Would DADT have still been repealed if Obama never compromised on the tax cuts?

[Cali_Democrat]

If Obama never compromised on the tax cuts, it's very likely that DADT would not have been repealed.

What do you think?

[onehandle]

1. No. Because although we hold The White House, the GOP gets final say.

And for the next two years, Boehner will virtually be President.

Say is over.

[phleshdef]

2. Not a chance in hell.

[ProSense]

3. What's certain

is that DADT would not have been repealed today had it not been for the President's push to get Republican support. There were even Democratic Senators on the fence.

[AtomicKitten]

4. You have not proved any correlation between the two much less quid pro quo. nt

[Pirate Smile]

6. I don't think there has to be a quid pro quo. I do think we can accept that Republicans would

filibuster everything in the Senate without the tax deal. I don't think that means Obama and Republicans said - OK, part of the tax deal is passing DADT Repeal.

[AtomicKitten]

9. The Rs could not be trusted to fulfill their part of any quid pro quo bargain.

I think repealing DADT was the result of a long arduous process put in motion by Pres Obama. He knocked out every possible objection they could possibly come up with.

It's a damn shame all this legislation has piled up at the end of this congress as the result of 87 filibusters.

[kath]

67. EIGHTY-SEVEN filibusters!

And when the Dems even mildly *threatened* to filibuster, the Repugs howled "nuclear option!!".

:banghead: :banghead:

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Look at it like this.....

If Obama never played ball on the tax cuts, the Republicans could have filibustered any repeal of DADT.

We'll never know for sure, but that's why I created this poll....so that DUers can weigh in.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Because of the Rs' squirrelly behavior, it's impossible to predict what they would do.

After 87 filibusters this session of congress, quite frankly I'm surprised Democrats have been able to move anything through the circuitous sausage-making process.

[Pirate Smile]

18. Frankly, it is amazing how much they did pass considering that they needed a super majority for

everything. By those standards, a lot of the things passed by LBJ and others wouldn't have made it because they had less then 60 votes - plus they had Dem majorities with a lot more then 58 Dems plus 2 Indies.

Someone really needs to list out all the momentous legislation that never would have passed if the idiotic 60 vote super majority requirement was always around.

[AtomicKitten]

24. The Senate is broken with the abuse of the filibuster.

Speaker Pelosi knocked out over 200 bills during this 111th Congress, legislation that died in the Senate. I do hope the Dems take the one-day opportunity in early January to change the rules to even the playing field. It's a miracle the Dems were able to squeak out what they did in the Senate.

[Pirate Smile]

46. The horrible irony is that if they change the filibuster in January, there is not a chance in hell

that anything is going to come out of that Republican/Tea Party controlled House that the still-controlled by Dems Senate is going to be desperately trying to pass.

I guess the only good thing that filibuster reform will help with in the next Congress is getting Judges & Federal appointees confirmed by the Senate. That would be helpful. They can spend the next 2 years filling up the Justice system with Obama judges since they wont be trying to pass legislation from the House anymore.

[AtomicKitten]

56. Changing the rules is always a crapshoot.

However, the GOP's abuse of the filibuster makes it a serious consideration. It could backfire as easily as it could help.

I am really pissed about the GOP slow-walking confirmation of Pres Obama's judges. It's disgraceful. I vote yes on the scenario you described!

Cheers.

[karynnj]

17. The op has not proven it, but an argument can be made

It is clear it would not have happened this year, because it is very clear that the Republicans were not deviating from their pledge not to let anything pass until then. We needed 2, maybe 3 Republicans (Manchin is far from a definite yes.)
Then look at the next two years. There is no it could pass the Republican House.

So, a case can be made that there might not have been an opening until 2013 - assuming, of course, Obama won.

Leaving aside the civil rights need, this also is a needed victory for Democrats - possibly at least changing part of the CW on Obama's power. Hopefully, this will be followed by passing New START, because not passing it would make Obama's foreign policy more difficult.

[joshcryer]

20. Correct, until taxes were passed they were deadlocked, and will likely have been...

...until the end of the year. DADT would not have been repealed with the new House. Ergo, it is obvious that the tax compromise made DADT repeal happen.

[karynnj]

23. small change - the tax compromise made DADT repeal POSSIBLE

[joshcryer]

27. Fair enough. But they would not have HAPPENED otherwise.

[karynnj]

65. absolutely

[AtomicKitten]

28. The Rs certainly threatened a log jam until the tax compromise was passed.

[joshcryer]

21. Such a correlation is obvious.

It needn't be "proved."

