Senate Blocks DADT Repeal

[t0dd]

Source: TPM

The Senate today blocked the start of debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, with Republicans objecting to a provision that would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The vote was 56 to 43, with 60 votes needed to break the filibuster.

Two Democratic senators, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both from Arkansas, voted with Republicans to block the bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid also voted no, a procedural move so he can bring the cloture motion back to the floor later.

DADT was one of several sticking points of the defense authorization bill, which must pass in order to fund the military.

Republican senators, including Sens. John McCain (AZ) and Susan Collins (ME), argued that passing repeal now would undermine the Defense Department's review of the policy, which won't be completed until December.

The language in the bill provides that DADT wouldn't be repealed until 60 days after the review is complete and the plan for repeal is signed off on by the president, defense secretary and joint chiefs of staff.

Read more: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/senate_blocks_dadt_repeal.php?ref=fpblg

[joeybee12]

1. Who were the phucking Dems? Besides the obvious Nelson...n/t

[gateley]

3. Lincoln and Webb - I think just those three. nt

[joeybee12]

6. WTF is up with Webb?

At times he's very sane and rational, other times a freaking bagger.

[Hansel]

14. I heard Webb vote yea. nt

[RamboLiberal]

15. Webb is acting like a Marine

That branch will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the 21st century on this issue.

[Tx4obama]

29. Webb voted 'yes'. - Lincoln, Pryor, Reid voted no. Reid had to in order to bring it up again n/t

[No Elephants]

56. Webb did not join the Pubs. Read the second sentence of the OP article.

[No Elephants]

55. Try reading past the headline.

[No Elephants]

54. Where do you see Webb?

[Jax]

5. There is NOTHING fucking Democratic

about any of them who voted to block this.

FUCKING NOTHING.

[gateley]

9. Well said. Exactly. I don't care what their fucking "reasons" may be. There is

nothing Democratic about a NO vote.

[t0dd]

13. Lincoln and Pryor voted no

[gateley]

2. Rachel just said - essentially the Republicans (and Webb, Lincoln, Nelson) just

said, we will not fund the Pentagon because of DADT inclusion in this.

[Dawson Leery]

4. Jim Webb really does not belong in the Senate.

He does not understand that the congress does not take orders from the military. The military takes orders from the civilian leadership.

[gateley]

7. I used to like him! I'm trying to remember why. nt

[bullwinkle428]

10. He looked like a savior compared to George Allen, way back when.

[No Elephants]

59. Please see Reply 56.

[RainDog]

24. he's wrong on this issue

I hope he can justify his existence on prison reform - but, honestly, it's sad to see such a backwards attitude from this man.

[No Elephants]

58. Please see Reply 56

[pasto76]

25. Heres a damn good reason to like him

flatly stated, without him, The Post 9/11 GI Bill would never have been. Our vets from these wars deserve much more than even that package.

Period, end of story. Without Sen Webb, our vets - especially the reservists who have served 3 or more tours now - would still be getting a measly 300 bucks or so a month for school. My buddy katrell is over there now, he and his wife have been putting off kids FOR SIX YEARS because they know, as a reservist, he will be deployed every 2 or so years. He is on his 3rd tour now.

One important lesson of my adult, post war life, nobody is perfect. Yes, it is fucking sinfully shameful to treat gay soldiers in this manner, and it needs to be fixed. Let them serve openly if they choose, or if they get "found out" dont let them get drummed out. Sen Webb is a good one, and is personally involved via his son's service in these wars. Im disappointed as well, but this is also the closest this has ever come to being repealed.

sgt pasto

[jobycom]

32. Not sure I agree completely, but damn well stated, and good points.

:thumbsup:

[No Elephants]

61. Please see Reply 56.

[No Elephants]

60. Please see Reply 56.

[Abq_Sarah]

8. And the civilian leadership

Takes their orders from the voters.

Webb may be trying to protect his seat. That seems to be the overriding goal of most politicians.

[bullwinkle428]

12. Nearly 80% of the public in favor of repealing DADT.

[littlewolf]

16. maybe not in Webb's district ... so he might trying to protect his seat

[No Elephants]

63. Please see Reply 56.

[Abq_Sarah]

17. Do you have Virginia polling information

On DADT and the DREAM act?

