home

Dream Act Goes Down, DADT Repeal Succeeds On Cloture Vote

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:41:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Senate in action today. Dream Act has failed on the cloture vote. DADT is succeeds on cloture vote. Passage of DADT Repeal is now virtually assured.

C-Span is covering the votes.

< The Race To Cut The Deficit Starts Right After The Bush/Obama Tax Cuts | Saturday Open Thread: Take a Moment >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dream Act Goes Down, DADT Repeal Succeeds On Cloture Vote | 153 comments (153 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    DADT repeal has the votes (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:46:50 AM EST


    Republicans voting (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:08:33 AM EST
    for cloture on DADT

    Brown (R-Mass)
    Collins (R-Maine)
    Kirk (R-Ill.)
    Murkowski (R-Alaska)
    Snowe (R-Maine)
    Voinovich (R-Ohio)

    In a surprise, Wyden is there today rather than preparing for surgery.

    Parent

    He was one of the first people (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:10:06 AM EST
    to speak this morning.

    Parent
    WRT DREAM, I hope Senator Cornyn (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    isn't planning to spend the rest of his life in the Senate. I don't think he has more than a couple of terms to squeeze out of the Texas electorate.

    You pay attention to these things (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:07:18 PM EST
    So you no doubt have a basis for this.  What makes you say so?  

    But even so, a couple of terms gives him ten years (including this term) to do some damage.

    Parent

    The voting age population (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:09:51 PM EST
    is projected to be minority-majority in the not-too-distant future.

    Parent
    Ah, thank you (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:14:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Half of the kids in public school (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    in Texas are Latinos....

    Parent
    On DREAM, Orrin Hatch (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    didn't even bother to vote.

    Coward.

    speaking of cowards (none / 0) (#114)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 09:02:49 PM EST
    Iowa's Chuck Grassley was a co-sponsor of Hatch's "Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003" but voted against cloture on the DREAM Act today. No press release from his office on that vote or on DADT. On a typical day I get several press releases from Grassley--rarely does he not issue a statement on a major piece of legislation the Senate has considered.

    Parent
    We spent the last (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    few months beating the heck out of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

    Let's give them some applause.  This is awesome and exactly what they said they'd do after getting the defense report.

    This actually happen the way Obama planned it.  Good deal.

    I take it guerillawomen became boring? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by tigercourse on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    This is one of the few thing Obama and the Dems have accomplished in the last 2 years. The economy is still in shambles. Unemployment is kissing 10 percent. Environmental reforms have fallen by the wayside. The war in Afghanistan has been lost. Our national infrastucture is crumbling. Many of our major cities are dying. The country is continuing on a seemingly inexorable path of decay...

    So congratulations Obama, Reid, etc. for managing to do one thing right.

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:48:51 PM EST
    It's been reported that Obama was trying to get them to skip the vote on DADT and focus on Start.  If Obama wanted to wait until the next Congress, he was fine will killing repeal.

    Parent
    you know that whole... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sj on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:14:03 PM EST
    ... thing they do about "don't do this now, do that" and "I won't vote for this now because that should have been done first" as if only one thing can ever be managed at one time really torques me.  I have to be able to manage multiple tracks in my life, what give them a pass?  Do they think we don't notice?

    Parent
    Nice try at gassip (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:11:30 PM EST


    Parent
    2/3 done (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by sj on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    Right now Pelosi and Reid have done their part.  Good on them.

    Now O needs to do his part (jbindc's comment above).

    Parent

    awebama! awabama! (none / 0) (#36)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    11th-dimensional chess!

    go team!

    Parent

    So what is the plan if it passes (none / 0) (#43)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    as I have not found info about how Obama planned it (other than that this was to occur in his first year).  

    If repeal passes today, see comment #31 as to what has to happen next.  How soon?  Will there be an order barring discrimination?  Etc.; what's the plan?

    Parent

    There's a timetable (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:07:30 PM EST
    in the legislation that passed today, so you can Google that if it concerns you.

    Not going to happen overnight, but nobody's going to get thrown out of the military in the meantime.

    "An order barring discrimination" is a very different matter.  Discrimination is still entirely legal.

    Parent

    Thanks; I think that timetable (none / 0) (#85)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    is the one that I noted (see comment #31)?  

    And of course, actual implementation concerns me -- and people I know who still cannot come out safely and would like to know, too.  Thus my question re whether there is a plan in the White House for this.  If you know more than what I already noted, please say so -- as it seems to concern you, too?

    Parent

    Certainly it concerns me (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 08:03:48 PM EST
    But our military is, as it should be, pretty conservative (in the non-political sense in this context) and wants to take its time to suck its thumb and ponder how to implement change.  They don't really need to, IMHO, in this case, but if Gates thinks it will make it easier in the long run, maybe he's right.  However, they follow orders, and they will do as they're told by Congress and the president.

    Not going to be fully implemented overnight because much of the brass, unlike our soldiers, are a bunch of wusses.  But they'll do it.

    What will happen with people caught half-way in the DADT discharge process I don't know, but I find it hard to believe they're going to get thrown out now that the law is gone.

    Parent

    They have been working on (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    what will be needed to make the changes for well over a year now.  They have had legal task forces along with many others designing how to successfully implement if we ever got this far.  We won't be starting out at square one, very very far from it.

    Parent
    I'll take it. <n/t> (none / 0) (#81)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:10:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Very happy (none / 0) (#139)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 08:52:44 AM EST
    with the Dems today.  Kudos to Obama for maintaining this as an important issue.

