Top senate Dems willing to take DADT off the table

[Kulindahr]

I just read a half-dozen articles reporting on how it went down before, and still haven't found a shred of evidence that they were made to actually filibuster it; in fact one article pointed out that Reid could have done so and declined to exercise that option, allowing them to play the procedural game.

No, on September 21 the Republicans (McCain) did filibuster repeal of DADT. The Democrats cast 56 votes for cloture, four short of the necessary 60.

Okay, I went and read a different half-dozen articles, and have yet to find where he actually had to honestly filibuster. If you have something I'm not finding, cite it. I'd like to know how any hours he talked and who else helped him keep the Senate from getting any other business done, and did he wear himself out enough he collapsed.

If all you've got is a "FINO", that's not what I'm talking about -- that's no more an honest filibuster than GWB was an honest President.

And I found another article pointing out that Reid could have required a real filibuster but didn't.

It would not surprise me in the least if Reid removes DADT from the defense authorization bill, in order to enable it to pass during the lame duck session. It would be nice if we were important enough to stand up for, but the Republicans have already demonstrated that that would be a lost cause. And Reid needs to get as much accomplished during the brief lame duck session as he can.

All he ought to do is require an actual filibuster. I'm so sick and tired and disgusted with the vile piece of crap with human DNA and his continual descent into lying, hypocrisy, and betrayal of everything that has to do with liberty I'd like to see Reid require a real filibuster just to be able to watch McCain get a stroke from the effort and have to retire (they can't have anyone actually worse than that foe of the Bill of Rights, to replace him, right?).

 

[Kulindahr]

For whom do you vote? Republicans, some loser third party, or do you just not vote?

Nice to see you're a supporter of the lie that keeps us in this trap.

 

[Kulindahr]

56 votes (the previous vote) is not enough for cloture. Neither is 57 (every Democrat) or 59 (every Democrat plus the two independents). The Democrats would need some Republican votes.

But not one Republican senator supports gay rights.

Not one.

Three Republican Senators were identified as willing to vote to end DADT once the report is out.

And if Reid had the balls to make them actually filibuster, so McCain could have a heart attack trying to tie up the floor hours at a time, and not be such a cowardly wus as to let them do a FINO again, maybe a few more Senators would see sense.

 

[scream4ever]

Who were the three Republican Senators Kulindahr?

I know Blanche Lincoln, Susan Collins, and Richard Lugar all support repeal as is, without waiting for the report (they voted to keep the fillibuster because of Harry Reid blocking debate on virtually the entire bill.

Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, and George Voinovich favor repeal, but want to wait for the report to be released first.

I remember hearing somewhere that Harry Reid would schedule a vote for breaking fillibuster on the Defense Authorization Bill the week of November 29, then schedule a vote on the Don't Ask Don't Tell portion of the bill sometime after Dec. 1, when the report will be released. That seems doable IMO.

 

[Kulindahr]

Who were the three Republican Senators Kulindahr?

I know Blanche Lincoln, Susan Collins, and Richard Lugar all support repeal as is, without waiting for the report (they voted to keep the fillibuster because of Harry Reid blocking debate on virtually the entire bill.

Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, and George Voinovich favor repeal, but want to wait for the report to be released first.

I remember hearing somewhere that Harry Reid would schedule a vote for breaking fillibuster on the Defense Authorization Bill the week of November 29, then schedule a vote on the Don't Ask Don't Tell portion of the bill sometime after Dec. 1, when the report will be released. That seems doable IMO.

I should have kept the links....

I remember Snowe and Collins were mentioned -- too bloody many articles....

Anyway, just with those listed above, shouldn't it go through? Why can't Reid get it through, if they're with the program?

 

[Kulindahr]

Then the excuses from Republicans may be the length of time to read and consider the report. Looking at the two weeks it will sit in conference committee it will be tight.

It's been 50 years since Congress has failed to fund the military in any one year.

Reid should refuse to let the two items be separated, and refuse to allow them to adjourn until the defense bill is passed.

If I could dream I'd have the national concealed carry reciprocity act attached as an amendment, along with a provision establishing a commission to cut Pentagon waste without having to go through Congress.

