With a vote now schedule for Saturday, and GOP Senators Brown, Collins, Snowe and Murkowski on board, I’m betting this will, finally, happen. But this is troubling, from The Politico:
Publicly, President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his support for repealing the policy this year. But the White House is quietly pushing far more aggressively for the new START treaty, signaling it may be open to punting the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal until after the new year if it can get enough GOP votes on the treaty for ratification, according to several senators and Democratic aides.
And this:
Whether the Democrats’ approach will work is an open question. While gay rights groups do blame the GOP, which has promised to block all legislation until the government is funded and Bush-era tax cuts are extended, they have been urging Senate Democratic leadership to make the measure a higher priority and not wait until the end-of-the-session logjam to move it forward.
“We’re running out of time to get a lot of things done around here,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a proponent of the repeal. “I hope we can get a lot of things done, including that one.”
And this:
“I have a lot of people in Nebraska who are supportive of repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but they don’t hold against you what you can’t do,” said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat up for reelection in 2012.
And this:
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, contends the GOP just wants an opportunity to debate and offer amendments to important bills like the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the DREAM Act and the repeal bill. . . .
“They may be just trying to show their base that, yeah, they really tried hard,” he added, “and the mean ol’ Republicans stopped them from getting it done.”
(Reminder: we welcome comments from all perspectives, but those with personal insults or obscenities will be deleted. That’s the policy.)
18 Comments for “Politics, Politics, Everywhere (Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock)”
posted by Tom on
All the breathless commentary about DADT repeal would be a non-issue if more than four Republican Senators were willing to vote for repeal.
Instead of spending tonight bloviating about whether or not the sky might or might not be falling, why call your Senators? I’ve called, written and e-mailed mine, and gotten about 75 other people to do so. Two other groups in our county are making and encouraging contacts, too.
posted by Carl on
Good points, Tom.
Stephen you didn’t mention this. Bob Corker, once hyped as a “moderate” senator, is going to the press saying that if Democrats want to pass START they can’t pass DADT. Funny how these “moderate” Republicans always seem to show their true loyalties.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/gop_senator_to_dems_if_you_try.html
posted by Tom on
I was just watching Chris Matthews and he repeated a rumor — I guess that’s the best word for it — that several have mentioned on IGF in the last couple days, that IF the cloture vote is successful, THEN several additional Republicans will vote for repeal on Monday or Tuesday when the up-or-down vote takes place.
While I welcome any sign that any Republican is willing to stand up to the religious right and vote in the nation’s best interest, but am I the only person thinking “too little, too late”?
What the hell ever happened to “stand and deliver”?
posted by avee on
The Democrats have been playing politics with this from day one. There were always a handful of GOP votes to be had, if Reid had been willing to reach out to them and make the deal. Instead, he tried to pass a complicated defense authorization bill that included DADT with no debate and no amendments, locking the GOP into opposition.
posted by BobN on
Anyone who follows what goes on in Washington knows these claims about “last minute” bills is a load of horseshit.
I’m always puzzled by people who, for short-term talking-points-gain, are willing to throw away their credibility.
As for START, here’s a conservative explanation on why passage is crucial and how craven all the GOP jockeying is.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/12/17/remaining-obstacles-for-start-mccain/#comments
posted by Tom on
“Avee: Instead, he tried to pass a complicated defense authorization bill that included DADT with no debate and no amendments, locking the GOP into opposition.”
That may well be, Avee, but the vote tomorrow is whether or not to allow an up-or-down vote on a stand-alone bill authorizing DADT repeal. What is locking the Republicans into opposition now?
And what in the world could possibly explain why (assuming that the rumor floating around is true) a number of Republicans will vote against cloture but then vote for the bill itself?
posted by Jorge on
I was just watching Chris Matthews and he repeated a rumor — I guess that’s the best word for it — that several have mentioned on IGF in the last couple days, that IF the cloture vote is successful, THEN several additional Republicans will vote for repeal on Monday or Tuesday when the up-or-down vote takes place.
Well, duh. I’d be one of them. I certainly wouldn’t have signed the pledge to block any other bill and then indicated a willingness to break it like those other four did. Of course, as a moderate if not liberal Republican I’d never win an election in the first place.
“I have a lot of people in Nebraska who are supportive of repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but they don’t hold against you what you can’t do,” said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat up for reelection in 2012.
