a way to shore up relations with the Dem base... Got it.

Are you on meth?"

By all accounts Speaker Pelosi is an accomplished vote counter, and prior to the mid-term election I can recall no instance of the Democratic House leadership bringing up a bill for a vote where they didn't have the votes to pass it already lined up.

What's your explanation for why Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic House leadership would bring up COLA under the fast-track procedure in the House that required a two-thirds majority for passage without having the votes to do so?

Posted by: jnc4p | December 8, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"By my reckoning, that is at least 7/8ths of the unicorn."

I like to think of it as the front end of the unicorn. Only the back end has to weigh in now.

Posted by: rmnelson | December 8, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight ... the entire GOP caucus votes against the $250 for Social Security recipients and it will be the DEMS playing dirty politics by pointing it out?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | December 8, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

shrink-

Cheers!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 9, 2010 4:22 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