Tweet
Senate leadership has planned a vote on a free-standing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell legislative repeal, unencumbered by the defense authorization bill, to come to the floor sometime in the lame duck session, perhaps next week. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins are co-sponsoring the bill, which will have the same language as what was in the defense authorization bill. Harry Reid will co-sponsor as well, and they will use Rule 14 to bypass the Senate Armed Services Committee and bring it directly to the floor.
You can see some desperation in these moves, and it doesn’t ensure the bill will go anywhere. The blockage of the overall defense bill was basically over this issue. But there are advantages. Collins is a co-sponsor, so presumably her vote is in hand. Joe Manchin has said that he’d be the 60th vote for repeal if the votes are there, and I’m not sure I believe that but FWIW. Blanche Lincoln missed the vote today but said she’d have voted yes. So you can sort of see a path (if you squint) to at least 59 votes.
That leaves Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski and Richard Lugar, all on the record supporting repeal, and all of whom voted no for BS procedural reasons today. Will they continue in this vein? Will they say that the Senate Armed Services Committee was cut out of the deal, or that there won’t be enough time for amendments (what’s to amend with this bill?), or what? Will they keep trying to have it both ways?
Not to mention the fact that you’d have to get this bill back through the House, too. It cleared easily inside the defense bill, but at this point, who knows? And Ike Skelton, the current chair of the House Armed Services Committee, is opposed to the change in policy. I assume Nancy Pelosi could go around him, but that’s an issue as well.
This may be a good time to mention that the filibuster sucks.
30 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
O/T With apologies, but while we’re waiting for decision on the DADT “Repeal Bill”, the situation in the UK is “hotting up”.
UK students smash Treasury, Supreme Court buildings as parliament triples tuition fees
LINK.
Terrorists.
My head is exploding from all these legislative shenanigans. I’m just trusting the DADT repeal will pass somehow (mainly because of pressure from the courts).
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Thomas Jefferson
You know this whole month is just like watching a pool shark completely own a hapless sucker. Unfortunately for us, the role of Minnesota Fats is being played by the GOP.
Yes, Joe Lieberman has certainly proved himself trustworthy in all his whipping (not) for DADT inside the Defense Authorization bill, let’s put him in charge of a standalone.
Have they a Democratic co-sponsor yet? Or it just Collins and the IDiot?
Frankly I’m puzzled at Shortride’s fresh zeal on this matter.
Does Israel want DADT repealed or something?
If that’s the case, it may actually happen.
I’m sure it’s a headfake.
As long as Obama doesn’t want DADT, it ain’t gonna happen.
His newfound zeal is the mirror image of Ace’s newly found opposition: it gets them both on your teevee. And for the two of them, that’s really all that matters.
It looks like this is theater.
Collins and Lieberman offer to co-sponsor it as a standalone if only Reid will strip it from the def auth bill.
Since Reid wants def auth to pass, and it will be easier if DADT repeal is stripped out, he agrees.
A little kabuki and wha-la! DADT repeal is gone, darn those Republicans, and def auth goes ahead.
Even Collins and Lieberman are likely to vote against DADT repeal, even if they sponsored it.
Well wait a second, weren’t there 57 votes today? If Lincoln would’ve voted yes, but didn’t today, that’s 58. And didn’t Reid vote no as Majority Leader for procedural reasons (so he could reintroduce the bill later)? That’s 59. At that rate, Joe Manchin or Susan Collins gets you to 60.
How are there NOT 60 votes?
Oh wait, Collins did vote yes today. Still, did Joe Manchin vote no? If he’s willing to be 60 and voted no today, doesn’t that get us there?
This sixty the fuck vote thing is in itself total capitulation. Total.
I refuse to even talk about this shit like it’s just some new fucking normal.
It’s not and it’s fucking GALLING.
“This may be a good time to mention that the filibuster sucks.”
First, over the past two decades or so, the senators who successfully filibustered something represented about 46 percent of Americans on average. Yes, that is a minority—but it is a far cry from the nightmare scenarios sometimes deployed by opponents of the filibuster, who worry that as little as 11 percent or 12 percent of the country could obstruct popular legislation. Since 1991, in fact, there have been only four filibusters—0.03 percent of the total—that thwarted senators representing more than 65 percent of the American people.
Whether you like it or not, I don’t… This is a nation of people with their own personal beliefs. This is democracy.
Let me ask the what if question… What if Republicans had 51 votes and the subject was to deport all illegal immigrants? I am sorry, undocumented immigrants? Or to break all unions?
Would a filibuster suck then? Be wary of what you wish for Mr. Dayden, the extremes of politics are just getting started, that is why filibusters exist, for better or worse.
The filibuster is just a shield for politicians to hide behind so that they don’t have to get their hands dirty and actually make tough decision. It gives them the cover to appear to be doing something without actually accomplishing anything. It is the root of the kabuki theater known as American politics.
What if senators were going to pass legislation outlawing breathing. I’d definitely support it then right? give me a break. I don’t live on the what ifs. I live in reality and in reality the filibuster is being abused to the point of damaging this country for future generations.
Can we quote you when the repubs take the senate in 2012?
Look what happened in Iowa, the courts supported gay marriage and then the judges got voted out. Like it or not the coasts are ahead of the heartland and the heartland has the votes and are willing to use them to elect politicians that are right center not left center. I am not sure how the large pop states along the coast overcome this even if the filibuster law is changed. You might see a lot more right leaning democrats elected.
Yes. And there won’t be much difference when they take control compared to what has transpired the last ten years. See they had control under Bush and it lookeda lot like what has occurred under Obama..
The filibuster was alive and well under Bush. It sure did prevent a lot of horrible legislation didn’t it?
Sure outlaw breathing… So realistic of you. Abusing future generations? How thoughtful of you… So you think a filibuster of DADT hurts future generations… Ha Ha so progressive of you.
Please get rid of the filibuster, progressives will regress 50 years.
Can someone explain to me why these two assclowns are the “sponsors” of this legislation?
From the alleged progressive Barbara Boxer…
“I wish we could do it for now, but having gone through a time when we were in the deep, deep minority and Newt Gingrich was repealing every law over there, were it not for the filibuster, we would have lost everything. This country would not look the way it looks today,” she says. “We would have lost every environmental law on the books. We would have lost every financial regulation on the books. We’d have lost every consumer protection on the books.”
Ruh17- This is your reality.
Every form of discrimination and hate hurts future generations.
So, deporting every illegal immigrant is realistic?
Enforcing speed limits 100% of the time is not realistic, but that does not mean there is a speed limit.
No, I live in the reality where everyb bill that has the potential to help 98% of the country is filibustered until the top 2% get their cut. A much bigger cut at that.
I fail to see a connection.
What percent of the total federal income tax do you believe the top 2% should pay?
What percent of GDP do you believe the federal budget should be?
The longest periods of sustained economic growth in the history of the country were when the top marginal tax rate was around 90%
I believe they should pay at the very least as much of their income as the rest of us do… Percentage wise. They don’t even come close to that –Mod Note: Personal insults are discouraged–
That wasa personal insult? I’ve read much worse on here. I’m sorry thatI believe that it’s crazy to believe in fictitious things.
So the top 2% should pay 90% rate on income. What percent of GDP should the Federal Budget be?
Ruh… The funniest thing I see here on this website are wingnut liberals that hide behind the shield of being progressive.