    Parent
    Nervous about a Draft??? (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by gravlox on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:22:19 PM EST
    I have a 16 year old son who will be 'of age' soon.  We do not believe in the wars being fought and are shocked at the amputees and body bags coming home, like how I remember Vietnam as a child.  Only they say this war is more brutal in some ways.

    People are saying that if DADT is repealed, that it may lead to a draft.  Their logic is that because it's now an all volunteer military drawn largely from conservative families, a drop in volunteers should be expected.  You see those ads the military pitches to the families of young men and women trying to pursuade them.  What will these conservatives tell their kids when the military is openly-gay?

    There was talk not long about about instating a draft but the powers that be seemed to think as long as they kept up these ads, the ranks would resupply the wars.  But if a drop in recruitment happens as an uncalculated outfall of repealing DADT, all arrows are pointing in the direction of a draft.

    I don't want my son to die for some rich man's war!  I hope my dear gay and lesbian friends can see my concerns?  I support who they are and what they do but is talking about that openly more important than a draft?  I'm really torn on this.

    Anybody?  Help!

    Who are these "people" (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:37:13 PM EST
    and what gives them any credibility?

    This reads to me like a pretty sophisticated troll.

    Parent

    oh please (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:39:13 PM EST
    I don't want my son to die for some rich man's war! I hope my dear gay and lesbian friends can see my concerns?

    concern troll much?

    first, anyone who wants to enlist already knows that there are Big Gay Soldiers in uniform, even if nobody "asks" & the Big Gay Soldiers "tell"

    second, this country won't need a draft - in case you haven't noticed, economic opportunities are being foreclosed for all but the children of the elite - more & more young people will be forced to enlist just so they can eat & have access to health care

    so please don't lay the responsibility for the country's destructive & illegal wars on your "dear gay friends" & their annoying wish to "talk openly" about "who they are"

    Parent

    You do have a point (none / 0) (#39)
    by gravlox on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    I suppose you do have a point about the economy and young people having to sign up.  I actually know two friends of my son's who had to do this.  Luckily one got into the Coast Guard and the other the Air Force.  Both run relatively low risk of death.

    I know there are gays in the military and always have been.  I don't want them to not be there! I just hope that conservative families keep filling the ranks after DADT is repealed.  I think it's sick that poor people have to fight to eat and keep an income.

    I don't want my son to come home in a body bag though much more than I want people to be able to talk freely about their sexual orientations.  That's all I was saying.

    Parent

    I have a different view (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:47:11 PM EST
    so long as we have a professional, full-time, military (and we will for the foreseeable future), we absolutely, positively, cannot cede service to conservative nutcases.

    When they are the only ones with the weapons and the training, we are in serious trouble.

    Parent

    Like the Air Force Academy (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by hairspray on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    in Colorado Springs!

    Parent
    That's exactly what I have in mind (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:31:55 PM EST


    Parent
    While the military as an institution (none / 0) (#134)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    is socially conservative, there are and always have neem a number of extremely liberal people serving.

    However, discrimination against liberals in the military is 'fair game.'

    It's one of those things. Like picking on the folks who look fat, or people who have protruding  front teeth, or pockmarks from acne.

    If you don't think these matter, you're mistaken. Ask MT about one's jacket photo. I think she stated that in the past couple of years those are no longer used, but they sure used to be.

    Parent

    Repeal DADT mean a draft? (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by gravlox on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    Are you thinking that a mandatory draft forcing liberal conscienscious-objectors into service is a way of balancing out the political winds in the ranks of the military?

    The ravages of the Vietnam war, where young men were forced into bloody skirmishes to protect American, French and English tea and rubber plantations is a gift that keeps on giving.  A neighbor of mine had to cut two teenage girls in half who were just standing on their front porch trying to defend their small farm that was near a rubber plantation the US was trying to secure.

    War is sick and there are good reasons to object.  I don't want my son forced to join up.  when you enlist you sign away a whole host of rights.  My brother broke his leg skiing just before boot camp and got into trouble for "damaging government property".  They literally own you.  

    I just don't want an intellectual battle of people just being able to talk about sexual behavior, to force a draft that ushers in pain and suffering on a level that far exceeds any being felt from just not discussing orientation?

    Parent

    uh??????? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    This has nothing to do with my comment. At all.

    Parent
    I think your first assessment (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by sj on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    of this commenter was right.

    Parent
    tell you what (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:33:00 PM EST
    why don't you stop talking about your son - who is obviously the product of "sexual behavior"

    Parent
    Excuse me, but (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    if you are not actually a troll, which I'm uncertain about, and you're soooooo concerned about this issue, did you not notice the results of the very biased survey the Pentagon took of service members?  Close to 80 percent said they couldn't care less about gays serving openly in the military.

    I think you're either a troll or you've been listening to Pat Robertson TV or something.

    Parent

    I just saw a report that (none / 0) (#86)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    the survey results were more than 80 percent for combat troops and more than 90 percent for other troops who are fine with repealing DADT?  

    I don't see how such figures could suggest need for a draft, but evidence doesn't stop nonsense.  

    Parent

    There's no such nonsense (none / 0) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    among the military itself, and none that I've seen in the Congress.  As far as I'lm aware, CHarlie Rangel is the only one who's proposed reinstituting the draft, and he's done so for reasons unrelated to Teh Gays.  Personally, I think a draft would be a good idea, but it ain't happening.

