Over at his blog, Sonicfrog has a great piece on the legislative game-playing one of the two most unpopular incumbent Senators reelected last month, Majority Leader Harry Reid. Sonic faults ol’ Harry for delaying a vote on the budget for political reasons — “to deny the Republican yet another example to show just how out of control spending is with the Democrats in charge“, and takes him to the woodshed for his procedural shenanigans with Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell repeal:
Reid has been playing procedural games with the repeal of DADT, for which he has been rightly criticized. Well, it looks like we’re about to see at least one more act of gamesmanship from Reid before he’s through. There are two vote scheduled for a vote in the Senate on Saturday. One one vote, the repeal of DADT, it certainly looks like there are enough Republican crossover votes for that outdated and useless military ordinance to finally get throw into the dustbin of history where it belongs. We are just learning another vote is schedule to occur tomorrow – a vote on the Dream Act. There is no Republican support for that at all. Twenty to one Reid will tie the vote for the two together, which will all but guarantee that repeal of DADT fails and that onerous policy stays in place. Why would Reid do this? Simply to be able to exclaim that it’s the Republicans fault that DADT was not repealed. Yes, he’s just that partisan.
I hope I’m wrong on this one, but given the pattern of manipulation by Reid in the past, i would be surprised if he didn’t take this route.
Personally, I think he secretly wants to keep this policy is place because its repeal will give gay voters one less reason to want to keep Democrats in power. I too hope Sonic is wrong on this.
It’s not just those of us to the right of center faulting the Nevada Democrat for the way he’s handled DADT repeal.
For a while, I’ve been saying the Dems won’t repeal DADT anytime in the near future. I’ll be happy if I’m wrong and DADT goes away and, in fact, I was beginning to think I was wrong all along, over the last few weeks, as it looked to me congress was actually gearing up to repeal it. But if the Dems actually manage to lose repealing it due to an act of self-sabotage, I think it will confirm my beliefs that all the foot dragging, when they had every opportunity to do something over the last two years, couldn’t be a bigger, more-brightly-lit sign that Dems are being less than honest in regards to gay issues.
Got any pork-laden “stimulus” or health care bills? Better not slow down to even read those, otherwise our unemployment rate might reach 8%, and Cthulhu will rise from R’lyeh to consume the world and advocate neoconservativism!!! How about something inexpensive and simple like letting gay people do something that historical precedence and the experiences of other Western countries tell us shouldn’t be a problem? Uh-Oh, better slow down and drag our feet for two years to make sure we don’t do anything rash!
Ultimately, if Sonicfrog turns out to be correct on this, I think Obama would share blame with Reid, since he would likely be telling/pressuring Reid. Repealing DADT makes the issue of gay marriage more prominent and Obama is publicly on the opposite side of his base on it. I don’t think gay marriage is something Obama particularity wants to hemorrhage political points on, especially since I believe his public and private stance on the issue are two different things. It’s just something he wants to vote “present” on.
The question is, is Harry Reid so partisan that he is completely blind to the reality that this is his last chance get this done legislatively, to claim victory on this one issue. I hope not, but my gut says that, unfortunately, he is.
There’s no way he does this. He finally has the support to get it passed. Lieberman urged him to bring the vote up before the START treaty. There’s no reason he’d combine the two bills against Lieberman’s wishes if he already listened to what he advised. It will get passed this time as long as Republican’s can’t find anymore excuses to vote against it.
Sonic,
Good prediction. I also suspect Democrats are going to try to make it LOOK like they tried, but will intentionally fail to repeal DADT so they can blame republicans and keep milking gay suckers for campaign cash.
I just disagree that anyone should be trying to do this right now at all.
But I think your scenario is very possible. We’ll shortly see if we’re accurate or overly cynical.
Oh, I guess I misunderstood your point a little. I don’t think Reid would be doing it out of partisanship, I think he’d be doing it to keep the homos on the plantation and dependent on Democrats.
If the vote comes up I think it’ll pass, but this obsession with repealing DADT by the people who claim that social issues should be on the back burner is so hypocritical it’s sickening.
I ask supporters of repeal here: why the urgency? Why your obsession? And why do you keep up the pretense that you’re committed to military readiness above all else, saying that you’ll support repeal only if it doesn’t harm said readiness? In the article quoted above DADT was described as “onerous”, “outdated”, and “useless”. Onerous, outdated, and useless? Those words have NOTHING to do with military readiness!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If military readiness were truly the top concern then there’d be no case for repeal, since DADT hasn’t harmed military readiness. The policy has been in effect for 17 years, enough time to show that the US armed forces’ ability to do their job–kill people and destroy their stuff in the defense of American lives and interests–hasn’t been impeded by DADT. But military readiness isn’t the concern here; normalizing homosexuality is (Look! This brave soldier is gay, so that means being gay is ok!). That’s what repealing DADT is really about. Why don’t you repeal supporters just be honest about it?