[AtomicKitten]

29. It was an implication, any correlation certainly speculative.

[joshcryer]

30. Deductive logic is not speculation.

Especially when we have GOPers who have shown just how together they can stand on issues (full up and down votes usually). They would have done what they threatened to do and DADT would not have been repealed.

[AtomicKitten]

31. The Rs are completely unreliable and thus unpredictable.

Deductive logic does not apply in this case.

[joshcryer]

32. They were not relied upon to pass it.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Whether they would filibuster or not was always uncertain; they had the votes to pass it for weeks.

[joshcryer]

34. Wrong, they had no reason to filibuster it after the tax cuts were passed.

Reid promised to keep the session open and he did and will continue to do so. If they decided to then filibuster DADT until the end of the year, they would look like idiots. They want to go home to their families, you know. This is why we will likely have a vote on SMART in the ensuing days.

[AtomicKitten]

36. They have continued to filibuster the Dream Act and the 9/11 First Responder's bill

and those appear to be going nowhere. The Rs not only look like idiots, they are idiots.

I think you mean the START treaty and that too is a crapshoot.

[joshcryer]

38. Neither of those bills are cut and dry.

The 9/11 First Responders bill in particular was tacked on to other legislation. Gillibrand is now taking the "stand alone bill" route that DADT took, and it's a whole fucking lot harder to vote down bills like that.

[AtomicKitten]

39. The Dream Act was separated out and they still filibustered it AFTER the tax compromise.

[joshcryer]

41. Irrelevant. The Dems had the votes on Dream, btw.

They had exactly enough votes to avoid a filibuster, but 5 democrats voted it down. Why? Because immigration is a fuckload more complicated, ie, not cut and dry, like DADT.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Again (good grief!) DADT cloture vote passed, Dream Act cloture didn't, both post tax compromise.

[joshcryer]

45. Again, the Dems had the votes for DADT and Dream Act. The Dems voted down Dream Act. It wasn't GOP.

[AtomicKitten]

50. It doesn't matter if they had the votes to pass it if they didn't have enough votes for cloture.

You do know how government works, right? Yes some douchebag Dems joined the Rs to filibuster, but the majority of the filibuster was composed of the Rs who, in fact, didn't play nice after the tax cut compromise they demanded. They filibustered again! And that's the point.

[joshcryer]

51. Uh, the vast majority of the R's never actually play nice. It's whether or not we can get a few.

In the case of DADT we did, in the case of the Dream Act, we did.

[joshcryer]

35. In any event, you are deflecting. Repeal would not have happened without tax cut compromise.

What the GOP could or could not have done after the tax cut compromise happened is irrelevant. If there was no tax cut compromise we know that they certainly would not have repealed DADT.

[AtomicKitten]

37. Deflecting what? Your insistence that the Rs would play nice after the tax compromise?!!

The Republicans threatened to filibuster everything until the Bush tax cuts were dealt with first. Your assumption is that once that was done they would play nice. Wrong! Right after that they filibustered the Dream Act!

[joshcryer]

40. Irrelevant to what actually *happened*.

[AtomicKitten]

42. Tax compromise passed followed by DADT cloture vote successful but Dream Act cloture vote not.

That's what ACTUALLY happened.

[joshcryer]

43. DADT = simple legislation. Dream Act = major legislation, which the Dems had the votes for.

We screwed ourselves on that one, the Republicans had shit all to do with it.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Your argument is what is irrelevant but you're doing an excellent job moving the goalposts.

Both DADT and the Dream Act were stripped out and presented as stand-alone legislation. This is about cloture and your assertion that the Rs would play nice after the tax compromise passed. That assertion doesn't hold water because one survived a cloture vote, the other did not.

[joshcryer]

49. I don't think you understand. Both votes required only a few R votes. BOTH VOTES GOT THEM.

Coluture only requires a few Republicans come to our "side." 3, in fact.

In the case of DADT we got a few more. In the case of Dream Act we got exactly as many as we needed.

Do you understand now?

[AtomicKitten]

52. Good grief, another civics scholar! Invoking cloture with 60+ votes breaks a filibuster.

The DADT cloture vote was 63-33 allowing it go to the floor for a vote which was taken and it passed 65-31.

The Dream Act cloture vote was 55-41, not enough to break the filibuster.

Here endeth the lesson.

[joshcryer]

54. The 5 Dem votes were enough to break it.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Republicans would have filibustered and then they take over the House plus more R's in the Senate.

I don't see how anyone could think it would have legislatively happened in the near-term otherwise.