 

[SuperPsyze]

Nice to see you're a supporter of the lie that keeps us in this trap.

I don't mean to slide off topic, but voting for third parties doesn't work in this system. I really wish we had an elimination style election, where 51% means you win. If no one hits 51%, we drop the lowest and vote again. Granted, that will never happen, and people will get tired of voting >_>

 

[Kulindahr]

I think Reid has a history of spinelessness. But the pressure to keep it together is now strong.

Also don't forget that the House version which passed already is amended also. If it survived conference committee it could get an up or down vote in the Senate if enough Republicans relented.

My head is too bleary from stress to think through how that all fits on the lame-duck timeline......

I do know there won't be any point to a vote before Dec. 1 when the report officially comes out. And then.....?

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't mean to slide off topic, but voting for third parties doesn't work in this system. I really wish we had an elimination style election, where 51% means you win. If no one hits 51%, we drop the lowest and vote again. Granted, that will never happen, and people will get tired of voting >_>

It has worked -- these aren't the same two parties we've always had. They don't have to be the same parties we always will have.
4% of people in Georgia voted Libertarian. That's small, but if you add in all the disgruntled people who didn't voted or even have let their registration lapse and convinced them to vote for some different party, it could jump high enough to win some races with multiple candidates.

 

[chrisrobin]

I think (I might be wrong about this) but I think there will be 2 newly elected Senators that get to come in during the lame duck session.

Joe Machini of West Virginia (because it's the Robert Byrd seat) He's a strong conservative democrat who is pro-life and opposes gay marriage. He might vote to keep DADT in place.

Also Kirk of IL. But I hear he's a moderate Republican, so he might vote for it. Might not.

Won't. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he voted against DADT and in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.

He also said he "fought" in Operation Desert Storm, which he did not. If he says that the sky is blue, I'd need to verify.

He says he's an independent, with which I agree. Independent from decency, the truth and an interest in the American people.

In my less-than-humble opinion, I think he's just another Republican scumbag. His cutesy pooh choir-boy demeanor doesn't fool me a bit.

 

[thewiz]

The Republicans are trying to show they can "man it up." I am guessing they will threaten to fillibuster and the Dems, in an effort to bring about bipartisanship, will remove DADT from the defense bill.

I think it is clear from the rhetoric coming from the Repubs -- they could care less about bipartisanship; they want to slam the Dems and kick Obama out after his term. They are now talking about shutting down government in order to get their ways.

Dems need to grow a set -- tell them to go screw themselves and ram things through. The president needs to get on a message and tell the Repubs to kiss his ass if they don't like it -- he's the president for two more years.

The Dem message has been horrible; they have spent more time running from their record than running on their record. Perhaps you might tell I'm pissed and tomorrow night I have an HRC meeting....

 

[JayHawk]

Dems need to grow a set -- tell them to go screw themselves and ram things through. The president needs to get on a message and tell the Repubs to kiss his ass if they don't like it -- he's the president for two more years.

The Dem message has been horrible; they have spent more time running from their record than running on their record. Perhaps you might tell I'm pissed and tomorrow night I have an HRC meeting....

I have been trying to say this in so many threads...... they could succeed if they would just try

 

[scream4ever]

"Then the excuses from Republicans may be the length of time to read and consider the report. Looking at the two weeks it will sit in conference committee it will be tight."

I assume the results of the report will be summaraized pretty quickly by the heads of the military and presented to the Senate. Like I said, a vote on the DADT repeal will come after the results are out.

It wouldn't surprise me either if Harry Reid extends the lame duck session past the Dec. 10 date he wants the Senate to resign (a lot has to get done, and not just this).

 

[T-Rexx]

Three Republican Senators were identified as willing to vote to end DADT once the report is out.

I don't believe that for one second. McCain himself said he would support repeal of DADT if the military's report (due in December) recommended it.

Now that it is becoming apparent that that report will recommend repeal of DADT, McCain has started to renege. He is already saying that the report, when it is released, won't tell the real story of what the military actually wants!!

