I just got this message from the Obama Email Info service (I assume government communications aren’t copyrighted):
Do the Republicans even have the numbers to block a DADT repeal? And if they don’t, doesn’t opposing something that the vast majority of Americans want (poll here) going to cost them?
All you say is true but it misses the main point: many Republicans are fuckstains.
The problem is that by pushing it ahead, it gives someone who votes against the proposal an out. He can simply say that it is unwise to move forward until the Pentagon study is complete. If Obama had waited, then the dissenters would be forced to say that they didn’t like gay people serving in the military.
If Obama had waited? Wasn’t one of the bigger criticisms of him from Obama supporters that he was dragging his feet on this one to begin with?
Right. This isn’t Obama who’s not waiting. This is Lieberman and Murphy who aren’t waiting.
Aren’t those two different things? Those who supported him and believed he would move swiftly on repealing DADT and want him to are not the same people as legilators who don’t want the repeal and would waffle between reasons for moving ahead depending on the circumstances.
The study being done isn’t to determine if DADT should be repealed. The Study is how DADT should be repealed. Anyone voting against the measure is saying they don’t like gay people.
In the house debate on the issue as usual Republicans were more then happy to try and frame the debate as something else. ‘We aren’t giving the military a choice’ etc
These guys are total douche-bags who aren’t even interested in listening to a majority of their own constituents. 60% of Republicans support the repeal of DADT.
The house vote was pretty disgusting for Republicans as only 5 of them supported repeal but the Democrats don’t get to claim righteousness either as 27 of them also voted against the amendment.
On the senate vote the Republicans best hope was to stop it in comity. They failed to convince any Democrats there and even one of their own betrayed them.
So next up is the senate vote. 51 votes needed to stop it but they only have 40. It is possible 11 Democrats will vote with them, but even the Republicans don’t think that’s likely so McCain is trying to convince all 40 Republicans to filibuster the vote.
Good luck with that to the king of hypocrites. I think they fail there too.
41 votes are needed to stop it. The filibuster is the key here. It’s not that nutty to think that most Republicans will filibuster (they’ve got to pander to the right with elections coming) and a couple Democrats may filibuster or at least fail to break filibuster- the Democrats have a lot more conservative members and less party unity than they used to. Comes with that big tent majority.
Isn’t a filibuster of this a filibuster of the entire defense appropriations bill, essentially?
Yeah, the Republicans would have to filibuster the whole Defense appropriations bill, since the committee included the DADT repeal provision in it. Also, one Democrat on the committee, Jim Webb of Virginia, who was Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy did vote against the repeal. But the Democrats (including Lieberman) have enough of a majority that they didn’t need his vote.
Assuming that Webb and whatever Democrats are opposed to repeal aren’t willing to cross their party and join the Republicans, the Republicans are looking at having, at most, 40 votes, since Collins is in favor of repeal. I’m pretty sure that filibustering the entire authorization bill in favor of retaining a policy that has 22% support nationwide, when they don’t even have the votes to pull it off is just an exercise for those who need to fend off challengers from the right.
The whole deal could be endangered by a completely unrelated factor, however. The House version of the bill includes an appropriation for Joint Strike Fighter engines that SecDef Gates is adamantly opposed to, and that Obama has threatened to veto the bill over. I don’t think the Senate version contains that item, so it stands a decent chance of being removed in conference committee.
And for everyone’s viewing pleasure, here are the Republicans standing on the wrong side of history, yet again.
Did Mike Pence and Trent Franks just suggest that the men and women in the military are polled or given a vote in other military policy matters and so should be here?
Also doesn’t Pence even read the newspaper when it comes to what the American people support by a large majority?
And just what the hell is Louie Gohmert even saying?
Possibly silly but honest question - does this mean that the Uniform Code of Military Justice will be reformed at the same time? It’s the UMCJ (articles 125,134 and 80) with its proscriptions against sodomy that is used to discharge gay soldiers, DADT is simply stopping people asking directly if soldiers have committed those acts. Even if you don’t ask someone, if you have reason to believe someone is committing sodomy (which technically involves anything other than penis/vagina penetration as it is defined by the UMCJ) you can investigate and discharge them if evidence is found.
Isn’t that the real problem?
No, the DADT legislation also directly prohibits homosexuals from serving (and is itself part of the UCMJ, I believe). And the prohibition is considerably stricter then actively engaging in sodomy. It prohibits saying your gay, trying to marry someone of the same sex or engaging or attempting to engage in any sexual act with someone of the same gender. The law is here
Not sure if the current repeal would also affect other anti-gay provisions of the UCMJ though. I suspect anti-sodomy prohibitions aren’t enforced anymore (and would probably be unconstitutional in light of the semi-recent SCOTUS case throwing out state anti-sodomy laws.)