Hi,
I posted this on another thread but I figured I would post it again. Below is a link to a column I wrote listing the most important things that need to happen to ensure the safety and well-being of gay troops after the repeal.
http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/12/im-okay-with-repeal-heres-what-i-want.html
From what I can see, it doesn’t matter whether they repeal DADT tomorrow, because the repeal would be something very gradual anyway. What you mean by “repeal” is something that won’t be fully operational until many more months. If it doesn’t pass the Senate tomorrow, it will nonetheless be happening at the exact same pace as if it would have; there will be gradual shifts in procedure.
From this point on, the most important thing is to concentrate on gay male troops, who worry me the most after the repeal. 85-90% of them wanted privacy and an escape route in case they were in danger — DADT gave them that, and now DADT will be gone, so they will have neither privacy nor an escape route.
Please put partisanship aside on this one and focus on the gay men who have to serve in the armed forces in the aftermath of this policy. There are specific, practical matters that I don’t hear anyone talking about enough: chaplaincy, administrative separations, mental health, STD prevention, assault response, recruitment issues, and the UCMJ.
Read my column, please, and we need to move from propaganda and polemic mode into practical mode. I am worried for my safety if I cannot be discharged, and I know others are also worried. The gay community has to be able to open up lines of communication with the military and offer resources to supplement what the military can offer in the way of protection, advocacy and quality-of-life issues.
I know more than anyone that the military leadership cares — and has always cared — deeply about gay troops, which is partly why they kept DADT in the way they did. They didn’t want people to wander into bad situations when they could just as easily be honorably discharged. But I do not have faith that the military leadership is going to ensure the safety and well-being of gay men in service after the end of privacy.
Thank you for reading this,
Robert O. Lopez
Hi,
I posted this on another thread but I figured I would post it again. Below is a link to a column I wrote listing the most important things that need to happen to ensure the safety and well-being of gay troops after the repeal.
http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/12/im-okay-with-repeal-heres-what-i-want.html
From what I can see, it doesn’t matter whether they repeal DADT tomorrow, because the repeal would be something very gradual anyway. What you mean by “repeal” is something that won’t be fully operational until many more months. If it doesn’t pass the Senate tomorrow, it will nonetheless be happening at the exact same pace as if it would have; there will be gradual shifts in procedure.
From this point on, the most important thing is to concentrate on gay male troops, who worry me the most after the repeal. 85-90% of them wanted privacy and an escape route in case they were in danger — DADT gave them that, and now DADT will be gone, so they will have neither privacy nor an escape route.
Please put partisanship aside on this one and focus on the gay men who have to serve in the armed forces in the aftermath of this policy. There are specific, practical matters that I don’t hear anyone talking about enough: chaplaincy, administrative separations, mental health, STD prevention, assault response, recruitment issues, and the UCMJ.
Read my column, please, and we need to move from propaganda and polemic mode into practical mode. I am worried for my safety if I cannot be discharged, and I know others are also worried. The gay community has to be able to open up lines of communication with the military and offer resources to supplement what the military can offer in the way of protection, advocacy and quality-of-life issues.
I know more than anyone that the military leadership cares — and has always cared — deeply about gay troops, which is partly why they kept DADT in the way they did. They didn’t want people to wander into bad situations when they could just as easily be honorably discharged. But I do not have faith that the military leadership is going to ensure the safety and well-being of gay men in service after the end of privacy.
Thank you for reading this,
Robert O. Lopez
The stand-alone amendment is not going to be tied to anything. The Sonic prediction will not happen.
R.O. Lopez,
What you’re saying is interesting but not an issue. These are all things gays have to currently deal with. Repealing DADT won’t change the situation. Just because they’re allowed to serve won’t change anything. They just won’t get fired for doing their job while being gay.
AJ >> Lopez laments the repeal taking away the separation chapter: the out that gays currently have under DADT when the military gets to be too much for their safety and emotional well-being.
“Just because they’re allowed to serve won’t change anything.”
AJ, gays are already allowed to serve in the military, they just can’t do so OPENLY. You need to state the issue correctly. If you think denying military service to “out” gays is wrong then say so, but don’t paint the current situation as being more dire than it is just to get sympathy votes.
A-a-a-h, the handy bumper sticker philosophy always settles the argument.
If the openly gay soldiers suffer any pressure associated with their sexual differences, the military can simply stop what it is doing to round up the usual suspects and perform justice. Or, it can offer the gay a chance to serve in the gay brigade. Or it can provide psychological therapy all around. Or it can bring in a community organizer and make promises.
Actually, not having the mind of a liberal, I seem to have run out of possibilities. Imposed military social justice for gays is a bit too much of a stretch for me.
Kudo’s to Harry Reid. They just repealed DADT!