Courts would have eventually overturned it but it would have been much more difficult and, really, who can count on the current Supreme Court to do the right thing on anything right now.

edit to add - I really don't get the reasoning of the Yes votes. Do they think the Republicans would have stopped filibustering it before January 5th and the new Congress? Do they think the new Congress with a Republican-controlled House would have passed the repeal? WTF!

[joshcryer]

22. I think some of those were mob mentality votes, others were diehard anti-Obama votes.

Some may have just been confused by the wording.

But I'm glad the poll is going in the proper direction.

[liberal N proud]

8. The GOP knew they could stall on anything and everything

All they had to do was block any progress in one or the other house until January.

[rucky]

10. It wouldn't have passed without the Pentagon study & Gates' support.

Which gave moderates in the Senate "cover" for their vote (which they knew was the right thing to do).

[mtnsnake]

12. Why not just celebrate the repeal of DADT without attaching it to the divisive tax issue

That way we can all be so happy together.

And why not just attribute its repeal to the incredible amount of effort by those who fought so hard and long to get this thing repealed?

[vaberella]

14. B/c of the political climate--one probably insured the other's success. n/t

[joshcryer]

25. Why not appreciate what politics is?

This post is an appreciation post for what politics really is. Compromises and strategy.

I have a feeling SMART will be passed, too.

[vaberella]

13. It would not have been repealed now. It's a straight trade off. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

15. I reject the attempt at connecting the two issues

Unless you can prove such a deal was made, this is just divisive on a good day among many bad days. Feh.

[BzaDem]

16. Just because you reject reality doesn't mean reality isn't reality.

Conservatives reject global warming -- that similarly doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist.

The OP is not saying "a deal was made," or that the tax cut compromise somehow guaranteed repeal of DADT. The OP is simply saying that DADT wouldn't have been repealed if there were no compromise. And that is obviously correct (Republicans put in writing a promise to filibuster everything until the tax cut compromise was approved, and everything actually means everything.)

[joshcryer]

26. What deal? It's logic. GOP + no tax deal = deadlock. New House = no chance for repeal.

The tax deal effectively made DADT happen 2-3 years before it would've happened otherwise.

[vaberella]

60. Logic doesn't work when people want to wallow in their misplaced indignant anger. n/t

[vaberella]

59. By doing that you ignore the political climate we're living in and Obama is dealing with. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

19. Republicans in the Senate connected all issues together..,

refusing to pass anything if the tax problem was not delt with to their satisfaction.

This happened in the last two weeks. Couldn't we wait at least six months to rewrite history.

[andym]

48. If the GOP Senators had carried out their threat to filibuster everything

unless they got the tax cuts, then DADT repeal and everything else in the lame duck would never have passed.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. Of course.

[jenmito]

55. Nope. The Repubs.' votes were contingent on first finishing the tax bill...

so not only did he get to look like the "grown-up" with the compromise, he got DADT passed, and possibly START.

[Clio the Leo]

57. You cant have watched the news for the last two weeks and think otherwise....

... and it will be interesting to see how the rest of this story unfolds in light of this compromise.

[vaberella]

58. Now the question is. Do people respect him when realizing what he had to do for DADT repeal? n/t

[Clio the Leo]

62. lol of course not ....

.... I give it until Wednesday when everyone realizes the military isn't going to implement this thing over night and the cries of "BETRAYAL!" begin.

The military doesn't do ANYTHING fast, not gonna start now.

[mkultra]

63. lol. They will chide him for the tax bill and turn away from him on DADT

Even though he did both when congress was lazy and slow.

[Amimnoch]

61. This thread will make baby jesus cry.

[ClarkUSA]

64. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. Nate Silver has a more logical reason for those 11 GOP votes.

In what reflects a shift from the way that gay rights initiatives have been perceived in the past, however, other Republicans seemed to conclude they might have been taking on some measure of risk by voting to perpetuate a policy that a clear majority of the public wanted to see repealed.

The yea votes from the two Republicans from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who often break party ranks, were not surprising — nor was that from Scott Brown of Massachusetts. (Ms. Snowe and Mr. Brown will face the voters in 2012). But the vote from John Ensign of Nevada, who is ordinarily quite conservative, was more out of character. Between Mr. Ensign’s personal scandals and the fact that Nevada seems to be transitioning from a purple state into a blue one, he is probably the most vulnerable Republican senator running for re-election in 2012.

Two other Republicans, Mark Kirk of Illinois, who won election by a narrow margin in November, and Richard Burr of North Carolina, who won re-election by 12 points in November but who has tepid approval ratings, may have cast a yea vote with an eye toward 2016.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/popularity-of-dont-ask-repeal-may-have-drawn-republican-votes

[vaberella]

66. Iffy considering these guys voted against the Dream Act.