It Begins-- Reid: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal depends on GOP cooperation

[playstation]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that a critical Defense Department authorization measure that contains a repeal of the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy banning openly gay Americans from serving in the military could possibly be squeezed into a short lame-duck Senate session, but that its ultimate fate will depend on Republican cooperation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/127541-reid-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-depends-on-gop-cooperation

[davidinalameda]

1. gee-what a surprise

they can blame it on the republicans when it fails to be repealed

I guess this is so much easier than simply not appealing the judge's ruling that DADT is unconstitutional

[Ian David]

2. Yay, for Bipartisanship!

Yay, for Bipartisanship!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9469277

[emulatorloo]

3. Well doesn't it?

They need some Republican votes to get it done.

[KansDem]

4. Does he still need 60?

[emulatorloo]

9. 60 for cloture, then a simple majority to pass.

So they will need some repub votes for Cloture.

[ProSense]

13. Most likely,

but a lot of people who thought Republicans winning yesterday was punishment for Democrats knew that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. No...the Senate rules magically disappeared in the last two weeks

What do you think, Skippy.

[KansDem]

35. Actually, I was being somewhat sarcastic...

After listening to the "we need 60 votes" excuse for two years, I was wondering if Reid might change his mind about reconciliation. It might help stave off some disastrous GOP malfeasance.

And sorry if you confused me for your friend "Skippy"...

[TheWraith]

48. Reconciliation only works on things related to the budget.

And it only works for 10 years. Even if you could pass a DADT "repeal" via reconciliation, it would mean DADT coming back into force in 2020.

[KansDem]

60. Thanks for the clarification!

The Vietnam War was ended not because it was a morally reprehensible, but by de-funding it.

I don't know, maybe something like DADT could be ended the same way?

[TheWraith]

62. I can't say for sure, but probably not.

A question that esoteric is a little beyond the scope of my knowledge, but I can try to game it out. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Congress passed a law that forbade any military funds from being used for DADT-related investigations. First off, there's the question of whether such a law would bear up under inevitable court challenges, since we're essentially talking about a law that says you can't enforce another law.

However, even if it met that test, we'd still have the problem that being gay--or at least, being gay and having sex--is illegal in the military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 125, which criminalizes oral and anal sex between persons of any gender. So even if DADT investigations and/or discharges could be defunded, openly gay service personnel could still be under threat of jail time depending on whether or not their commanding officer felt like being a dick.

As far as I can see, there's only two sure ways to kill this thing permanently: a repeal by act of Congress, or a Supreme Court case.

[karynnj]

65. The Vietnam War was not defunded before the troops were withdrawn

The treaty of Paris was where we agreed to bring them home in 1973 - with terms nearly identical to those available in 1968 when LBJ was working on it rather than running for re-election.

In addition, defunding the current war would not end DADT.

[KansDem]

76. I was thinking along the lines of defunding whatever monies are necessary

...to keep DADT going, if there are any...

Although ending the current war(s) would be a good idea in and of itself.

[ShadowLiberal]

38. Yes, you need 60 votes to do almost everything in the senate

About the only things you can do without 60 votes in the senate are reconciliation and voting for a majority leader.

[HughMoran]

42. You'd think political wonks would know this?

Makes me wonder at times...

[cigsandcoffee]

5. They had their chance, didn't they?

That's another issue the super-majority was squandered on.

[Kolesar]

8. House hearings on baseball steroid use

*That* was a waste

[emulatorloo]

11. the house passed the repeal. reid needs republican votes for cloture.

[Kolesar]

68. Acknowledged! eom

[TheWraith]

10. We never actually had a supermajority.

We had 55 Democrats plus Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson, et al.

[dsc]

29. actually on that bill Lieberman is a force for good

His gay rights record is great.

[TheWraith]

47. Yeah, but with 4-5 "leaners" on "our side," any issue was a craps shoot.

Chances were always good that one or two would have issues with something, whether that was DADT, public option, cap and trade, etcetera, etcetera...

Even when we had 60 "Democrats," it was almost never a true "supermajority" on any issue that mattered. And as long as the Republicans were willing stop everything, even on things they actually agreed with, the wobbling "Dems" were a recipe for disaster.

[Prism]

6. "could possibly be squeezed into"

That's some awesome verbiage right there. Suddenly the "We're going to do it in the lame duck, super duper promise!" is this thing that maybe they can think about getting around to as the situation warrants.

They've learned nothing.

[emulatorloo]

14. See jenmito's post right below yours

There were supposedly some Republicans committed to helping after the election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=506082&mesg_id=506106

[Prism]

20. It is highly, highly contingent

First the all-important study has to come out. Then we have to hope there isn't a single thing in it that "concerns" the Republican senators. Then we have to get them to agree to bring up DADT in a lame duck to begin with because of the temptation to say "Let's not do anything major or controversial now that a new Congress has just been elected."

