Senate Votes Down Debate on Repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

[agzg]

Seems like we haven't had a good opportunity GreekChatters to completely flip out on each other lately, so here we go:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/...ex.html?hpt=T2

Washington (CNN) -- The Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic bid to open debate on repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service, possibly killing any chance for it to get passed in the current congressional session.

However, a bipartisan group of senators immediately said they would raise the issue again in a separate piece of legislation. It was unclear if the bid to separate the repeal provision from a larger defense authorization bill would increase its chances for approval.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, called Thursday's vote without an agreement with any Republican senators to support the motion, ensuring it would fail. The vote was 57-40 in favor of the cloture motion that required 60 votes to pass.

A Republican filibuster forced Democrats to seek a deal that would get them the necessary GOP support to get the 60 votes to proceed. The Democratic caucus has 58 members, meaning they needed at least two Republicans to join them to overcome the filibuster.

More at the link.

So what do you think? Should they have voted to debate it, even if it doesn't pass? Or, if it wasn't going to pass is it a good thing that they didn't waste the time debating it?

[AGDee]

It sounds like the problem with it was related to other parts of the bill, not the don't ask, don't tell thing itself. I understand that it would be incredibly time consuming to vote on all things separately always but I get frustrated when things are lumped together for political reasons.. to try to shove something through, etc. They lump something awful with something good and then, during the next election, bash someone for voting against the good thing when they voted against it because of the awful item attached to it.

That was probably about as clear as mud.

[agzg]

Lieberman is going to be putting forth a stand-alone bill to repeal DADT, we'll see what shakes out.

However, right now they need a defense spending bill. I'm very frustrated with Democrats that took a ton of "you're not supporting the troops" and "you're unpatriotic" from pundits whenever they wavered on spending bills prior to 2008, but can't dish it out. They've been acting spineless, unless they're bitching about Obama.

I don't know, for me, I'm really pissed at Washington in general right now.

[Chicago88]

At this point in our society, I still don't believe anything dealing with homosexuality will pass so debating it would do no good. In my opinion it's extremely sad. I thought that as Americans we stood for equality yet we segregate the openly gay who are fighting for that equality? Now I'm not one who follows politics like I should because the hippie/anti establishment in me thinks every politician is full of shit but the whole situation is kind of hypocritical if you ask me. I know religion will be brought up but God is not Commander in Cheif. I have never understood this debate anyhow, I personally do not feel that being gay affects the millitary.

[SMTTT]

Originally Posted by Chicago88

At this point in our society, I still don't believe anything dealing with homosexuality will pass so debating it would do no good. In my opinion it's extremely sad. I thought that as Americans we stood for equality yet we segregate the openly gay who are fighting for that equality? Now I'm not one who follows politics like I should because the hippie/anti establishment in me thinks every politician is full of shit but the whole situation is kind of hypocritical if you ask me. I know religion will be brought up but God is not Commander in Cheif. I have never understood this debate anyhow, I personally do not feel that being gay affects the millitary.

Especially with America being a melting pot for different religions, and what their religions find right and wrong.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

It sounds like the problem with it was related to other parts of the bill, not the don't ask, don't tell thing itself. I understand that it would be incredibly time consuming to vote on all things separately always but I get frustrated when things are lumped together for political reasons.. to try to shove something through, etc. They lump something awful with something good and then, during the next election, bash someone for voting against the good thing when they voted against it because of the awful item attached to it.

That was probably about as clear as mud.

I get it and I hate it as well. Who was that dumb-ass democrat in Congress who lumped the Dream Act last minute with the DADT a few months ago? Like that ever had a chance in hell.

[Drolefille]

Both DREAM and the repeal of DADT should pass. What was with Orrin Hatch's sudden flipflop on DREAM anyway... Oh wait, sucking up to Tea Partiers so he doesn't get a primary challenge. *sigh*

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Both DREAM and the repeal of DADT should pass. What was with Orrin Hatch's sudden flipflop on DREAM anyway... Oh wait, sucking up to Tea Partiers so he doesn't get a primary challenge. *sigh*

As in they have enough support/votes to pass, or as in they are good bills and SHOULD pass?


-Either way DREAM and DADT should both be stand alone bills.

[ADqtPiMel]

A lot of it is timing -- the Republicans all signed an agreement to oppose moving to any legislation until the tax cuts are passed. The Dems have been doing all sorts of votes that they knew would fail to highlight the Republicans' unwillingness to compromise before the tax cuts are passed.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

A lot of it is timing -- the Republicans all signed an agreement to oppose moving to any legislation until the tax cuts are passed. The Dems have been doing all sorts of votes that they knew would fail to highlight the Republicans' unwillingness to compromise before the tax cuts are passed.

It does seem like that, doesn't it?

"Welp, we tried but those pesky republicans have stopped us again!"

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by agzg

Lieberman is going to be putting forth a stand-alone bill to repeal DADT, we'll see what shakes out.

I don't know if they'll get to the stand alone bill. Provided he introduces it at absolute earliest, before the Senate adjourns tonight (they're still in), they'll do a procedural move that would make it possible for the bill to be called up on Monday at earliest. Then they would have to file cloture on a motion to proceed to the bill, wait an intervening day under Senate rules, have a cloture vote, wait out 30 hours post-cloture, file cloture on the bill itself, wait an intervening day, have a cloture vote, wait out 30 hours post-cloture, and have a passage vote.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

As in they have enough support/votes to pass, or as in they are good bills and SHOULD pass?


-Either way DREAM and DADT should both be stand alone bills.

They are good bills and SHOULD pass. And no, nothing is a stand alone anymore. Even John *move the goal posts on DADT* McCain is out of plausible reasons to oppose DADT. Attaching it to a defense bill makes perfect sense. And is far less ridiculous than the amendments that the GOP added/tried to add to the health care bill prohibiting viagra for pedophiles just so they could use it to campaign with later.

The majority of the military supports repeal, the leaders support repeal, and people like John McCain have sold their souls so they can be on the wrong side of history. It's fundamentally dishonest.

And as long as the GOP's method is to prohibit debate on the issue and not allow it to come up for a vote, I don't begrudge the Dem's tacking the bills onto things. When they all decide to act like grownups and have legitimate debate rather than faux filibuster everything... well we can talk then.

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And as long as the GOP's method is to prohibit debate on the issue and not allow it to come up for a vote, I don't begrudge the Dem's tacking the bills onto things. When they all decide to act like grownups and have legitimate debate rather than faux filibuster everything... well we can talk then.

Additionally, it's usually quicker procedurally to use a previously passed (but not cleared for the president's signature) bill as a "vehicle" instead of creating a newly written bill, which is a huge part of why they do that so frequently.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

A lot of it is timing -- the Republicans all signed an agreement to oppose moving to any legislation until the tax cuts are passed. The Dems have been doing all sorts of votes that they knew would fail to highlight the Republicans' unwillingness to compromise before the tax cuts are passed.

They are acting like two years olds and the American people are the ones who suffer because of it. This is the stuff that makes me sick about politics.

[Animate]

Originally Posted by AGDee

It sounds like the problem with it was related to other parts of the bill, not the don't ask, don't tell thing itself. I understand that it would be incredibly time consuming to vote on all things separately always but I get frustrated when things are lumped together for political reasons.. to try to shove something through, etc. They lump something awful with something good and then, during the next election, bash someone for voting against the good thing when they voted against it because of the awful item attached to it.

That was probably about as clear as mud.

My main gripe with politics and the "process".