McCain is faced with a tough primary election coming up, which he may actually lose to a tea partier. He cannot afford to antagonize his base by appearing to be even subtly supportive of gay rights. Same for the rest of the Republican Party, which has been driven even further to the right by the Tea Party movement.

So long as the Republican Party remains an arm of the fundamentalist Christian religious movement, we cannot expect support from any of them.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't believe that for one second. McCain himself said he would support repeal of DADT if the military's report (due in December) recommended it.

Now that it is becoming apparent that that report will recommend repeal of DADT, McCain has started to renege. He is already saying that the report, when it is released, won't tell the real story of what the military actually wants!!

McCain is faced with a tough primary election coming up, which he may actually lose to a tea partier. He cannot afford to antagonize his base by appearing to be even subtly supportive of gay rights. Same for the rest of the Republican Party, which has been driven even further to the right by the Tea Party movement.

So long as the Republican Party remains an arm of the fundamentalist Christian religious movement, we cannot expect support from any of them.

Someone ought to just challenge him right on the floor -- literally: toss him a pair of boxing gloves and tell him to show he's still a man or get the frak out.

 

[justndav]

I'm emailing Maj. Leader Reid and telling him he better not gut this from the bill or he is going to lose the gay vote for the Democratic Party for a long time not to mention a lot of the progressive voters who stayed home this go around. He's not my Senator since I'm in Iowa but perhaps I should tell him he better be looking over his shoulder at Chuck Schumer and suggest he become the new majority leader. This is some pure BS plain and simple. Make the Republicans do a filibuster the old fashioned way, the way its supposed to be done- read phone books, read recipes, read whatever and keep voting... see if you can break 60. Personally, I hope Reid sets the filibuster threshold in the new Senate rules at, say, 52. They can set the rules in the chamber for the next congress- I don't believe its mandated that it has to be 60. That mean's the Dem's can lose Ben Nelson or Lieberman and still get bills passed and this may become important if we have another Supreme Court opening too...which I think we will and it could be a surprise retirement (think conservative)

 

[hotatlboi]

McCain is faced with a tough primary election coming up, which he may actually lose to a tea partier. He cannot afford to antagonize his base by appearing to be even subtly supportive of gay rights. Same for the rest of the Republican Party, which has been driven even further to the right by the Tea Party movement.

Huh?

The election is over. McCain doesn't have to worry about reelection for another 6 years.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm emailing Maj. Leader Reid and telling him he better not gut this from the bill or he is going to lose the gay vote for the Democratic Party for a long time not to mention a lot of the progressive voters who stayed home this go around. He's not my Senator since I'm in Iowa but perhaps I should tell him he better be looking over his shoulder at Chuck Schumer and suggest he become the new majority leader. This is some pure BS plain and simple. Make the Republicans do a filibuster the old fashioned way, the way its supposed to be done- read phone books, read recipes, read whatever and keep voting... see if you can break 60. Personally, I hope Reid sets the filibuster threshold in the new Senate rules at, say, 52. They can set the rules in the chamber for the next congress- I don't believe its mandated that it has to be 60. That mean's the Dem's can lose Ben Nelson or Lieberman and still get bills passed and this may become important if we have another Supreme Court opening too...which I think we will and it could be a surprise retirement (think conservative)

I already emailed Reid and my senators.

As I understand the rules, to change the 60 threshold would require a vote of the Senate. But Reid can just by saying so make them actually filibuster. In his place, I'd also decree that what is read/said has to be germane to the issue. Let them read web sites discussion, professional journal essays, magazine articles, so long as it's on-topic, but no phone books or chili recipes.

I don't want to see Obama get to make another SCOTUS appointment. SO far he's appointed a liar and an opponent of free speech. We need a new system for that; it's become partisan and he's making it more so.

 

[chrisrobin]

are republicans threatening to filibuster the bill?

The Republicans are threatening to filibuster everything - just like the last two years.

 

[JB3]

We will likely probably see nothing passed in the next Senate except critical appropriations bills. I also expect at least one instance in which partisan gridlock shuts down the government, as happened in 1995.

Good. Its about damn time.