Not nationwide polling but Virginia polling.

[fedupinBushcountry]

35. He voted YES

Look for yourself, geez get the facts before you join a bandwagon. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00238 Webb (D-VA), Yea

Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay

and every god damn party of "NO" republican.

[No Elephants]

62. Please see Reply 56.

[Jax]

11. Never liked that turncoat.

[littlewolf]

23. which one ? there are a several ....

[No Elephants]

64. Please see Reply 56.

I'm not a huge fan of Webb's, either--skyhook, Reagan, his remarks about "white culture," but he's innocent on this one.

[ProudDad]

21. Not since 1941...

The Corporate States of America have been in a perpetual war ever since...

Just to save the bogus capitalist system which should have gone down in 1933...

So now it's going to take the entire planet with it...

[24601]

49. But the law trumps an order. n/t

[No Elephants]

57. Please see Reply 56.

[DeadEyeDyck]

76. I think he votes "yes" n/t

[Hansel]

19. Webb voted yea. nt

[totodeinhere]

26. There is a lot of disinformation going on in this thread.

It wasn't Webb and Nelson, it was Pryor and Lincoln.

[COLGATE4]

18. No surprise - unfortunately. Just really, REALLY irritating that

we have to get stabbed in the back by our own members.

[AC_Mem]

20. Just emailed both of them.

They make me SICK.

[ProudDad]

22. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with that Keating Five Crook and Serial Liar

j. mcShame...

And his brother j. kyl...

YUCH! :puke:

[No Elephants]

65. Call them. They need to hear from people who oppose them.

[ProudDad]

80. I've done more than that

I've demonstrated at kyl's office and got to hear them go bla-bla-bla-bla...

Demonstrations don't work either...just a waste of time...

I'm working on a more effective plans; a Progressive take-over our city government (very easy, just 4 council seats) and then pass legislation for a relocalized, sustainable future...joining with our brothers and sisters south of the border to create a sustainable ecosystem for survival during the Long Emergency.

Screw what the Feds and the States do -- their bloody end-stage capitalist system of domination is collapsing anyway...they're running out of oil.

[eggman67]

27. Um, why are people ripping on Webb?

He voted with the Dems on this.

[jobycom]

33. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor...

You know, that kind of thing.

[Dogmudgeon]

42. Because raging is more fun than reading

This is about Pryor and Lincoln, period. (Reid voted "no" on a point of procedure to save the bill.) Pryor and Lincoln are from Arkansas; this is a third rail for them.

I have my complaints about Webb, but I respect him, as I do with most Democrats I have differences with. That whole line of whine about the DLC is destructive when it's wrong -- and it's usually wrong. Every other DLC member voted to end DADT. If we want to end the DLC, we need to make its existence unnecessary.

Executive Orders can be overturned, stalled, messed with, and subverted -- the Republicans would just LOVE to flex their muscles this way.

But DADT could be passed by reconciliation, though, with no problem. They GOP would SCREAM, but, so what? 80% of the American populace sides with military members from the Queer community. The other 20% are having a collective adult tantrum.

--d!

[Tx4obama]

43. Reconciliation can be used for only budget issues. n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

45. I'm pretty sure DADT can be tacked on to a Supplemental military appropriation

If you (or anyone else who may read this) have better information on the process than I do, you may want to post or discuss it, but I'm pretty sure it can be done this way.

--d!

[Tx4obama]

46. But 'reconciliation' can be used ONLY on monetary issues.

Please explain how DADT would be considered a monetary issue, cause I don't get it.
If the Supplemental Military Appropriation is voted on in a normal matter then yes, but 'reconciliation' has different rules regarding what can be passed in the reconciliation process.
Remember when after the Health Care bill was passed - and then the 'extra fix bill' that held the changes to the then passed HCR bill went into reconciliation? They had to drop one of the items in there because it was something that 'did not' affect the budget.