    Parent
    The Draft (none / 0) (#111)
    by gravlox on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    Well if it was on the table, I sure don't want them using an excuse of less volunteers to enact a draft.  

    Most of the left folks seem to be youngsters.  Forgive me, I'm over 45.  I remember vividly still the ravages of the Vietnam war, the protests, how it divided our country.  I've personally known so many vets who were emotionally and physically scarred from it.  You kids [I'm not being patronizing, only matronly] don't remember the hell that these young people went through as objectors to violence and fighting for money against their will via the Draft.  It was HUGE back then and I live in fear of it now.

    Parent

    Well then, if you are so worried about the draft (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 08:41:58 PM EST
    you might want to turn your attention to the economy and pray that it stays in the crapper . . . just sayin'.

    I'd love to know who you think is a "kid" here . . .

    Parent

    Really! (none / 0) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 11:23:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes, well I'm no "youngster" (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Zorba on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 09:19:55 PM EST
    I'm over 60, and I was personally involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement and I too, knew many vets who were ruined by the war- that's how I got into the anti-war movement, because of a friend (in a wheelchair) who was active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War .  If you're so concerned about the re-institution of the draft and so worried about your son, then start protesting the wars we are currently involved in and doing what you can to make sure they do not occur again.  And spare us your faux concern and hang-wringing about letting LGBT's openly serve leading to a draft.  Give me a frigging break.

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    Since I'm apparently old enough to be your mother and a veteran of the anti-war movement of the '60s and '70s, that's a pretty funny post.

    The reason I think we should have a draft is precisely because of the upheaval about the Vietnam war.  If the privileged and very reluctant children of the well-to-do had to go to war in the same numbers as the poor or the gung-ho, we'd have a hell of a lot more sane war policy in this country than we do now.

    Oh, and don't patronize people you know nothing about, kay?


    Parent

    Sexual behavior? (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by mexboy on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 07:31:18 PM EST
    You obviously have not yet mastered the faux-liberal talk and are an obvious troll.
    I just don't want an intellectual battle of people just being able to talk about sexual behavior, to force a draft...

    Give it a rest. No one is buying your ignorant scare tactics; and for your information, the armed forces have laws dealing with sexual behavior. Oh, but you meant to say that being gay is a behavior, didn't you?

    Go peddle your bigotry somewhere else. You imply that the core of a person's being is a behavior in order to denigrate the very essence of that person and to negate their value as whole human beings and then you wrap it in pseudo concern for a non-existent draft in order to gain sympathy and crush the spirit of your fellow Americans who are GLBT.

    Parent

    Consider the trolling (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    to be part of the reaction we will be seeing.  After all, the impact of repeal of DADT goes beyond the scope of the military, per se, to the culture wars that have served some politicians and preachers for decades.  Respect for human rights is never easy and institutionalization of justice  for all is even more so.  Just as  the integration of the military affected human rights in society as a whole, so too, will the ability of gay women and men to serve in the military as themselves.  It is a big loss for the bigots and the purposes they serve, and we should anticipate  all dangers inherent to a death rattle.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 10:26:39 AM EST


    Parent
    It is the end of the religious right (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:13:10 PM EST
    Repeal of DADT is historic.  20 years from now, it will be remembered.

    It is also devastating to social conservatives....The Family Research Council went nuts over this.

    The social conservatives have lost the culture wars.  They exist to do basically two things:  criminalize abortion and oppose gay rights.  On abortion, they have largely failed.  On gay rights, they are spectacularly failing.

    Gay marriage just got a boost.  Justice Kennedy is much more likely to rule in favor of gay marriage now--as the repeal of DADT will show greater societal acceptance of gay rights.  That will hopefully make Kennedy feel more comfortable that he would not be creating social chaos by ruling in favor of gay marriage.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Thanin on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    "Are you thinking that a mandatory draft forcing liberal conscienscious [sic]-objectors into service is a way of balancing out the political winds in the ranks of the military?"

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    Parent

    Well, there are all kinds (none / 0) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    of excuses for being worried about repeal of DADT.  Of course, we have General Amos and his concern for "distraction" of Marines on the battlefield and winding up killed or injured; McCain's get off the lawn rants; and, Senator Manchin's (D. WV), need to skip the vote so as to attend a family Christmas party.  The draft idea is daft but not much more so.

    Parent
    More than fighting within ranks (1.00 / 2) (#129)
    by gravlox on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    One of the most worrisome concerns I've heard is not that there will be intolerance within the ranks but that an openly gay military will spur more attacks and deaths/dismemberments from Al Qaida.  

    Remember, this is a war they've declared on religious grounds.  The new policy will equal more deaths for our soldiers, and more deadly environments on the fronts overall.  I think this is why the marines overwhelmingly objected to openly gay service while other branches not directly hand to hand with the enemy thought it was no big deal?

    Al Qaida hates homosexuals more than anything else.  I hope we haven't also invited more death.  As much as I support gays and lesbians being able to come out of the closet, I wonder if talking about their sexual orientation in the military for reasons of the draft and the increased hostility is such a wise idea?

    There may be some old protestors from the Vietnam era here.  Wazzup my homies!..lol... but I still think the majority of very left people are quite young and just not thinking outside the box right now being swept up in the wave of a popular movement?

    Parent

    Troll--he thought he could get liberals (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:14:21 PM EST
    to bite on the anti-Vietnam War words.....