As expected, Sonic was wrong.
Yet another prediction blown out of the water. As expected by anyone who isn’t rabid, tby those who actually think instead of react and rage.
PHTPHTHTPHTHTT
I love it when PeeJ shows up to demonstrate how gay and lesbian “troops” really behave.
This “repeal” is shaping up to be like ObamaCare — pander, push it through, and then have the consequences blow up in your face. The first lawsuit in which Private PeeJ screams “homophobia” because he is asked to get coffee for a senior officer should do it.
BWAHAHAHA Suck on it, Dallas.
I was wrong… as expected??? Dude… I was HOPING to be wrong! And I’m glad that I was! And, if you’ll take the time to got to my blog, you will see that I’ve updated it to reflect my gratitude for Ried doing the right thing.
Keep it up, PeeJ. Images of insubordinate, lawsuit happy “diversity hire” gay and lesbian “troops” is exactly what’s needed for 2012.
We already have one Bradley Manning; one more, and that’s it.
Bottom line: How many votes did you Gay Patriots and GOProud actually deliver? 8 out of 65. Your so called friends and allies fought this tooth and nail. You should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to take any credit whatsoever.
I mean those were important votes and I’m glad that we have at least a few Republicans on the side of liberty. It is interesting watching GOProud try and take credit at the expense of HRC and LCR. I don’t know why people assume we should take Democratic votes for granted. They are in general more sympathetic to gay causes, but we still have to work with them too. Without the HRC and other gay groups working with Democrats over the years, we may not have had those 57 other votes. Gay conservatives seem to forget/ignore that fact.
You got that right, AJ. But it’s hardly the result of GOProud or the GayPatriots’ efforts.
Next 9/11 you cons can put down your made-in-China flags and hang your heads in shame because of the Republican opposition to the First Responders (Zadroga) bill you cons opposed.
WOW! After two weeks of almost bitter silence… The libs have found their voice. Good for them!
Yea AD, off topic, but the Senate Republican’s blocking that bill is ridiculous. I’m surprised the ground zero mosque got a decent amount of coverage on this site and conservative news sources in general, yet that has gone largely unnoticed, probably because it paints Republicans in a bad light. The Republicans playing politics with the lives of 9/11 first responders is ridiculous.
“Personally, I think he secretly wants to keep this policy is place because its repeal will give gay voters one less reason to want to keep Democrats in power.”
Why might that be? Because the GOP hates you….
Wow, all the trolls are out. Must have gotten fresh talking points.
Isn’t it nice to see that the Democrats can pass legislation when they no longer can keep pulling the football out at the last minute?
Good thing democrats introduced the bill. Oh wait… Despite Granny goodness’s screed, it was introduced by Lieberman, and Snowe. Not a democrat.
Next 9/11 you cons can put down your made-in-China flags and hang your heads in shame because of the Republican opposition to the First Responders (Zadroga) bill you cons opposed.
Sorry, but no one seriously believes that the Obama Party, whose members call the people who died in the 9/11 attacks “little Eichmanns”, scream “God damn America”, and talk about how they wished more people had been killed had any intention of helping the 9/11 first responders.
This was another attempt to pervert 9/11 to pay off the Obama Party’s corrupt criminal base. The Republicans rightly stopped it.
NDT, If the bill was so terrible, I assume the Republicans have another alternative to provide them with healthcare. Probably not though. They seem to be content watching true heroes go bankrupt as they fight cancer they got as a result of their efforts on that awful day. But I’m sure they’d rather have republicans fight the building of a mosque and tax cuts for the wealthy instead of saving their lives.
NDT, If the bill was so terrible, I assume the Republicans have another alternative to provide them with healthcare.
Yes. Those people like yourself who think it’s so important can reach into your own pockets and pay their bills for them.
Funny how you refuse to do that, isn’t it? Don’t you care about them? Why don’t the billionaires in your Obama Party pay the medical bills for these people? Why do you raise taxes on everyone else rather than spending your own money?
That’s one reason I pay taxes, so the government can take care of its employees. The fact that you don’t think the government has a responsibility to these people is ridiculous. They were injured in the line of duty, they worked for the government so the government needs to make it right.
That’s one reason I pay taxes, so the government can take care of its employees.
But you already pay existing taxes for that purpose.
So what you’re demanding is for more taxes so that the government can take care of its employees — because it’s squandering and wasting the taxes you’re already paying to the point where it can’t.
Even more disgusting, you are trying to exploit sick people to avoid being held accountable for this waste and failure on the part of the government.
If you truly cared about the 9/11 responders, AJ, you would be demanding that your Obama Party overlords and their union puppets who own the health care benefits that most of these folks are already receiving explain where the money you are already paying them is going when they’re not getting adequate care.