[No Elephants]

68. Nope.

[No Elephants]

67. So? Acts of Congress can be repealed, amended and subbverted.

Do you really think anyone would reinstate DADT?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[24601]

50. Then who are you rooting for? n/tr

[bluestateguy]

52. I am going to plead what is called the DU Fifth Amendment

That is, I decline to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me against DU rules.

[24601]

66. Understood n/t

[beforeyoureyes]

30. Blanche Lincoln - the one that Obama swooped in to rescue last election

Surprise Surprise

[Tx4obama]

31. Lincoln, Pryor, Reid voted no. Reid had to in order to bring it up again. List below

Lincoln, Pryor, Reid voted 'no' - of the three Reid had to vote no so that he could bring the bill to the floor again in the future (procedural rule). Murkowski(R-AK) didn't vote.

Here's a link to the vote tally:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00238

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---56
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Goodwin (D-WV)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---43
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1
Murkowski (R-AK)

[HereSince1628]

34. Who really thought this could pass just 1 month before the elections?

IMHO this was thought out about as well as the Dems' stance HCR in July 2009.

And NOW they get to say that they TRIED!!! but that it failed, and so we won't see it again until after 2012.

[Tx4obama]

38. It will have to be voted on this year. It's the Defense Appropriations Bill. n/t

[HereSince1628]

47. And DADT will be stripped from it...

when it finally passes.

[Tx4obama]

72. You don't know that for sure & no one else does either. n/t

[quakerboy]

77. I'd rather they put it out for a vote

than that they didn't. Putting things up to a vote is at least an actual event. I can look. I can know who voted and how they voted. If they do not have the votes to break a filibuster, I can accept that. That's something I can work to change. That puts it in the court of the voters. That's the senate doing what it more or less should do.

[Judi Lynn]

36. U.S. Senate blocks debate on ending military gay ban

U.S. Senate blocks debate on ending military gay ban
32 mins ago

Attempts to repeal the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military stumbled on Tuesday as the Senate voted against starting debate on defence legislation containing the change.

Sixty votes were needed for debate to begin on the bill authorizing defence programs and repeal of the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." Just 56 senators voted yes and 43 no. The chamber's Democratic leaders could try again later this year to pass the legislation.

The Clinton-era policy allows homosexuals to serve in secret but expels them if their sexual orientation becomes known. Repealing the ban was one of President Barack Obama's promises in his 2008 presidential campaign.

Obama's Democrats in Congress wanted to scrap the 1993 policy before November congressional elections in which Republicans are expected to make big gains. The House has already voted to repeal the ban.

Advocates of the change are expected to try again in the Senate, probably in the "lame-duck" session of Congress that is expected to follow the elections. The White House said it supported another attempt.

More:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100921/tsc-uk-usa-military-gays-vote-011ccfa.html

[karynnj]

37. Rephrase: The Republicans in the Senate blocked the defense appropriations bill

The fact is, McConnell would have allowed the Senate to take action on the bill if Reid agreed to his conditions - one condition was that no immigration related amendment be considered in the first 20 amendments. Reid wants the Dream Act included. This was not primarilly about DADT.


Here is McConnell:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=598823692
Note he says nothing related to immigration should be in the first 20 amendments.

Here is Reid rejecting it:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=598823696

What seems key is that McConnell does not want a vote on the Dream Act before the election. Reid wants it. What is clear is that a vote against the Dream Act would hurt many Republicans.

[Tx4obama]

39. What I heard was Reid would allow gop 3 amendments but gop wanted 20

and Reid said NO.

[karynnj]

41. I heard that too - but it looks like the issue is the Dream Act

On DU JK, Inuca posted a Kerry tweet, "Stomach-churning vote today to fillibuster Defense/DADT/DREAM Act, hear what Dan Inouye so rightly said"

Menendez is speaking now about Reid saying that many would be allowed, but the Democrats wanted a few first.

[high density]

44. Rephrase: Republicans block pay raise for troops

Amazing.

[metapunditedgy]

40. So Republicans and Blanche are going to be reading the phone book on the Senate floor

for the next few weeks?

Don't give me this bullshit about Joe Lieberman again, either. Make them filibuster for real, or admit you are complicit.

[krabigirl]

48. all of the "Dems" who voted against repealing this need to be voted out.