    Parent
    You really think it is a Conservative filled (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:33:08 PM EST
    military?  There sure are lots of different forms of bigotry aren't there?  I would have to say Independents are just as large a group in the military ranks as Conservatives....just not as loud and obnoxious :)

    Parent
    It won't lead to any sort of draft (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    It won't lead to any mass exodus.  I don't know who is saying such things.  Sounds bizarre.  Most of the military does not care what someone's sexual orientation.  Most of the military has already knowingly served beside a soldier who is of a different sexual orientation.  It ain't no big thang.

    Parent
    Deserting isn't issue, recruitment is for Draft (1.00 / 4) (#88)
    by gravlox on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    It's not that it will lead to an exodus, that's called mutiny anyway.  You aren't allowed to quit or sabotage your post by military law.

    It's that it will lead to a lack of recruit volunteers that used to come predominantly from conservative families whose religious beliefs force them to dissuade their kids now from signing up.  That will force a draft by simple arithmetic.

    If I'm right, that we walked right into a trap from our own compassion for gays and lesbians, and it results in a win for the GOP in 2012, I fear it will be less than a nanosecond for the then GOP sitting president to reinstate DADT with one command [as commander in chief can do], only wihtout the "Ask" part.  In other words under the new regieme we may have just ushered in, not only will gays not be able to talk about their orientations, they may be actively spied on and ousted for being gay.  

    What have we just done??

    Parent

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sj on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 05:28:04 PM EST
    Could I submit that this commenter appears to be a "chatterer" as referenced in your comment policy?

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Chatter? (none / 0) (#91)
    by gravlox on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 05:31:28 PM EST
    OK, let me know what we are allowed to talk about?

    Parent
    Gravalox please read (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:30:40 PM EST
    the comment rules. As a new commenter, you are limited to 10 comments a day. If you chatter, you are limited to 4. The consensus here is you are chattering -- expressing a view contrary to that of the site and posting repeated comments making the same point.

    Please come back another day.

    Parent

    Give it a rest (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by mexboy on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    It's that it will lead to a lack of recruit volunteers that used to come predominantly from conservative families whose religious beliefs force them to dissuade their kids now from signing up.

    True conservative families whose religion forbids them to treat other children of the creator as equal, for being who they are, should be more concerned with the sixth commandment: thou shall not kill!

    I'm fed up with faux-religious people trying to shove their religion down everyones throat!

    Parent

    Religious beliefs? (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 07:53:43 AM EST
    Really?  I know as many Agnostics and Athiests in the Army as I know Christians.

    Many people in the military are students of sociology and evolution and understand that violent conflict IS PROFOUNDLY HUMAN since we managed to crawl out of the mud.

    One of the first serious discussions I ever had with my husband way back when we were first dating was whether or not the study of war creates war....or if the lack of study of war just creates better victims.  Nobody won that one either.

    I can't believe you actually believe that our military is made up of solely a bunch of mostly mindless bible thumping Conservatives.  And that if that subset became "mad" about something, kids that could only use the muzzle of their weapon for a daisy vase would be force to go to Afghanistan to search for daisies.  

    Parent

    here is what you said earlier (none / 0) (#96)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:03:54 PM EST
    I just don't want an intellectual battle of people just being able to talk about sexual behavior

    to give you the benefit of the doubt, you mistakenly view being lesbian/gay as being all about "sexual behavior"

    which is why i suggested earlier that instead of telling gay/lesbian folks to shut up so your son won't get drafted & come home in a body bag (which i sincerely hope does not happen to your son or anyone else's), you should STFU about your son

    after all, that is what you would have to do in order to be consistent - to talk about your son is, by your own definition, to reference your own "sexual behavior" (or his biological parents' "sexual behavior," if he was adopted)

    so if we must quell discussion about "sexual behavior" for any reason, including your fear of the draft, why don't you go first

    Parent

    There won't be a draft, because (none / 0) (#135)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 12:51:59 AM EST
    there's an easy solution, pay more. As long as the military keeps the pay up, there is no need for a draft. It's economics.  If we paid $100,000 a year for every job in the military, gay, straight, men, women, we'd have people lined up around the block.  

    Parent
    Now I'm thinking we just walked into a trap? (1.00 / 5) (#83)
    by gravlox on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:14:44 PM EST
    Now when Obama and the dems look responsibl­e for the blood spilled in retaliator­y attacks from "Al Qaida" for our new openly-gay military, and a draft has to be enacted to make up ranks that conservati­ve christian families used to fill with their sons and daughters, the republican party should have no trouble at all roping in those contested middle votes in 2012.

    Once again, good intentions walked us right into a political trap. If Obama signs that law, he signs the death warrants of the predictabl­e new assaults on our marines, as well as the death certificat­e for any democratic hopes in 2012.

    We may be compassionate, but the GOP operates like crocodiles in a swamp.  They put up McCain as their "voice of opposition".  Then allowed enough votes [from their stonewall of zero] to get it to pass.  Right there I was suspicious..

    God, they're so evil.  Knowing troops would die and using that to their political gain.

    {head desk} (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 05:51:36 PM EST


    Parent
    troll on aisle #83 (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:07:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Buwhahahhahahaha! (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 07:59:20 AM EST
    Al Qaeda is a little gay too you know :)  And you don't get kicked out of Al Qaeda for it that I've heard of.  I think it is a form of cultural misogyny myself, but culturally the love of one man for another is considered cleaner than the love of me because on occassion I bleed a little.

