Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:17 AM ET, 12/17/2010

Scott Brown will vote Yes on DADT repeal

By Greg Sargent

Gettin' closer.

Senator Scott Brown will vote Yes on the stand-alone bill to repeal don't ask don't tell when Harry Reid brings it up for a vote on Saturday, Brown's spokesperson confirms to me, putting the count of definite yes votes at 59, one away from the magic number of 60.

"Senator Brown will vote for a clean repeal bill when it comes up for a vote," Brown's spox, Gail Gitcho, emails.

Though Senator Brown had already come out in favor of repeal, it was not certain that he would vote Yes on the cloture vote -- a key distinction. Keep in mind that Brown voted No on the defense authorization bill containing DADT repeal, even though he'd already said he favored ending the policy.

Brown, like the 41 other GOP Senators, had signed Mitch McConnell's letter insisting that Republicans would oppose all Dem initiatives pending resolution of the standoffs over tax cuts and funding the government. The government funding fight has not been resolved, meaning we still don't know for certain whether moderate GOPers who say they support repeal will actually vote for it. They could also mount other last-minute procedural objections.

But Brown is now a definite Yes. Fifty-seven senators voted Yes on repeal last time, so presuming Blanche Lincoln is not holed up in a dentist's chair, and votes for repeal, that puts the definite Yes vote count at 59. Senators Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski have both said they support repeal, but we still don't have them on record saying they will definitely vote Yes on Saturday. Richard Lugar and perhaps John Ensign are also both in play.

Gettin' closer.

UPDATE, 10:44 a.m.: Actually, The Hill reported yesterday that Senator Murkowski confirmed she will vote Yes on the stand-alone bill. By my count, if you include Lincoln, that puts the definite Yes vote count at 60.

UPDATE, 11:28 a.m.: And Senator Murkowski's spox confirms to TPM this morning that she's a definite Yes vote. That's helpful, because the Hill story was paraphrased.

By Greg Sargent  | December 17, 2010; 10:17 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Will GOP spending cuts kill Obama's reelection chances?

Comments

If it passes you helped.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Greg: ""Senator Brown will vote for a clean repeal bill when it comes up for a vote," Brown's spox, Gail Gitcho, emails."

What does Brown mean by clean? No amendments?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Once the R's reneged on the omnibus and Reid was forced to go with a continuing resolution until Feb, he was able to set up the votes for both the Dream Act and repeal of DADT. What we'll be getting in Feb. is a big cut in spending from Republicans now that the deficit will be even higher. Also, where's all the celebrating of Obama's victory? I know I've been out lately but did I miss it?

Repealing DADT will be a vote worth watching.

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

"In a sign of how things will go in the near future, Reid gave up on the omnibus, but in the process, he scheduled two cloture votes, on the DREAM Act and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Both came back from the Senate with a “privileged” message, so they require only one cloture vote. How it will apparently work is that DREAM will get the first cloture vote. If it passes, it gets 30 hours of debate, and a final vote. If it fails, the Senate will move directly to DADT repeal. This will happen on Saturday morning, with a final vote for whatever passes on Sunday night or Monday morning.

Typically, when votes are “stacked” like this (I put that in quotes because the votes are not technically stacked), it means that the first one is expected to fail. None of the whip counts for the DREAM Act I’ve seen get to 60, even though two Republicans – Robert Bennett and Richard Lugar – have pledged support. If it did get to 60 it would knock out the DADT repeal vote until possibly Monday. And Ron Wyden (D-OR) will undergo prostate cancer surgery that day, and will be out of the Senate for much for next week. This puts a priority on getting things done over the weekend. Wyden will be on the Senate floor this weekend for votes."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/17/gop-gets-chance-to-cut-spending-in-february-after-omnibus-collapses/

Posted by: lmsinca | December 17, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Is there any other first (or second?) world military that doesn't allow openly gay people to serve in the military?

Apparently not. Our DADT policies as they stand apparently put us in the same class as Cuba, Egypt, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

Stand tall with our fellow super powers, Mozambique and Nigeria!