[Tx4obama]

73. It is common that when there are not enough votes to pass to let the senators that are running

for re-election to vote 'no' if they need to.
Reid did not have 60 votes to get 'cloture', so he probably told Lincoln and Pryor to go ahead and vote 'no' - they both are from Arkansas and Arkansas is a VERY conservative state.
As far as Reid voting 'no' - he HAD TO vote 'no' due to a screwy procedural rule in order to be able to bring the bill back to the senate floor in the future.

[quakerboy]

75. You may just get your way on 2 out of 3

I hear Sen Lincoln ain't doin that great running as a mushy no stand kinda semi Democrat. And though he had a much better reason for his vote, Ol Harry isn't out of the woods either.

Of course, those potentially taking their seats aren't exactly the sharp kinda go getters for human rights that we might wish for.

[lynne]

51. IMO, it was set up to fail. I truly don't think they wanted it to pass -

- so that it could be used against Republicans before the election. The Dream Act was added to the bill and Reid wouldn't allow any discussion. Frankly, had the Repugs added stuff to a bill and wouldn't allow us to discuss it, I got a feeling we wouldn't be crazy about passing it, either.

I think it was intentionally designed to fail so that the failure could be used to beat Repugs over the head before the election. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[quakerboy]

78. Better to allow the repubs to add ammendments

then vote against it anyhow? That worked so well with the health care bill, I can see why we would want to repeat that strategy.

It was set up to fail by the fact there are less than 60 democrats, and even some of those democrats vote against it. And the remainder are not willing to play the kind of hardball game that would change the rules as they sit.

[JonLP24]

53. Honest question

Be gentle. I thought I was really aware of legislation process but I can't figure out this. How exactly did Reid save this bill by voting against it? Thanks. :)

[No Elephants]

69. Majority leader voting against it allows it to be brought up again at a later time. Senate Rule.

[JonLP24]

70. Thanks!

[No Elephants]

71. "The vote was 56 to 43, with 60 votes needed to break the filibuster" What filibuster?

[robcon]

79. Filibuster is just an announcement. The bill had no chance w/o 60 votes.

n/t

[ProudDad]

84. Keep believing that lie

if that helps you in your denial of the complicity of the other right-wing of the Big Business Capitalist War Party so be it...

The Dem leadership could have changed the "rule" in Jan. of 2007 but for the need to preserve the big lie to fool the Sheeple...

[ProudDad]

82. The cowardly Dems don't even need a filibuster any more

mcshame "threatened" a filibuster so, automatically, they needed 60 votes to proceed to debate.

The Dems could have changed the rules (with a simple majority vote) in January of 2007 but then they couldn't have used the filibuster rule to play the obfuscation game (pulling the wool over the public's eyes) with their alter-ego, the republicans, when it next became the 'republicans' turn to "rule" (a euphemism for their turn to carry out the wishes of the corporate masters of both right-wings of the Big Business Capitalist War Party).

At a minimum, if the Dems were serious, they could force their hand and make them filibuster the old fashioned way...I'd like to see that!

[quakerboy]

74. Perfect.

It wasnt going to pass, I think that we all knew that. But now they need to hang it around their necks.

Bring the bills to help the unemployed next. There are an awful lot of those unemployed people, and they too have the right to vote. If we can pass something, great, we enact our agenda and help people. And if not, that's the one to really hang around their obstructionist Republican necks.

Show the people who make up this country who we are and what we are for. And who is blocking it. Then they can vote, as an informed populace.

[ProudDad]

81. We're going about this ass-backwards...

The mantra should be NO ONE JOIN THE MILITARY!!!

I don't want gays in the military, I don't want straights in the military...

I don't want ANYONE to participate in the destruction of the Earth for short-term capitalist gain...

War is a Racket
Gen. Smedley Butler

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

NOTHING has changed since Gen. Butler wrote this -- in fact, it's gotten even worse since now the military is also "working at home" to keep everyone in line...

[ProudDad]

83. I've got an idea -- DEFUND THE FUCKERS

Let 'em hold bake sales to buy bombers...

Fuck 'em...