    Parent
    HUH???? (none / 0) (#136)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 12:52:58 AM EST


    Parent
    kind of off-topic question (none / 0) (#1)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    but related to Senate asshat-ery: does the failure of the omnibus spending bill mean the provision barring transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to US (even for trial) is also dead? I guess they can always attach that to some other bill later.

    Yes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:47:23 AM EST
    for now.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    Passed House again yesterday.

    Rumors are that it was in exchange for DADT "yea votes.

    Parent

    Ah (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

    Parent
    Oh, for God's sake! (none / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:49:58 PM EST
    That's just disgraceful.  Do we know who the GOPers who used that ugly bit of blackmail are?

    Parent
    Five Dems (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    kill the Dream Act.

    Mark Pryor - Arkansas
    Jon Tester - Montana
    Max Baucus - Montana
    Kay Hagan - North Carolina
    Ben Nelson - Nebraska

    Five votes short of 60 (55-41)

    Republicans voting in favor:
    Richard Lugar
    Lisa Murkowski
    Robert Bennett

    plus Manchin (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    who technically didn't vote but released a statement today saying he couldn't support DREAM because it didn't require people to get a college degree. Jackass.

    Parent
    When people make objections like that (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    you can be sure that they would have been prepared to find any reason to justify their position.

    Parent
    Canadians in Montana??? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    Fascinating that the two Senators from Montana must be so afear'd of an invasion from the North Country or somewhere close by...so concerned are they that denial of positive youths' dreams becomes their answer.  And: After all these years of my joking about Richrd Lugar as "Richard Nixon's favorite Mayor," I'm retiring that appellation in view of a number of decent positions he has taken (including this important one) over the years.

    Parent
    Hahahaha! (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Zorba on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    Oh, no!  Illegal Canadians in Montana!  Are Tester and Baucus afraid that Montanans are all suddenly going to end every question with "eh"?  ;-)

    Parent
    Sure, it is all fun and games... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    ...until you're forced to eat backbacon, drink LaBatts, wear a touque and sit on a chesterfield.

    Nobody is laughing then, eh?

    Parent

    Murkowskis (none / 0) (#18)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:43:24 AM EST
    Going reverse Lieberman & voting out of spite now

    Parent
    Can't pick on Lieberman today (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:49:22 AM EST
    He is having a very good day. Without him the DADT repeal may not be on the docket.

    Parent
    I wouldnt be so quick... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Thanin on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    to give praise on this for him.  Reid is advocating for lieberman to run for reelection, so theyve given him this project to try and mend bridges in a blue state.  If it hadnt been him it would have been another Dem senator, possibly Gillibrand since she has to run in New York in 2012.

    Parent
    Motivations or not... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    Lieberman delivered here. I've always believed in giving credit when it is deserved; and, in this case, he deserves a thank you. BTW, that in no way excuses his other bad positions.

    Parent
    Agreed. My aspiration (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:46:08 PM EST
    for myself has always been that if I disagree  with you on agenda item A, win or lose, I move to Agenda item B  without any carry over--just start over on the merits.  Lieberman did very well on this agenda item,, and for that I thank him.  Senator Reid deserves big thanks as well.

    Parent
    That's not true. (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by masslib on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:41:29 PM EST
    Look, I'm no Lieberman fan but Reid would never have stood his ground if Joe hadn't just refused to give up.  The guy actually does have a good track record with civil rights.  He's been the leading Senator for years trying to get DC representatives voting rights.  

    Parent
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Thanin on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:55:01 PM EST
    I mean I'd prefer you be right, but when it comes to pols I generally find it safer to be a rabid cynic.

    Regardless, I of course am glad DADT got repealed, but I'm just not going to give lieberman any credit.  So I'll agree to disagree.

    Parent

    Gillibrand has been very active on this (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:02:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh yeah she has... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Thanin on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    She is the new Dem senator in New York, so she pretty much has to.

    If I remember right, and I may be wrong, but I think her rhetoric was much more centrist, back when she was only concerned with the more conservative constituents in NYs 20th congressional district, before she got the senate appointment.  After the appointment she took a hard left turn.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    The Republicans in the Senate are heavily courting him to caucus with them or to switch parties.

    Parent
    True... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Thanin on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:25:11 PM EST
    I saw an interview where they asked him directly if he was going to switch and he gave a non-answer answer.  I could see him pulling a Specter as a last resort if he didnt have the Dem establishment backing him up.  

    Any actual Dem candidates in CT are going to get the same treatment Sestak did.

    Parent

    I'd look at the fine print, too. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    From TPM:  Repeal does "not necessarily mean an immediate end to the military's ban on open homosexuality. Rather, it puts the final repeal timetable entirely on President Obama's plate. As Commander in Chief of the military, he'll work out a final repeal timetable with the Pentagon chiefs who will implement it. You can expect the groups that have been pressuring Congress to pass repeal to now turn their attention to Obama, calling on him to end DADT as soon as possible."

    Parent
    Statement from SDLN (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    (Sevicemembers Defense Legal Network)

    Timeline and certification explained:

    WHAT IS CERTIFICATION:

    * The President would transmit to the congressional Armed Services Committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:

    o (A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report's proposed plan of action.

    o (B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).

    o (C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

    * "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will still be the law at this point. Service members will still be discharged. Read SLDN's warnings: www.sldn.org/StillAtRisk.

