Nancy Pelosi released a statement last night on the failure of the defense authorization bill, which included a legislative repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. She also said that she would work to pass a stand-alone legislative repeal by the end of the legislative session:
“Since the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has broad support among Senators, our troops, and the American people, it is my hope that that the Senate will move forward with an alternative legislative method. The bipartisan proposal from Senators Lieberman and Collins provides renewed hope that progress is still possible in the Senate; an army of allies stands ready in the House to pass a standalone repeal of the discriminatory policy once the Senate acts.
The President endorsed the move as well, urging the Senate to revisit repeal in the lame duck session. Spokesman Reid Chertlin said that the President wants to explore “all legislative options.”
So there it is. The Senate has a standalone bill. Harry Reid has promised to Rule 14 it to bypass committees and bring it to the floor. The President’s on board. The House will pass it – I don’t think Nancy Pelosi will let anything stand in the way. There’s nothing to it but to get the votes.
Apparently Blanche Lincoln missed the vote because of a root canal (!), but she said on the floor of the Senate yesterday she would have voted yes. So there’s a baseline of 58 votes. Joe Manchin, contrary to early reports, really opposes changing the policy:
In a statement to reporters tonight, Manchin suggested that as long as a vote on repealing DADT comes this year, he’ll be more than willing to shut it down.
“I do not support its repeal at this time,” he said in the statement. “I would like to make clear that my concern is not with the idea of repealing DADT, but rather an issue of timing.”
So Democrats and Susan Collins would have to find two other Republicans to support the bill. Scott Brown and Lisa Murkowski have publicly said they’d support it, but both voted no for procedural reasons yesterday. Other Republicans, like Olympia Snowe and Richard Lugar, are possibilities.
The reason a standalone bill has a better chance is that it isn’t bound up with a large authorization bill for the Defense Department. So the procedural issues may fade. As for why they didn’t write a standalone bill, Sam Stein writes:
The answer is a bit complex, but also illustrates just how far the DADT debate actually has moved in the past year. Back in January, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was convinced that the defense authorization bill would be the lone vehicle for getting DADT repealed. It had been, after all, 48 years since Congress failed to pass an authorization.
House Democrats felt the same way. But while they dutifully passed their own version of repeal later in the spring, they were left waiting for the upper chamber to act. The Senate did not.
Support for repeal then became conditioned on the results of a Pentagon study as well as the procedural underpinnings of the defense authorization bill. The study, in the end, was favorable for repeal proponents. But the procedural process of the defense authorization remained a loophole for Republicans to kill the legislation.
Had DADT been considered alone, one Senate aide suggested, it might have had a better shot of passage on Thursday night. Republicans, of course, would still have argued that tax cuts and budget issues should be considered first. But their votes against repeal, as it stood alone, would have carried far more moral weight than their arguments against the process for considering defense authorization.
It was axiomatic that once the Pentagon study was set for December 1, we would have run into these problems with a big defense bill. So a standalone bill probably should have been the move from the beginning. But that’s where we are now, with little time left in the legislative session.
If it fails, repeal is dead as an act for Congress for the forseeable future. But Joe Manchin, he that opposes the bill, pointed a way forward:
Besides, Manchin added — if supporters of repeal are upset with the Senate vote, they can always go talk to President Obama about ending DADT discharges with a stroke of his pen.
“While I may disagree with a repeal of DADT at this time, some believe that President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, if he so chooses, has the authority to suspend discharges under DADT, if he deems it a matter of national security,” Manchin said. “If this is correct, and the President was to make such an order, while I may disagree with it, I would respect his authority as President to do so.”
The commander-in-chief has options.




28 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
That is what they should do with all bills. Obama should veto every single repuke bill in 2011 and 2012…I know…dream on
kabuke
all obama has to do is release the statement;
“adhering to the advice from the actual commanders on the ground, we will no longer be inforcing “don’t ask don’t tell”, if the policy is not rescinded it will be up to a later president to re-instate it”
bing
Uh oh! The f’g ret@rds are getting angry! Time for a little kabuki.
“Nuthin’ up ma sleeve…”
They added DADT to the defence authorization bill to enhance its chance for passage. Now it is split off, letting them pass the defence authorization bill. The standalone will die a supermajority death, with 58 or 59 votes, and there will be “nothing they could do”.
I do not understand why the Newest Senator gets to make process arguments — it’s not like he was even around for the hearings all through the year, he was busy running for Byrd’s seat. I expect this will only be the beginning of major disappointments from Manchin, but jeebus he jumped into the obstructionist’s garb quickly.
Did Obama call him?
Did Obama call Blanche at the doctor?
And why does anyone believe anything Joe “I’m convinced we have 60 votes” Lieberman says now?
Yup
I’m just wondering when there will be a post about Bernie Sanders’ filibuster…
Since Americans need militarism like they need to breathe, might as well make the group that does the killing as democratic as possible.
I was thinking the same thing. Here is wet-behind-the-ears twit flexing his important muscles. Why doesn’t someone tell him to STFU.
The problem with the firedoglefters is that even when they stand a chance to get what they want, they find reasons to piss all over it. So if it passes, how will the firedogleft find a way to hate it?
I guess that he must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, because he certainly hasn’t been in the Senate long enough to really understand this issue with any sort of real comprehension.
Joe Manchin (D-Chickenhawk) has no standing to make a decision about DADT. He was a draft-dodging football hero in the 60s, going to school on a football scholarship. Men and women who currently serve, and have honorably served in the Armed Forces want to see DADT repealed so that men and women can serve with honor and integrity, something that Manchin knows little about.