But then again, you don’t care. You only want an excuse to raise taxes and take more money away from productive people to give to welfare addicts.
Do you understand how workers compensation works? if you’re hurt on the job, your employer has an obligation to you. these aren’t welfare people, they are heroes who want to live decent lives. honestly, this is pointless. You’ve made it clear u aren’t genuinely trying to have a logical debate. You put words in my mouth and claim psychically know what I’m thinking. all I said is these people deserve healthcare from our government. I guess u believe veterans are welfare babies looking for a handout as well. Forget they’re service, I won’t be taxed to pay for there health!
Do you understand how workers compensation works?
Quite a bit better than you do, I am sure.
if you’re hurt on the job, your employer has an obligation to you.
Which you have said the government is violating.
Your response? More government and more money stolen from working people to fund the government’s deliberate violations and incompetence.
I repeat myself. If you truly cared about the 9/11 responders, AJ, you would be demanding that your Obama Party overlords and their union puppets who own the health care benefits that most of these folks are already supposed to be receiving explain where the money you are already paying them is going when these folks are claiming they’re not getting health care.
In the business world, people who divert workers’ compensation contributions and deny workers coverage are stripped of their business licenses and put in jail. Hold your Obama Party, your unions, and your government workers to the same standard instead of coming back and whining for money.
You are truly disgusting. Pigs like you are looting the taxpayer till and denying these workers the health care that they were supposed to receive from contributions we’re already making, and you have the gall to demand more money?
Honestly, this is pointless. You believe what you want and have no intention on actually seeking out a different person’s viewpoint. The fact that you call it the Obama party is ridiculous. Democrats want to help theses people while Republicans are dropping the ball. This bill is trying to give them money for healthcare. Under current law, the are entitled to nothing from the federal government. They have tried for years to get money from their local governments, but they have been denied. I’m sorry that Democrats want to help them on a federal level, I guess they’re terrible people afterall.
Hi-larious!
Democrats want to help theses people while Republicans are dropping the ball.
Oh really?
They have tried for years to get money from their local governments, but they have been denied.
You mean the local governments of New York State and New York City, led, represented, and owned completely by….wait for it….Obama Party members?
So you’re stating that Obama Party members want to “help” while acknowledging that Obama Party-dominated governments are the ones blocking and denying help.
And it gets better.
Under current law, the are entitled to nothing from the federal government.
LIE.
There are nearly 60,000 people enrolled in health monitoring and treatment programs related to the 9/11 attacks, according to the sponsors of the bill. The federal government provides the bulk of the money for those programs.
Seriously, do you have any idea of what you’re talking about here? Or are you just repeating the talking points the Obama Party massas feed you?
There is no Obama party. As long as you keep referring to them as that, you make it pretty clear you’re not interested in actually having a real, civil debate.
Ah, yes, a “civil debate”.
Next 9/11 you cons can put down your made-in-China flags and hang your heads in shame because of the Republican opposition to the First Responders (Zadroga) bill you cons opposed.
The Republicans playing politics with the lives of 9/11 first responders is ridiculous.
They seem to be content watching true heroes go bankrupt as they fight cancer they got as a result of their efforts on that awful day. But I’m sure they’d rather have republicans fight the building of a mosque and tax cuts for the wealthy instead of saving their lives.
I guess u believe veterans are welfare babies looking for a handout as well. Forget they’re service, I won’t be taxed to pay for there health!
And now you’re whining about names?
There is no Obama party. As long as you keep referring to them as that, you make it pretty clear you’re not interested in actually having a real, civil debate.
First, if “there is no Obama Party”, I wouldn’t be able to refer to anything.
Second, if you’d like to offer a cogent rebuttal based on the facts, the rest of us would like to see it. It would be a refreshing change from your usual spin and obfuscation, not to mention hypocrisy and anti-Republican bigotry.
Wow, I’m a bigot now? Please enlighten me, how am I a bigot?
I give kudos to most of those involved in voting for the repeal but I can’t agree with Sonicfrog’s kudos to Reid. I completely agree with Dan that Reid’s tactics this year and attempts to look more incompetent than he is were his efforts to keep the detested policy in place. His actions were motivated by both the political desire to keep DADT as a “selling point” to keep Dems in office and his own personal prejudices. It gave him an opportunity to blame the entire Republican Party for yet something else that his party was equally or entirely responsible for. I knew this and he knew this when he first tried to smack on the DREAM Act to the first DADT repeal legislation.
He thought that in spite of his tactics, nobody would vote for his supposedly insane opponent and must have been shocked that he was forced to resort to help from his union cronies to deliberately tip the vote enough to ensure his victory. Now he sits there another six years as a disgusting amoral example of what the taxpayers are up against.
Forgot to mention that Reid only now let the vote through because he realized the gig was finally up and he would risk the wrath of the wrong people if he tried yet another stalling trick.