Are We There Yet?

by on

Let me put it this way.  After today’s 250-175 vote in the House to repeal DADT (the second time the House has passed repeal this session), and Olympia Snowe’s newly announced support for repeal in the Senate, it would be a failure of epic proportions if the bill does not get approval from the Senate and make its belated but no less welcome appearance on Obama’s desk.

We are dealing with politics here, and anything is possible.  But right now, the naysayers are the ones who have the most to worry about.

22 Comments for “Are We There Yet?”

  1. posted by Doug on

    If the repeal of DADT goes down to defeat it will be laid squarely at the feet of the GOP. There is no excuse since it’s a stand alone bill.

    • posted by Carl on

      There will always be blame for the Democrats, especially since they still have 58 seats at the moment. I do hope that if it fails, there will be as much focus on the stunts from McCain as on Reid’s ineptitude/apathy, but I doubt it.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    Nay.

    The GOP has a very good excuse: the economy comes first. Hopefully that excuse will run out.

    Let’s try to cheer for a messy victory. The repeal is a good bill whose only fault is that it came too late, it had to be brought up after the election because we needed to complete a study on it. It’s not like the other bills that the Democrats are trying to sneak through the lame duck session without vetting it through the people. We’ve given it enough of a hearing and debate that we can make a fair decision on it. So let’s give it the chance it didn’t get.

    • posted by Carl on

      I know, I am tired of “we need more hearings.” What’s the point of more hearings when those who are opposed are going to just say “more hearings” each time, or will only want to “hear” from those who say what they say?

      At least Gohlmert and Duncan Hunter were more honest, in invoking YMCA and claiming that civilizations collapse because of gay troops (which is why conservative Republicans were allied with countries like Canada and the UK which have openly gay service members…).

      I do wonder though whether those in the Senate who say they support repeat will vote for THIS repeal. They might say they will vote for one later on, knowing it won’t happen.

    • posted by Tom on

      The Republicans came up with a new one this week, one hard to argue.

      Christmas is “the most sacred holiday for Christians” (according to Senator DeMint, anyway — Christians who actually know something about Christianity might argue that Easter, which celebrates the resurrection, should get equal billing) and it would be sacrilege for the Senate to do the nation’s business during the ten days before Christmas.

      Senator Kyl chimed in with the opinion that staying in session would be “disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians”. He has his theology on straighter than DeMint — he at least recognizes the relative importance of the resurrection to Christians — but it is still pretty lame to argue that the Senate has to take a two-week break in order to show respect for the holiday.

      I sympathize, of course, but I think Harry Reid, bless his Mormon heart, got it right for once. We really don’t “need to hear the sanctimonious lectures of Senators. Kyl and DeMint to remind [us] of what Christmas means” — particularly when it is total bullshit from a couple of toads.

      Reid is too mild mannered to do it, but I kind of wish he’d taken a cue from the late Mayor Daley of Chicago and told Kyl and DeMint to “kiss the Mistletoe”.

      • posted by Doug on

        Senator Kyl is an idiot. If asking him to work around two of the holiest holidays for Christians is disrespectful then why are we asking the tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight during this time.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Is that what’s that’s about?

        Humph. I can understand why someone wouldn’t want to work on some silly little bill nobody cares about during the Christmas holiday, but they’re there to do the people’s business. They should be thankful the President doesn’t call a special session because they can’t get that tax stuff passed–which come to think of it is exactly what he should do.

    • posted by BobN on

      It’s not like the other bills that the Democrats are trying to sneak through the lame duck session without vetting it through the people.

      Which bills would those be, Jorge. Do you mean the Republican-initiated Dream Act? Or could you mean START, the crucial weapons treaty that every living military and state department official of either party is begging for? Or could it be the Defense Authorization bill, now ten months old? Or maybe you mean the bill authorizing the continuation of the government, another must-pass, no-choice-but-pass bill that the GOP helped create and then blocked for months on end?

      Or do you have something else in mind?

  3. posted by Tom on

    “In the Senate, it would be a failure of epic proportions if the bill does not get approval from the Senate and make its belated but no less welcome appearance on Obama’s desk.”

    I would urge those of you who are Republicans to call the following Republican Senators who have indicated support, but who have preconditions, asking them to drop the preconditions and vote for repeal:

    Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): 202-224-
    Olympia Snowe (R-ME): 202-224-5344
    Scott Brown (R-MA): 202-224-4543

    And call the following Republican Senators who have not yet taken a public position but who are considered possible supporters:

    Mark Kirk (R-IL): 202-224-2854
    George Voinovich (R-OH): 202-224-3353
    Richard Lugar (R-IN): 202-224-4814
    Judd Gregg (R-NH): 202-224-3324
    Kit Bond (R-MO): 202-224-5721

    • posted by Carl on

      Thanks for posting these. I hope it helps make a difference.