Also, the Maine statehouse just went red in this election with a tea party governor. That may give people like Collins and Snowe some pause, or at least excuse enough to table it during the lame duck.

It is not something anyone should be hanging their hat on.

[jenmito]

7. It DOES! Dems. only have 59 in the lame duck, but there are Repubs. that are

on the record saying they're for repeal after the "study" is done.

[TheWraith]

12. You can bet your ass that the phonelines to Maine are humming right now. nt

[bornskeptic]

15. Only 58 I think. I believe Kirk replaces Burrus immediately.

Hopefully at least Snowe and Collins will cooperate.

[emulatorloo]

16. Yeah if anybody is represented by Collins and Snowe, please CALL THEM.

[Tesha]

17. Why on Earth would they? (NT)

[jenmito]

21. Snowe, Collins, and a couple others said they'd vote to repeal it after the

report was done.

[karynnj]

64. Scott Brown who said he was waiting for the report coul be a possibility too

As Massachusetts was a sea of blue wins, he might be concerned with his own re-election.

[karynnj]

63. Only 58 - Kirk will immediately replace Burris because it was a special election

Now, before the election Susan Collins was for repealing the ban. Others were saying to wait until the report comes out. Assuming it is positive, this should move at least Scott Brown, who knows that his state favors it - and the report coming out removes anything for him to hide behind.

[jenmito]

71. True and true...

we will pick up not only Scott Brown, but Susan Collins, Olympia Snow (IIRC), and a couple others. Dem. Jim Webb was against repeal, too.

[QC]

18. I'm stunned!

Well, no, not really.

[jenmito]

23. And you shouldn't be stunned if you know basic math. n/t

[QC]

26. And you would know what was going on here if you had ever watched Charlie Brown.

[jenmito]

28. This has been the plan for several months. It WILL be repealed before the next Congress starts. n/t

[Metric System]

19. I don't think the Dems wanted to repeal it anyway. It's all lip service. That's my conclusion.

[jenmito]

22. They DO want to and WILL repeal it in the lame duck session with the help of

a couple Repubs. whom the Dems. DO need.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. I think many of the anti-equality Democrats are thirlled with

the big win by their faith mates and fellow conservatives, the Tea Party. Help them defend marriage and the military from teh gay.

[jenmito]

27. It will be repealed in the lame duck session! Obama said as much today.

And they will need and will GET the couple Repubs. on board.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Do you have suggestions on how to pass a bill into law without that right now

We're all fucking ears if so, Cap'n.

[niceypoo]

30. There will be no cooperation from the republicans

How many times does Lucy have to pull the ball away before Charlie Brown wises up?

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Then the bill won't get passed

It's no reason to shit on Reid for stating an obvious and undeniable fact. But I see you have no suggestions for passing bills w/o GOP cooperation. So what's the problem with Reid's statement?

[Unvanguard]

37. The problem with Reid's statement is its context, not its content.

He's obviously correct procedurally. That was why it was always understood that repeal during the lame-duck session was a dubious prospect. That's why a vote was pushed for many months ago, rather than at the last minute, and why Obama's reference to legislative repeal as an alternative to executive action has rung hollow.

The problem with Reid's statement is that the reality he refers to spells doom to the Democratic strategy for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--the strategy that has excused the homophobic and ludicrous military "review", the Obama Administration's failure to issue a "stop-loss" order, and the DOJ's willingness to appeal LCR v. United States.

[niceypoo]

41. The GOP wont cooperate with Obama

You and Reid are fooling yourselves

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Who's saying they will

Then the bill won't get passed, end of story.

What's so hard here? Why are you pretending not to understand?

[niceypoo]

46. Obama needs to play hardball with the republicans

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Is that your method for passing bills w/o GOP votes

I'm glad you've planned this out so carefully.

[niceypoo]

54. What is the alternative to hardball?

Capitulation and failure, for starters; it goes downhill from there. The republicans do NOT do bipartisanship. They will NOT compromise with Barack Obama, they will only demand compromise FROM him. He needs to go on the offensive. He needs to use his bully pulpit and start a massive campaign to educate the nation on what supply side economics has done to this country over the last 30 years. He has the CBO scores to back him up. HE NEEDS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE MESSAGE, HE HAS THE BULLY PULPIT TO DO IT WITH. He needs to start calling their bluffs and stop trying to play footsies with them.

More supply side will permanently sink this nations economy. Obama has to make stopping it a huge priority. This aint rocket science.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. So, you're saying that the Congress needs Republican votes to pass bills

But you don't plan to get those votes by cooperation, but "Hardball."

