DADT repeal vote to be scheduled

[hotatlboi]

The best and last wedge issue that the GOP has is the homo agenda and given the chance, they are going to play it to the hilt.

Already happened in some states.

The played it hard in the Repub primary here in GA (and the bigot won ).

 

[rareboy]

^ 10 to 1 that there is no intention of this amendment passing. It is going to be used by all those who want to appeal to their gay constituents to say 'See, we tried' and all those who want to appeal to their Xian base to say 'See, we prevented the fairies from destroying our forces'.

A win/win for all those up for re-election.

 

[MoltenRock III]

^ 10 to 1 that there is no intention of this amendment passing. It is going to be used by all those who want to appeal to their gay constituents to say 'See, we tried' and all those who want to appeal to their Xian base to say 'See, we prevented the fairies from destroying our forces'.

A win/win for all those up for re-election.

Yup. Sad, but true unfortunately.

Again, I do hope I'm wrong and it passes. But it won't surprise me if the vote gets delayed or sidetracked, or defeated. You can only have your hopes dashed so many times before you are jaded about anyone saying they are going to do _________ for gays.

 

[hotatlboi]

What reality are you guys living in? This has overwhelming support both within the Senate and amongst the electorate. There's very little to be gained by opposing this.

Even fucking Louis Marinelli was in favor of DADT repeal.

Even Bill O'reilly. And he thinks gay marriage is a "threat to America".

 

[rareboy]

I hope I'm so wrong.

But I haven't seen the senate and congress rise to the occasion when there is an election to be fought and won.

 

[scream4ever]

"He will not filibuster the floor vote on the whole bill, but he still may vote to strike DADT repeal from the bill if that comes up in debate."

51 votes are needed to strike an amendment from a bill. Even if all Republicans were to vote in favor of striking it, it would require 10 Democrats joining them for it to actually succeed. Jim Webb will probably join them, but I can't think of any others who may (maybe Blanche Lincoln).

 

[rareboy]

From Stars and Stripes

But, now that the vote is set, the question becomes whether those groups can muster enough votes to actually pass the measure allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly in the military. When the House passed identical language back in May, the 234-194 victory came over strong objections from Republicans and some conservative Democrats. The provision barely passed out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, squeaking through with a 16-12 vote.

In recent weeks Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has been targeting 14 "key" senators for lobbying efforts, some because they could provide the last few votes needed for repeal approval and others because they could present a filibuster threat in the voting procedure. They are:

-- Harry Reid, D-Nev.;
-- Mitch McConnell, R-Kent.;
-- John McCain, R-Ariz.;
-- Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.;
-- Mark Pryor, D-Ark.;
-- Richard Lugar, R-Ind;
-- Jon Tester, D-Mont.;
-- Max Baucus, D-Mont.;
-- Judd Gregg, R-N.H.;
-- Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.;
-- Kent Conrad, D-N.D.;
-- George Voinovich, R-Ohio;
-- Tim Johnson, D-S.D.;
-- and Mark Warner, D-Va.

http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripe...vote-set-but-will-it-pass-the-senate-1.118159

 

[scream4ever]

Is Jim Webb actually against DADT repeal?

From what I understand he and Scott Brown are for repeal, but they want the results of the study to come through first.

 

[BostonPirate]

From what I understand he and Scott Brown are for repeal, but they want the results of the study to come through first.

ahh a political hand job

Fuck them both

If they don't have the stones to make a tough call then they don't need to be in office.

Either one of them. The rubber hits the road NOW and if they aren't on board it will be bad for their re ellections.

 

[hotatlboi]

From what I understand he and Scott Brown are for repeal, but they want the results of the study to come through first.

Translation: they are likely against it, but prefer to come off as PC instead of bigoted in their opposition.

That's the same sorry excuse most of the Republicans have been giving.

If they had the study, it would be something else (not the right time, in the middle of a war, whatever).

 

[construct]

Translation: they are likely against it, but prefer to come off as PC instead of bigoted in their opposition.

That's the same sorry excuse most of the Republicans have been giving.

If they had the study, it would be something else (not the right time, in the middle of a war, whatever).

Either that or they want repeal but also want cover for their vote in light of conservative supporters.

The bill itself says that the repeal would not go into effect until after the study (and some other steps to protect morale and recruitment and all that). Surely that's enough cover for them.

Are they against it in its present form?

 

[hotatlboi]

Are they against it in its present form?

Yes, they've been giving the false "it's before the study" excuse when the language requiring the study has been in there all along since the compromise deal was worked out (when it passed the House back in May).

That's why they are full of it. Their argument is basically a lie.

 

[construct]

Looking over rareboy's list, I see that the opponents would need every one of those votes to remove the amendment. That seems to me unlikely.

 

[scream4ever]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/14/How_Reid_Will_Handle_DADT_Filibuster/

This lays things out nicely. The Republicans won't be able to vote on any "poison" amendments to the DADT repeal, but they will have a shot to strike it down.

I read Richard Lugar has said he won't vote to strike it down. I assume both Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe won't as well. If no other Republicans vote against a motion to strike, 13 Democrats would have to vote to strike the repeal amendment, a highly unlikely scinerio.

 

[MoltenRock III]

What reality are you guys living in? This has overwhelming support both within the Senate and amongst the electorate. There's very little to be gained by opposing this.

Even fucking Louis Marinelli was in favor of DADT repeal.

And now the "Dream Act", an illegal immigration issue, has also been added to the defense appropriations bill today, which has meant 3 more Foxpublican Senators that have boldly declared they will filibuster the appropriations bill. *shakes head*

Boys, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier in this thread! Adding more contentious issues to the appropriations bill means the chances of DADT passing has just lessened by 35%.

 

[scream4ever]

Where do you get the 35% statistic from?

Were the 3 senators already going to vote against fillibustering the bill?