      Those running the Senate seem to say they might not even have a vote because of lack of time. Ugh.

  4. posted by avee on

    The Boston Globe reports that Scott Brown has announced he will vote for a stand-alone bill, if one is brought up, and that “with Brown and at least two other Republican senators — Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, and Olympia Snowe, of Maine — saying they will support a stand-alone repeal, it now appears to have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.” If it’s not too late to bring it before the Senate.

  5. posted by BobN on

    IF it becomes apparent that the bill will pass, more Republicans will jump on board. Fond as they are for the Jesse Helmses of the world, they really would rather not be remembered as he was.

  6. posted by Carl on

    It looks like Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon will have to miss the vote, because he’s being treated for prostate cancer. I don’t know whether that affects passage. Whatever happens I hope he will be OK.

    • posted by Tom on

      Reid has schedule the cloture vote for Saturday. If repeal has the 60 votes to get past cloture, it looks like repeal might happen. Get busy and call into the Senate. You can bet the religious right is flooding the Senators right now.

    • posted by Doug on

      Ron Wyden has issued a statement that he will be there to vote. Prostate cancer isn’t the kind of cancer you have to treat yesterday.

  7. posted by Carl on

    Thanks for the update. I’m glad he will be there.

    I hope this isn’t true about Obama trying to get the Democrats to vote on the repeal next year because he cares more about other matters.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46521.html

  8. posted by Jorge on

    Looks like with a tax deal passed in both houses, there is still less reason to block it.

    Well, I mailed the strongest supporter among my Senators already.

    I guess I’ll email them both again.

  9. posted by Tom on

    Carl: I hope this isn’t true about Obama trying to get the Democrats to vote on the repeal next year because he cares more about other matters.

    I hope it isn’t true, either. Clinton caved in 1993, and Obama could well cave in 2010. He has certainly caved on other things recently. I hope he doesn’t cave on DADT. We’ll see.

    As I understand it, the cloture vote is coming tomorrow, and the necessary votes are likely to be in place when the vote comes. After the cloture vote, there is a 30-hour waiting period, which should bring the up-or-down vote on Monday or Tuesday.

    It is possible that the Republicans will waive the 30-hour waiting period — if so, the up-or-down vote could happen on Saturday — but I don’t expect that to happen. Anything short of massive resistance will enrage the religious right, and Republican leadership has no political reason to poke a stick into that hornet’s nest.

    I don’t think that DADT repeal stands a chance after January. Republicans are too locked down by the religious right at this point to provide the votes necessary to repeal DADT in either the House, or, I suspect the Senate.

    Contrast that with 1993, when DADT was enacted. Although there was clearly NO majority possible for open service in those days, the votes on the Defense Authorization Bill of 1994 were much less locked down along party lines than the recent vote in the House and the expected vote in the Senate:

    VOTE ON CONFERENCE REPORT: HR 2401
    DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994
    HOUSE/SENATE RECONCILED VERSION
    PL 103-160

    IN THE SENATE
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1993-380

    YES (77%)
    D: 49
    R: 28

    NO (22%):
    D: 4
    R: 18

    NV (1%)
    D: 1
    R: 0

    IN THE HOUSE
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1993-565

    YES (63%)
    D: 222
    R: 50

    NO (31%):
    D: 15
    R: 120

    NV (6%)
    D: 19
    R: 5

  10. posted by Mark F. on

    Things look good for the cloture vote. Fingers crossed.

  11. posted by Bucky on

    fingers crossed???

    you want this abomination to become law?

    please explain your thinking on this.

  12. posted by Jorge on

    Abomination. Let’s see, God said that for a man to lie with a man is an abomination. But it was ordered legal in all 50 states in 2003 by the Supreme Court. Because… uhhhh, I forgot the reason:

    (Looks up the Stevens’ opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick)

    Oh kay. It’s because it’s unconstitutional to prohibit to gays alone an activity that is constitutionally protected.

    And with this analysis, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell began to fall. Because I say and we all know that you cannot prohibit to gays alone the constitutional right to talk about your dream wedding. And because we all know this, we will strive to let the curtain fall gently rather than let a court make the decision.

    For although God says gay sex is an abomination, we swear under God to protect the Constitution, not under James Madison to protect the Bible.

Comments are closed.