Gotcha.

[niceypoo]

58. You obviously cannot see the forest for the trees

[alcibiades_mystery]

59. So you say

At the end of the day, Reid says he needs Republican votes to pass this legislation. That is correct. I certainly think Republican votes can be "forced" through the bully pulpit, but you seem to want to talk about the general transformation of society rather than the process of actually passing legislation. That's fine. I'm all for it. But you don't seem to have a workable plan for passing DADT repeal that would NOT involve garnering GOP votes.

Hey, wait a second! Wasn't this whole thread about passing DADT repeal? And here we're yammering on about supply side economics and the like. Or rather, you are.

[zulchzulu]

33. It is down to the votes unfortunately

Will Republicans step up and do the right thing? Will mosquitos stop biting people?

[thewiseguy]

34. It did not need the GOP cooperation before yesterday and nothing was done

NOTHING.

[jenmito]

70. Yes it did! We did NOT have 60 Dems. in favor of repealing DADT. n/t

[Kltpzyxm]

36. wow.

what a surprise.

:eyes:

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

39. Get this coward out of "leadership", for Dad's sake!!

He beat Sharon Angle. Great. Now take a back seat as the Senator from Nevada and let someone with a spine run the Senate. :grr:

[Jamastiene]

40. I won't be holding my breath.

DADT is practically carved in stone now. We'll never get rid of it now. Might as well call it the 11th Commandment at this point.

[hughee99]

43. Didn't they actually HAVE 60 votes for a little while?

Between Franken finally getting seated and Scott Brown getting seated?

[karynnj]

66. Yeah - except for a gap in that time after Tedy died before MA

elected a new Senator.

[hughee99]

74. For some of that time,

MA had an interim Senator (Paul Kirk, one of Kennedy's aides) appointed by Governor Patrick, giving them that 60th vote. My point was that even with 60 Democratic votes, they still didn't get it done. Reid can blame the repukes now if he wants, but he couldn't even get his own ducks in a row when he had the opportunity.

[karynnj]

77. True, I stated it completley incorrectly

There was a period with no Senator as the MA legislature ha to change the law to allow Patrick to appoint Kirk. I think there were about 4 months with 60 - and that is when they passed the Senate HCR bill - and yes, Reid had trouble with several Democrats. That was a major thing to o in 4 months.

[jenmito]

67. Not 60 votes in favor of repealing DADT. n/t

[hughee99]

72. And this is the big issue.

Even with 60 votes in the senate, they still couldn't get the 60 for DADT.

[jenmito]

75. Right. But the "review" some of those "no" votes were waiting for will be out Dec. 1st,

during the lame duck session, and that report will allow those "no" votes to become "yes" votes and repeal will pass.

[wisteria]

45. It would have needed their cooperation anyway. n/t

[besdayz]

49. if this

doesn't get passed in lame duck forget about a 40 seat republican house majority passing a bill ......


this is why you don't wait ....its a textbook example actually of how not to pass popular legislation.....

[treestar]

51. It's the base that says they were not fired up and didn't contribute, etc.

they got the Republicans. I thought Republicans were no worse than Democrats?

The dissonance here is astounding. After posting on DU for the past 6 months that Obama was a horrible Homophobe and no better than Republicans. So then, what difference does it make?

The left was going to punish the democrats by letting Repukes win. Now they don't like the consequences. Well, we knew THAT was coming.

[firedupdem]

52. +1

nothing more to add. You summed it up.

[mitchtv]

53. we knew those consequences

were coming on Rick Warren day, never believed him

[jgraz]

55. Except that's total crap

"The Left" donated and volunteered for this election (something, btw, that you've already admitted to NOT doing). "The Left" also showed up to vote.

Who DIDN'T show up were the independents and the casual voters -- exactly the people who "The Left" have been predicting would not show up if Obama and the Dems didn't deliver.

Now your plan seems to be that Obama keep on the same path that just cost us the House, and you continue to harangue the Dirty Fucking Hippies. I hope you've already set aside some time to work on your excuses for 2012.

[jenmito]

73. Yup. Adam Green from the PCCC was all over TV saying progressives didn't go out and vote

because they didn't get the Public Option in the HCR law, DADT wasn't repealed (yet), etc. He seemed proud of not having more progressives voting. I bet he's REALLY happy NOW. :eyes:

[Safetykitten]

56. If anything, he is predictable.

[JNelson6563]

61. Great news!

According to what I read on DU it's the Rethugs who have lead the way on gay rights. How fortunate now that Gay Rights heroes are on the case!

Julie

[WI_DEM]

69. So how do you suggest it gets passed?