Venezuela also doesn't let gay people serve in the military. And I thought Chavez was supposed to be enlightened!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | December 17, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Apparently not. Our DADT policies as they stand apparently put us in the same class as Cuba, Egypt, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

Stand tall with our fellow super powers, Mozambique and Nigeria!
-------------------------------------------
Kevin- Please keep up, we all hopped into the DeLorean and traveled back a couple decades when people thought DADT was a good idea. I wonder if QB, skip, brigade, et al will want us to go back another 20 years when a variety of other discriminatory views were widely accepted. Come sit on my lap if you want a raise, honey.


Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I, for one, will be glad when Greg and Adam can post about something else and finally just get a room.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Sue, people think that's a good thing, because it means he's not requiring amendments or anything procedural...but I guess you never know

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 17, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I keep waiting for those plagues I've heard so much about, what with giving teh gays equal treatment under the law.

Posted by: cao091402 | December 17, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Greg, well, here's hoping that everyone on both sides just accepts the bill as written, and no one tries to sabotage it with amendments meant to doom it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

kevin: "Our DADT policies as they stand apparently put us in the same class as Cuba, Egypt, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen and Zimbabwe."

Well, actually, no. Our DADT policies are a small step ahead of those places, because some of those places might execute a gay person if they were found out. All we do is make them go home.

But I get what you mean in the bigger picture scheme of things, and appreciate that you support repeal.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

@Greg

Are you assuming that Sen. Manchin will be a 'no' vote again? Has he signalled either direction on the stand-alone repeal?

You should probably contact his office...I'm not sure why his vote isn't being considered in play as well. Considering how shoddy his reasons were last time, there's no real cover left for him here. If anything, his reasons for voting no on this bill would be entertaining to hear.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | December 17, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I, for one, will be glad when Greg and Adam can post about something else and finally just get a room.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 10:42 AM
........................

You need to stop fantasizing about them, and just come out of the closet.

People who claim that being gay is a choice, must be bi-sexual, since they are admitting that they had to make a choice.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

A last thumb in the eye of the country by this Congress before the door hits it in the rear. It's amazing act of contempt.

"I wonder if QB, skip, brigade, et al will want us to go back another 20 years when a variety of other discriminatory views were widely accepted. Come sit on my lap if you want a raise, honey."

I wonder if ashot and other libs will ever be able to distinguish one thing from another.

One of the worst things about the left is its now habitual practice of concocting some "God, country and apple pie" rationalization for its radical goals. This one is no different.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Good for Reid. (I'm wondering if this ever would have happened if not for DeMint's threat to have the omnibus read.)

Posted by: sbj3 | December 17, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

BBQ,

John Cole at Balloon Juice (who lives in WV and is a constituent) called Manchin's office yesterday and was told that Manchin does not think the time is right for repeal because of the two wars.

I'd think he's most likely a 'no.'

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The
story
now
is
that
it
is
either
Start
OR
Dont
Ask

The
Senate
is
going
home
tomorrow
night


And
Joe
from
West
Virginia
promised
he
would
not
go
along
with
the
liberal
agenda

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 17, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

BBQ,

More from John Cole:

"Just got off the phone with them and “while Joe thinks it should be repealed, he doesn’t want to do it with our troops on the front line.” In other words, he is still playing games.

I basically then went into five minute spiel about how I’m pro-choice, Joe is pro-life, but I supported him anyway, that I know he is going to vote the wrong way on anything related to energy or coal because this is West Virginia, and I supported him in the election anyway, and that I know he is going to vote a lot of times in ways that upset me. But this, I told him, is a bridge to far, and that Manchin needs to stop playing games, act like an adult, and support the repeal. I then told him that it was absolutely absurd that he needed more time to hear what West Virginians think, since he has lived in West Virginia his whole life."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/12/16/im-still-wondering-how-theyll-pull-away-the-football/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

@Greg Sargent "Sue, people think that's a good thing, because it means he's not requiring amendments or anything procedural...but I guess you never know"

When's the continuing resolution that will replace the Omnibus being brought up? A clean one already passed the House, correct?

If Reid schedules that first, I think the Senate has a real shot at repealing DADT. If he schedules it after the CR but before START, you will know that the Democratic Senate leadership is serious about this.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 17, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

THEY'VE GOT 60!