All right, tough guy, try this on for size: if DADT does not pass by 2012, you’re outta here! And your beauty queen junior colleague in NY, too.
posted by Tom on
Tom: I was just watching Chris Matthews and he repeated a rumor — I guess that’s the best word for it — that several have mentioned on IGF in the last couple days, that IF the cloture vote is successful, THEN several additional Republicans will vote for repeal on Monday or Tuesday when the up-or-down vote takes place.
Jorge: Well, duh. I’d be one of them. I certainly wouldn’t have signed the pledge to block any other bill and then indicated a willingness to break it like those other four did. Of course, as a moderate if not liberal Republican I’d never win an election in the first place.”
I don’t get the “duh”.
The pledge was to not allow passage of any legislation at all in the Senate until the Bush tax break was extended to those of us in the highest income brackets. The bill was passed yesterday and signed into law today.
So why is the pledge binding on any Republican at this point?
posted by Tom on
“Publicly, President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his support for repealing the policy this year. But the White House is quietly pushing far more aggressively for the new START treaty, signaling it may be open to punting the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal until after the new year if it can get enough GOP votes on the treaty for ratification, according to several senators and Democratic aides.”
Today is the day we’ll see what happens, I guess. By the end of the day, it is possible that the path to ending DADT will be open, finally, and the United States will be, in a very real sense that it has not been since the 1940’s, the “land of the free” for gays and lesbians who serve.
But I was thinking about Stephen’s comment when I got up this morning, and I think it appropriate to note again, as Carl pointed out, that Stephen has ignored the elephant in the room: The only reason that this is an issue is that Republican Senators — most vocally Bob Corker — are threatening to derail START if the Democrats push on DADT.
Now, look.
I am not enamored of the Democrats’ record on gay and lesbian issues. The Democrats are, for the most part, as often spineless on gay and lesbian issues as not, and the gains we’ve made gain in recent years because we’ve paved the way for votes like the vote today, if it happens and if it is successful.
But if Democrats are, for the most part, spineless, at least they are not in truculent opposition, as are the Republicans, for the most part.
It is well and good to call out Democrats when they are spineless. Stephen does a good job of that — he’s not missed and opportunity that I’ve noticed in the five years I’ve been reading IGF, and he’s a good spin artist — but it is also important to keep our eyes open and remain reality-based.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t get the “duh”.
The pledge was to not allow passage of any legislation at all in the Senate until the Bush tax break was extended to those of us in the highest income brackets. The bill was passed yesterday and signed into law today.
So why is the pledge binding on any Republican at this point?
And what about the bill to fund the government? I’m actually not certain, but I’m pretty sure that was what failed in the Senate Thursday. And though not often talked about, that was part of the pledge.
…..
I just walked into a trap.
posted by Tom on
63 YES, 33 NO, 4 NV
posted by Jorge on
Noted.
Analysis will be interesting.
posted by Carl on
I’m a little surprised that it actually passed, I had resigned myself to this not even being voted on.
Which Democrats voted no and which Republicans voted yes?
posted by Tom on
I’m trying to get the roll call. I think that Senator Kirk of Illinois voted for cloture. If so, I am glad, because I spent much of Wednesday night and yesterday calling friends in Illinois and asking them to call his office.
Assuming Kirk voted for cloture, another Republican must have voted for cloture as well, because Lieberman and Collins had only 61 votes — 57 Democrat and 4 Republican — lined up as of last night.
posted by Tom on
On the measure itself, 65 Yes, 31 No, 4 NV.
posted by Tom on
This is the cloture vote roll call: 63-33-4
Kirk of Illinois and Voinovich of Ohio were the unexpected Republican votes. I’ve bolded the Republicans who voted for cloture.
YES 63
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NO 33
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NOT VOTING 4
Bunning (R-KY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
posted by Jorge on
I hope nobody’s going to suggest we contribute to the Republicans who voted yes. Because I’m tapped out. I’ll save the page for next year, though. And there’s still a legal fight over Murkowski.
Urrgh, that means I’m sending a trio of thank you notes, too. Actually, make that four. Forgot my congressional rep.
posted by Tom on
The roll call vote on the bill itself. As in the previous roll call, Republican votes for repeal are bolded.
YES 65
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NO 31
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NOT VOTING 4
Bunning (R-KY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)