Breaking: White House: Obama Calls Levin With "Commitment" to Lame-Duck DADT Repeal

[FreeState]

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/11/white-house-obama-calls-levin.html

(Good to see Inouye say they have reached out to dozens of Senators from both sides of the aisle on this issue - Gibbs earlier today said that was not the case - Maybe thats just true of the President? )

This afternoon, White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Metro Weekly that President Obama had spoken with one of the Senate leaders of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal -- Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) -- about the provision's inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had, earlier in the day, told The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld at the press briefing that passage of the NDAA, with DADT repeal, in the lame-duck session of Congress is "in the same category" as passage of the START nuclear treaty and the extension of the middle-class tax cuts.

Inouye wrote, "Today, President Obama called Chairman Levin to reiterate his commitment on keeping the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the National Defense Authorization Act, and the need for the Senate to pass this legislation during the lame duck."

He added, "The President's call follows the outreach over the past week by the White House to dozens of Senators from both sides of the aisle on this issue."

[Chulanowa]

1. Hear no good, see no good, speak no good. n/t

[joeybee12]

2. What amazes me is that if Obama pushed this, he'd be calling out McLame...

which would be a good thing for him to do, politically...McLame is one unhinged nutfucker...

[bobburgster]

4. You should have seen the Monday night Daily Show.

He basically showed exactly how screwed up McCain is.

[bigtree]

3. this doesn't fit with the narrative of critics

. . . who insist the President's willing to let it all go. Sounds like he's fighting for the repeal. I'll still defer my opinion to those folks who are more personally affected by the outcome though.

[FreeState]

5. The Whitehouse is causing confusion

First we had Gibbs today saying the President has not called a single Senator. Then we have this statement saying the Whitehouse has called Senators on both sides... its a little confusing as to what is actually going on.

[bigtree]

8. good point

. . . the mismanagement of all of this has left folks looking on to wonder about the President's actual interest and commitment to resolving these issues; his interest in defending the LGBT community's rights; and his interest in challenging the other barriers Clinton erected to keep some of us from realizing the full benefits of their citizenship. If there's still skepticism and cynicism, the WH has only the President to blame.

Hope this all shakes out like it's being reported.

[TheWraith]

15. Not really, I think they're just talking about different things.

Unless I'm misinformed, Gibbs said that Obama hadn't personally been calling Senators. No surprise there, since there's not really any votes to be gotten--in this climate, what Republican is going to change their vote to accommodate a Democratic President? The only really useful role of a direct POTUS call is to pin down wavering Dems, such as he just did with telling Levin not to make a deal.

However, the White House is always going to be quietly talking to legislators about the administration's legislative priorities. Think of it as an ongoing whip count--finding out who's on what side, who's wavering, who will vote with you given what conditions. If there are any deals for votes, then they'll almost certainly be carried out through staff members, so that--for instance--Snowe or Collins can say "No, I never talked to the President about this."

[dmr]

23. That makes sense.

Thanks!
:hi:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

20. No problem with subterfuge

If it throws a bunch of scumbag media hungry Rethugs off the trail from whining and crying and blocking it....so be it.

[Historic NY]

6. Just get it done and on the floor now....let them vote it down & the defense bill..

[dana_b]

7. fingers crossed that

this actually happens. That would be great news indeed.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. If true, it is good to see the effort

and I'm going to assume that Robert Gibbs' version was just inaccurate. So good for the President.

[TheWraith]

19. Probably not inaccurate, just not a complete picture.

See post number 15.

[terrya]

10. DADT repeal DOESN'T have to fail in the Senate.

The votes are there. Get Snowe, Collins, Illinois' new senator, Kirk, possibly Alaska's Murkowski. Keep the Democrats (I think even Blanche Lincoln, Pryor of Arkansas and West Virginia's Manchin will vote for it). Lieberman will vote for it. If the White House is engaged, and lobbies the Senate, then it can happen.

[TheWraith]

17. Lincoln and Pryor are both "no" votes.

Unless Lincoln flips, since she's not facing reelection anymore, it's going to depend on getting Snowe, Collins, and at least one other Republican who would at least be willing to vote for cloture.

[SoCalDem]

11. Less talk...more action

Just DO it already, and tell the people you tell to STFU to the press until it's DONE!

I am so damned tired of our won legislators telling what they're "a-gonna-do", so that all the repubes have ample warning & time to block it all..

[Historic NY]

14. exactly they spent too much time figuring it might get voted down.

[TheWraith]

18. You think if the press doesn't know, the Republicans will magically not notice legislation?

Seriously? :wtf:

[SoCalDem]

21. Of course not, but surely the dems could talk "amongst themselves"

about what they agenda is, KEEP it quiet & then just spring it on the floor of the house/senate.

The "we're-a-gonna" shit is what makes me nuts..

Every time the announce exactly what they plan to do, it gets shot down by some arcane "procedure", and then the press is off and running about how ineffective they are..

Just get a plan, institute it, and maybe tell us all afterward, how the goofball republicans screwed it all up..

Why have the press pick it apart bit by bit , before it ever even gets to the floor?
At least 90% of the "experts" invited to "comment" are republicans anyway, so why do they even think that any ideas would get a fair shake?

[TheWraith]

22. And the Republicans will just let it slide through in surprise?

It doesn't work that way. Even if you COULD bring a bill to an instant vote on the floor, which you CAN'T, what makes you think the Republicans would be more likely to vote for it?

[Fruittree]

25. My thoughts exactly.

[Starry Messenger]

12. k&r

[DevonRex]

13. Kicked and recommended. nt

[VMI Dem]

16. He better work his ass off to repeal his DADT.

[DaveinJapan]

24. I do wish I could stay positive but can anyone tell me

what is different this time around, other than emboldened Republicans licking their chops, from the LAST time this effort was shot down in the Senate a few months ago?