    REPEAL EFFECTIVE 60 DAYS AFTER CERTIFICATION TRANSMITTAL:

    * After the President transmits written certification to the congressional Armed Services Committees, full repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be effective 60 days later.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT:

    * Merely repealing DADT won't ensure that lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members can serve free of discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Policies and regulations would need to be written and put in place. SLDN will encourage the President to issue an executive order protecting service members from discrimination based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.

    o This gives the President the opportunity to show strong leadership by adding non-discrimination of sexual orientation to the uniform side of the military via Executive Order.

    o EO 9981 (1948) issued by President Harry Truman prohibited discrimination in the armed services on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

    o EO 11478 (1969) prohibited discrimination in employment within the federal government based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or age. It applied to all civilian employees, including those in the Defense Department.

    o EO 13087 (1998) issued by President Bill Clinton added sexual orientation in federal employment guidelines has been successful and set a durable precedent. OPM issued a guidance booklet in 1999, http://www.opm.gov/er/orientation.htm.




    Parent
    Lot's of places to make (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    trouble.  Fierce advocacy will be needed for implementation in accord with expectations for repeal.  Sec Gates argued for legislative repeal to avoid court action--which would make the military act immediately.  That part caused pause, what with repeal acknowledged as a when rather than an if.  The military is known for its contingency plans, after all.  Also, the part that requires more than the president's OK seems odd. Let's hope General Amos is not promoted to Chair JCS.

    Parent
    Oh this never would have happened without him. (none / 0) (#87)
    by masslib on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:43:34 PM EST
    I mean, it would have eventually, but I don't think in this legislative session.  He shows what can happen when you work like dog to do something right.

    Parent
    Looks like (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:46:48 AM EST
    there's support in her state for it (at least based on the editorial page).

    Parent
    Markos will have Tester's hide for that (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    I really can't believe Democrats voted against the Dream Act.

    Parent
    Reid says that final passage of Repeal (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:22:27 AM EST
    should happen around 3PM this afternoon, assuming the UC being discussed now goes through.

    That's sooner (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:27:36 AM EST
    Than reported - it was supposed to be tomorrow night.

    Onto a presidential signing, a certificaton, and a 60-day waiting period.

    Parent

    The happy reasoning (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    is that Senators don't feel like working all weekend.

    The next battle is next year's appropriations. I expect that Republicans will attempt to block implementation through the spending power.

    Parent

    This is pretty cool (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdm251 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    Obama really has managed to accomplish a lot in two years, yeah it hasn't been perfect but I didn't think I would see health reform or the end of DADT in my lifetime.

    "A lot" (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:29:44 AM EST
    is relative.  He did do "a lot" - for Republicans.

    If DADT passes - props to him and the Democratic leadership.

    Parent

    i'm still waiting for health care reform (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:46:25 AM EST


    Parent
    C'mon, be fair! (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    You are so demanding!

    Parent
    Be fair, jbindc? (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    It is about to be a good day for a lot of people today. When kudos are deserved.... A person's position is actually accorded more respect and strength when his/her own response displays graciousness. Just sayin.'  

    Parent
    Which is what I said above (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    Despite not much pushing for repeal, the Obama administration got a win.

    That, however, does not constitute his administration "doing a lot".

    Parent

    "Be gracious" (none / 0) (#66)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    and "Just sayin'" are contradictory messages, so just pick the one that you want.

    Parent
    Not inconsistent (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    The Dem leadership in Congress and Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins deserve the most credit.  Obama gets credit because it was on his watch.

    However, my response to the comment that "Obama did a lot" is accurate.

    1 big win does not erase all the other stuff.


    Parent

    Not at all true (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 04:09:49 PM EST
    The repeal gained steam because of Gates and Mullin's support--and they surely did not take public positions on this out of nowhere.  The President picks the Secreatry of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

     The year long review--that clearly was something that came from the White House.

    Without Mullin, Gates and the Pentagon review, you would not have had repeal.  The proof of that is that Collins voted against DADT earlier in the year because she wanted to see the results of the report first.

    This was Obama's doing as much as the others....

    Parent

    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#70)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:20:55 PM EST


    Parent
    That's better, since (none / 0) (#71)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    "just sayin'" meant whatever you said.

    Parent
    "Health reform" will be gutted by the (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    Republicans over the next few years. And the "Health reform" wasn't much in the first place. But ending DADT will be something I didn't expect.

    Parent
    Oh, please (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:59:59 PM EST
    Obama has done zippo to push this with the Congress.  They did it themselves.  I don't doubt Obama thinks repealing DADT is a good idea, like the public option, but he wasn't willing to spend one iota of anything to make it happen.  At least he didn't bargain it away at the get-go, like he did the PO.

    Look, you can't have it both ways.  You can't excuse the bad stuff that happens under his watch by pleading that he's powerless against the Congress and then turn around and give him credit for stuff that does pass without his involvement.

    Get a grip.

    Parent

    he could have done more (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by CST on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:37:58 PM EST
    but at the end of the day, it passed.

    And one thing we know, is that John McCain voted against this, and President Obama will sign it.

    So there's that.

    I'm all for not excusing the bad.  But give credit where it's due.  If there was a republican president right now this wouldn't be happening.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:13:54 PM EST
    (1) In recent months, there does seem to be reporting evidence that the President & the Administration made significant persuasion calls (even as late as last night and this morning--per AP)
    (2) Not any of us knows what an individual was thinking/feeling absent evidence to the contrary.
    (3) The President is getting important credit together with the Congress in the news reported this afternoon. (While we all know that the media can say all kinds of things about all kinds of matters...nonethess, that is the reporting trend as of now.)