According to TPM, Murkowski has committed to voting for the stand alone repeal. This, along with Brown and Lincoln, takes the total up to 60.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/murkowskis-yes-brings-dadt-repeal-to-60-votes.php?ref=fpi

I'd imagine that with the 60 number already reached...we'll see Sen. Snowe jump on board, as well as maybe Lugar. Ensign I think holds off because he's worried about a primary from his right in 2012.

I'm still curious about Sen. Manchin, though.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | December 17, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"I wonder if ashot and other libs will ever be able to distinguish one thing from another."

Of course we can distingish one thing from another, but we can also see that while there are differences, the roots all come from the same rotted, narrow-minded thinking. More in common that different.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Re Snowe: "Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe also will vote for the bill if the Senate first passes a short-term resolution to fund the government, her spokesman said Friday."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46521.html#ixzz18O30rewY

Posted by: sbj3 | December 17, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"...will vote for the bill if the Senate first passes a short-term resolution to fund the government..."

Ok, if it goes down, now we know how it goes down, we suspected, but now we know.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

@suekzoo1

Thanks for the update from Cole. Sen. Manchin will end up on the wrong side of history...screw'em.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | December 17, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

@jnc4p: "The House last week narrowly approved a yearlong, stripped-down continuing resolution, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) conceded this also can’t get the 60 votes to cut off debate."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46520.html#ixzz18O4B2qgM

Posted by: sbj3 | December 17, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

DADT will finally be repealed.

Only thing falling is rain here in California. I assume the sky is still overhead in DC too.

What we will be blame for next? DOMA repeal will add to global warming due to increase in gay spooning? Decline in straight marriage blamed on shortage of license applications at city hall?

Posted by: ldfrmc | December 17, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"Of course we can distingish one thing from another, but we can also see that while there are differences, the roots all come from the same rotted, narrow-minded thinking."

Hate to tell you, but you are looking in the mirror.

And, no, you obviously can't distinguish one thing from another.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if ashot and other libs will ever be able to distinguish one thing from another.

---------------------------------------
So is that a yes? You would like to go back another 20 years?

I can distinguish just fine thank you. Before DADT, homosexuals were not allowed to serve at all, whether they were open about it or not. 20 years (hopefully 17) after that practice was abandoned, DADT will be similarly abandoned.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

OT, but please!! read and do something! I'm looking at you, SBJ.

If you missed The Daily Show last night, please take a look at this. John Stewart is really pushing for help for the 9/11 First Responders. It's pathetic that all those patriotic GOPers who want to wrap themselves in 9/11 continue to deny these people the help they desperately need and have earned.

We need to push for a vote on the Zadroga bill.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

9/11 First Responders are not rich. Case closed.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

@sue: "I'm looking at you, SBJ."

Good Lord - now I'm responsible for every stupid thign the GOP does - even though I'm not even a republican?

Look, if they pass the CR, and vote on DADT repeal, and THEN bring this up, I'm fairly confident that the votes are there. If Reid pushes this out for the sake of START, or if he schedules the vote too early, then there might be a problem... I actually approve of "obstruction" until we get the govt funded.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 17, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

With the correct GDP curve deficits don't matter. Trouble is it's gotta be the right curve. And talking about curves, if no one throws one we should see DADT pushng up daisies and having daisies do pushups.

Posted by: glenglish | December 17, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

All, interesting post from Adam Serwer on the real significance of the big omnibus spending fight:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 17, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"One of the worst things about the left is its now habitual practice of concocting some "God, country and apple pie" rationalization for its radical goals."

Man, this person lacks any self-awareness whatsoever, but that seems to be true of all rightwingers, a common characteristic, along with projection, which they do constantly. I am always amazed that someone can accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing themselves and be totally unaware of the irony... something wrong with the wiring there.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 17, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"I am always amazed that someone can accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing themselves and be totally unaware of the irony... something wrong with the wiring there."