How can I say that? Gee, ask him how his daughter got an MBA from WVU (later revoked) because of who she was related to. Somehow the B-School there was going to give her college credit for her “life experience” and award more than half the academic credit she needed because of who Daddy was and who he knew and hung out with.
Let our men and women serve honorably you homophobic bigot, and go find some other Blue Dog issue (like cutting funding for handicapped children who were sexually assaulted by family members) to demagogue.
I really do not understand how a “stand alone” bill makes it easier for Republican or Blue Dog senators, “worried about their constituencies”, to vote for DADT repeal than if the thing was tucked into the defense bill that is necessary to “support the troops”. This is just fucking stupid. But idiotic seems to be what Congress specializes in, so what the fuck, give it a try I guess.
Sweet takedown!
My linky to “his daughter” isn’t working correctly. Here’s the correct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin
Sorry about that.
Manchin probably deserves all the derogatory remarks we will be making at him, but I will say this:
1) He is running again in 2012 (at the end of Byrd’s term)
2) He had a hard fight, even against a joke Republican
3) 2012 will be a hard year for Democrats.
4) Obama will have no coattails in WV. Quite the contrary.
5) WV is not CA
He is trying to distance himself from Obama (seems like a pretty good plan). If by any chance this bill reaches cloture (and I don’t expect it to), he will probably vote against it. I expect him to vote against pretty much everything, regardless of how he himself feels about it. He will always be a blue dog, but expect him to be a hopeless blue dog for two years. If he wins re-election, perhaps he will be a reasonable blue dog.
On the bright side, there will be no Democratic bills to vote on in the Senate for two years, only cloture votes on Republican bills. If he can be persuaded to not support cloture (hard to use that against him in the election), he will still be valuable.
Wow – you certainly are an optimist. The Blue Dogs have their own caucus because they are DIFFERENT. They also are Republicans way down deep inside.
I have to wonder how servicemen and women from WV answered on that DoD survey. Do you think they were statistical aberrations or that they fell within the norm of “we really don’t care about our comrades sexuality”?
Manchin is a homophobe who is playing to the worst elements in society. If he believes that lining himself up with the homophobes in the republican party makes him somehow a worthy man, he’s sadly mistaken. He’s now going to be remembered as a Senator who was willing to be on the wrong side of history, in much the same way as George Wallace who stood at the door of that school and so immortalized himself as an unabashed racist, something I think he regretted in his later years. Manchin is headed down the same path.
rully, simply can not decide who looked worst yesterday – Lieberman and his suspect whip count, or Reid and the leadership for calling the vote without Lincoln present and failing to take the shiv out of Manchin’s hand
next to Obama, he’s Chamber of Commerce favorite democrat – they endorsed his Senate run
The “process” garbage is pure “Lucy and the football”:
Krugman P. Lucy and the football [Internet]. New York Times. 2010 Apr 20. Available from: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/lucy-and-the-football/.
Manchin and Lieberman are both doing postgraduate work on their LSS. This is a time-honored academic degree, essential to success in American politics. It stands for “Lying Sack of Shit”.
How hard is it to propose something you know is dead on arrival?
You people just frickin’ amaze me!
There is one good reason for a standalone bill: it’s the right thing to do.
It cannot be right to hold defense authorization hostage to DADT repeal, while condemning the Republicans for holding debt ceiling extension hostage to extension of the Bush tax cuts.
We would be in a stronger position if we unequivocally condemned all use of the tactic of attaching desirable but controversial legislation to absolutely necessary and uncontroversial legislation.
Why is Obama suddenly working so fucking hard to repeal DADT? Because he is desperate to throw Progressives a bone in exchange for passing his odious tax cut deal. As much as I’d like to see DADT repealed, I believe the tax deal is far more deadly to the nation. Gays don’t have to join the service, but it’s mandatory that people eat, have clothing and a roof over their head. The whole thing is fishy.
I have a question about Senate procedure.
Why does Senator Bernie Sanders have to stand up and actually speak in order to “filibuster” a bill…but…all the Republicans have to do is “hint” they will filibuster a bill and it dies?
I have an idea for Obama:
STOP APPEALING THE JUDGE’S DECISION THAT HAD KILLED DADT DEAD.
It was dead for a week before your got it reinstated. Just drop the damn appeal and it goes back to being dead.
Why is anybody bothering with this bunraku puppet show in congress? What’s the point?
Obama can kill DADT dead with a wave of his hand. He doesn’t even need an executive order, he can just DECLINE TO APPEAL.
Does nobody else realize this? Why is nobody else even mentioning this, or the judge’s decision, or anything related to it?
it’s like there’s freaking amnesia going on.
Maybe not.
http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/could-manchin-switch-parties/
It’s a sop to the left. It doesn’t cost them anything. It does not, however, do a thing for the further entrenchment of wealth and the further depletion of Social Security.
I have a feeling many gays and straights are going to be wishing they’d never signed up, if they don’t already.
In Bernie’s case, the talk itself is the main point: he’s creating a bully pulpit to reach the American people with his rhetoric.
For why the Republicans can do filibusters without needing to talk, read DDay’s recent post:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/10/brennan-center-report-shows-failure-of-broken-senate/
And the Brennan Center report itself, that he’s writing about:
Marziani MMD. Filibuster abuse. New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law; 2010. Available from: http://brennan.3cdn.net/d71924f77ec6e2aa64_3vm6b37f4.pdf.
The Brennan Center report is critically important – everyone here should read it, despite its length. The battle over filibuster reform will be the first big event of the next Congress.