    Parent
    No doubt he'll sign it (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by NealB on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    Did he care whether it ever reached his desk? There's no factual evidence to support that he did.

    Parent
    Nor evidence to support that he didn't (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    Ergo: Maybe the "feeling" thing is a non-issue?

    Parent
    Everything I've heard and read (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 08:15:12 PM EST
    is that Obama has not only not actively supported DADT repeal with Congress but has told them it's not a priority-- until he caught holy hell for the tax deal with the GOPers and for the first time really started to worry about The Base and needed to throw them a bone.

    So "persuasion calls" of very recent vintage don't move me in the slightest.

    I'll say it again.  I don't for a minute think Obama doesn't believe DADT repeal is the right thing to go, but it was never important enough for him to risk even a tiny bit of political capital on.

    Yeah, <yawn> good for him he said he was for it publicly, but face it, this is hardly a champion of women's or gay rights.  Even Mike Ensign and Richard Burr voted for it, for heaven's sake.

    Parent

    You know, JFK and RFK (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    get credit for their part in the Civil Rights struggle--even though they were initially quite tepid....

    Obama will sign it.

    Do you think a President Palin, Romney or McCain would have?

    Parent

    When all is said & done (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    it had to have come down to organized teamwork...President Obama, Senator Reid, & Senator Lieberman at the pivot. How this was maneuvered through that "august body" after all the pronouncements of burial is a story in itself. Timing, trades, positioning. Somehow, Reid (who can cause one to emit all kinds of unfavorable epithets) has the "dumb like a fox" ability to forge results when the reporters had written him off with each earlier foray.

    Parent
    Too bad we pretty much had (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 08:43:59 AM EST
    to sacrifice important spending considerations in order to get repeal of DADT - a deal Obama was apparently just fine with - and after pretty much dragging his feet for lo, most of the last two years on something he claimed was a priority when he campaigned and as he was sworn in, Obama can happily claim yet another accomplisment.

    It would be helpful if you could point to something a lot more substantive than just Obama saying he supported repeal, and point us to the reporting about the "persuasive calls," because I have seen nothing about that.

    When all is said and done, I'm willing to trade Obama being able to claim victory on an issue he had very little to do with actually accomplishing because repeal has been the right thing to do for a long, long time.

    Too bad it's just one more example of Obama's pattern: let others do the work and then claim the credit.

    Parent

    AP has reported periodically about the calls (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    from the WH and other discussions. As for claiming credit: Hey, I personally don't know what footwork was involved by the WH or the others on the leadership team...but, traditionally, when something happens on a President's watch, they get the credit. Just as when something doesn't happen--that we want to see happen--the WH occupant suffers the political consequences. (I suspect we all know that those "conventional wisdoms" may be a tad over-the-top either way. Yet, it does make a certain amount of organizational sense.)

    As for "deals & trades:" We can all wonder, of course. Today, we might really wonder why ol' Mitch McConnell is trying to pull the rug out on the START treaty. Perhaps, he is worried about a primary in Kentucky (shades of almost Senator Rand Paul) in view of the threat from National Republican PAC apparently made to Republican senators who would have the temerity to vote for ratification? Or, perhaps he is trying to squash what most have been seeing as the December successful legislative run for the President & this Congress? (A Republican might get indigestion if he/she had to watch ratification of a solid treaty with Russia during the holiday season? Or apoplexy as the narrative switches back to a successful President?)

    In many respects, Anne, I do admire your consistent certitude about projected events in the coming months. (Since my own tendency has usually been to look for the common ground middle for resolution and then move to the next issue, I'll tell you that there are some occasions when one feels caught-in-the-middle. My husband, for example, has remarkable determination and stick-to-it-iveness. To him I can seem flighty at times. To me, he can seem rigid. We tend to work out issues from personal to political...in the middle.) What will happen politically in the months to come? While the possibilities are not infinite, there are lots of combinations, permutations. Once in awhile, the pundits get it right...but, let's emphasize "once in awhile."

    Parent

    There were ample reports (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    of Obama making calls to Senators to get support....throughout....

    Parent
    As to the delay (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 03:59:19 PM EST
    The Pentagon report swayed votes.

    Remember Collins voted against DADT earlier in the year.....

    Moreover, one would think it was a no-brainer but it was not so easy for the GOP Senators who voted for it.  Just as the trial record in the gay marriage case tried by Boies and Olson showed how barren the anti-gay view is, the Pentagon review mattered.....

    That report took time....

    Parent

    Integrating the armed forces was overdue (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 04:02:56 PM EST
    in 1948 too.  

    The repeal of DADT is a huge step forward. Not a ho-hum matter just because it was overdue.

    And it will mortally would the religious right....They will start to abandon politics now....

    Parent

    mortally wound (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 04:03:47 PM EST


    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#84)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    Coalitions are interesting things, aren't they. See Lieberman. Take the votes where you find them in these situations; and, credit them.  (Even Burr?)

    Parent
    point of information (none / 0) (#24)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    is it true that Obama could have ended DADT two years ago w/an executive order?

    politics aside, was it in the president's purview to do that?

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    He could have suspended dismissals under DADT with an EO, but no, DADT was a law passed by Congress, and only Congress could repeal it.