I am never amazed.. After all, if people didn't have faulty wiring, if people were self-aware, if people could stop projecting their problems onto other people...I'd have to get a real job.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I don't think that the Funding was ever the priority. I saw that as somewhat like a rider that you would hope might fly, but really did not expect to. The Tax Cut Bill passed, unchanged and Obama should sign it into Law Today.

lmsinca puts up a very good comment that points out some facts that make me think that DADT Repeal is not dead, unless perversely, the DREAM Act kills it. I was not aware of the fact that Ron Wyden (D-OR) will undergo prostate cancer surgery on Monday, despite my snide comments about Democrats "being at the Dentists office" before. Had I been aware of this, I may have been a little more circuspect there.

Will everything stall out? I don't know. Will repeal of DADT make a real lasting change? I am not betting on it, but unexpected good behavior by those in the LGBT community could close the deal permanently. Acting out in even more beligerant ways will probably doom them to ultimately failing. I am pretty sure that they don't see it that way, based upon their behavioral displays to date and the Cheering coming from the Peanut Gallery. But they may wise up a bit. We can hope so. And in that case, my worries and fears will prove to be unfounded, and the repeal of DADT will be a good thing in my mind, retrospectively. I really hope I am wrong there. I really see it as putting lives at Risk for the sake of vanity of a sorts.

I think the stand alone bill has a chance. I don't think that *all* Republicans will fight for the funding issues to be totally resolved. That is not as big a fight, and I think they know they can win what they need on that in January, if need be. The have a Victory, here, and pushing it could cost them. I still think it is foolish, but not an absolute wrong to repeal DADT. We are basically going back to what existed "before" DADT, which most LGBT talking heads are *not* addressing, and *could* yeild some big shocks in the future, where they might even moan for the "good old days" under DADT.

Keep us up to date. Good or Bad, I am thinking you will...

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 17, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"I am always amazed that someone can accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing themselves and be totally unaware of the irony... something wrong with the wiring there."

Me too.

"I am never amazed.. After all, if people didn't have faulty wiring, if people were self-aware, if people could stop projecting their problems onto other people...I'd have to get a real job."

Perhaps you would work with fiona on her lack of self-knowledge, then, if you have room in your schedule of treating "homosexual panic" patients. Or is "the industry" mainly just focused on outside propaganda efforts now?

You know, btw, your "industry" has great credibility, having moved in a few years from treating homosexuality as a disorder to treating disapproval of it as a disorder. I can't believe anyone takes your industry seriously on this stuff.


Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Repealing DADT is the best present Daddy Santa could ever deliver on Christmas Eve.

Posted by: ziggyzippy | December 17, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Makes me almost want to support it because NOTHING else can get done until Gays can find a mate in the military.

Posted by: WmLaney | December 17, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

'Perhaps you would work with fiona on her lack of self-knowledge,'

1. get a mirror
2. look at it

Posted by: fiona5 | December 17, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Scott Brown sure turned out to be the exact opposite of what people thought they were going to get when they voted for him.

Brown will not be able to run for re-election in 6 years under the title of "Republican" cause he sure doesn't think or vote like one.

As a liberal, you'd think I'd be happy, but it's just the deception that creeps me out.

Brown knew just what to do to get Republicans to vote for him:

Lie.

Posted by: lindalovejones | December 17, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

TO: ziggyzippy who wrote:
“Repealing DADT is the best present Daddy Santa could ever deliver on Christmas Eve.”

^^^^^^^^^^

What do mean, for those who like to take it from behind?

Boy did Scott Brown turn out to be a big surprise to Republicans, because if Brown is Republican he sure doesn’t talk or vote like one.

I don’t think Scott Brown is going to be able to run for re-election as a Republican. He’s going to have to change horses if he does decide to run again. Republicans have been quiet on Scott Brown being so liberal, but all bets will be off if Brown starts campaigning.

But Brown sure did know how to get Republicans to vote for him this time:

Lie. Republicans can’t resist a liar.

Once again, Republicans got punked.


Posted by: lindalovejones | December 17, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"1. get a mirror
2. look at it"

That doesn't seem to have to self-recognition on your part.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Scott Brown is from Massachusetts! This is as republican as they get up there. (and don't throw Mitt Romney at me...he's from Michigan)

Posted by: Ukdnme | December 17, 2010 2:58 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