    Parent
    If Obama had suspended dismissals (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:26:28 PM EST
    via Executive Order, it could have unnerved GOP support....

    As it is, all dismissals prior to the DADT vote were being slow-walked by requiring the express approval of a service chief.

    Obama's way worked here.

    Not on the economy or taxes, but it worked here.

    Parent

    thank you! (none / 0) (#26)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 11:58:24 AM EST


    Parent
    Any predictions? (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    As to the final number of yes votes on DADT?

    With it guaranteed to pass, will it top the 63 from this morning with the 4 abstensions getting on board?

    Bunning (R-KY)
    Gregg (R-NH)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Manchin (D-WV)

    Wouldn't count on Bunning or Manchin, but wouldn't be surprised to see Gregg and Hatch voting yes making at least 8 Republicans for repeal and getting 65+

    65-31 (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:35:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Add (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    Republicans Burr & Ensign

    This morning's non votes stayed non votes

    Parent

    Not a chance with Hatch (none / 0) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    He's up for reelection in 2012 and is sinking in th polls there.

    Interestingly, though, Ensign voted yes.  I think he must have a gay person in his family.

    Parent

    Yep, gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 05:45:46 PM EST
    As you suggest: Hatch is up for re-election in Utah. And, Senator Robert Bennett of Utah will be leaving at the conclusion of this Congress...Bennett voted for repeal.

    Parent
    Bennett voted against repeal (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    of DADT. Republicans ayes: Brown, Burr, Collins, Ensign, Kirk, Murkowski, Snowe, Voinovich.  (65 aye, 31 nay). Picked up Burr and Ensign since the procedural vote. (63 aye, 33 nay).

    Parent
    Wasn't Bennet of Utah a vote for one of (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 09:19:11 PM EST
    the key procedural votes to limit debate? Thanks for the correction on the final vote. (As for Bennet of Colorado--yes, the Senator of my state did ok.)

    Parent
    I think he was on board for (none / 0) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    the Dream Act.

    Parent
    That's it, KeysDan. (I mixed it up.) (none / 0) (#119)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 09:32:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Wish that was the worst I ever (none / 0) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 08:30:50 AM EST
    got mixed up on.  Happy Holidays to you and family.

    Parent
    And, a New Year of Peace to you as well. (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 11:36:54 AM EST


    Parent
    It was the Colorado Bennet (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 07:57:52 PM EST
    who voted for.  I had some faint hopes for Utah Bennett since he was already defeated, but no.

    Parent
    Burr votes Aye on final passage??? (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    Interesting.

    Yes, Burr's aye (none / 0) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 03:12:11 PM EST
    needs some analysis.  Big military presence (Ft. Bragg), Chapel Hill, Asheville, Baptists....interesting, indeed.

    Parent
    Maybe he wanted to be on the right side of history (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    A no vote here will be equivalent to a no vote on the 1964 Civil Rights bill.

    Parent
    I don't really know (none / 0) (#138)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 08:48:40 AM EST
    why Burr would do this but I will note that when he was running for re-election he was pretty mild (as a point of comparison take the rabid Tea Party nut Pantano).  I got the impression in the debates that he didn't have much of an interest in blocking pro-gay legislation.  The Hill has some comments from Burr here.

    Parent
    Murkowski (none / 0) (#95)
    by markw on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    Anybody noticed that Murkowski voted yes on both DADT repeal and the Dream Act?  Sticking it to the far right that primaried her? Hope it's a sign of more to come from her.

    She has always been nominally pro-choice (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    so she is not a culture warrior by nature. Now she doesn't have much of a reason to kowtow to the Palin wing.

    Parent
    She's always been closer to the center (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    when viewed from the fence. It's why they primaried her from the right. Winning as an independent just lets her always be herself now. She has no obligations (e.g. Lieberman with the Dems). Expect her to be more Snowe and Collins like moving forward with a long career ahead of her as a Senator from Alaska.

    Parent
    I sure hope so. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by hairspray on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:41:54 PM EST
    She is pro-choice too.  I am hoping the Republican women stick it to the misogynists in the GOP.  Now who will do it to the Dems?

    Parent
    Next up (none / 0) (#126)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 09:45:45 AM EST
    START and the 9/11 First Responders Bill on the docket.

    I suspect both will be hoping to reel in the new moderate female triumvirate of Collins and Snowe and Murkowski.

    Definitely a redemption of sorts (none / 0) (#148)
    by CST on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    for Lieberman.

    As much as I still hope he gets creamed in his re-election bid.

    Could the Repeal of DADT be a GOP Trap? (none / 0) (#149)
    by gravlox on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    I wonder if our troops are attacked by islamic extremists from the new Bill taking effect, who will be blamed for the bloodshed?

    I think I can see Fox News now and who will be blamed for "the failed policy that unnecessarily took soldiers' lives".

    It's so weird how the GOP suddenly supported this of all Bills with just enough votes to let it pass.

    I hope "Al Qaida" doesn't attack and send love notes painting the new gay military out as the reason?  Dems can kiss 2012 and a permanent stay of the repeal goodbye if a republican president takes Obama's place.

    Islamic extremists (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by CST on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    have not been waiting for us to pass DADT in order to attack us.

    As if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't enough of a reason.

    Does this mean we should outlaw Christianity?

    "Al Qaeda in Iraq warned Pope Benedict on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world"

    Parent

    Dream Act Goes Down, DADT Repeal Succeeds On Cloture Vote | 153 comments (153 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment