Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is backing the standalone Don't Ask, Don't Tell bill in the Senate, ABC News reports. Brown's vote puts the number of Senators publicly supporting the repeal bill at 61, enough to secure cloture on the bill and move it to almost-assured passage in the full Senate.
Brown joins Republican Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME) in publicly supporting the measure. ABC News reports Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is also on board.
The bad news: The Senate may not have time to vote on the measure because the rest of the homophobic GOP will simply run out the clock rather than give in to 70%+ of America who wants to see this repealed.
As for timing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that's in the hands of the Republicans. In a strongly-worded statement released last night after the standalone vote, Reid expressed strong support for the standalone repeal measure (he's a co-sponsor) but also said that with Republicans threatening scheduling shenanigans to focus public attention on spending bills, he just can't be sure if there will be time for the Senate to take up DADT repeal again.
"We are very quickly running out of days in this Congress. The time for week-long negotiations on amendments and requests for days of debate is over," Reid said, referring to the protracted negotiations with Collins before the failed cloture vote on the defense authorization bill last week, which was the first time the Senate took up DADT repeal.
"Republican Senators who favor repealing this discriminatory policy need to join with us now to stand against those who are trying to run out the clock on this Congress," Reid said.
It may honestly already be too late for DADT repeal, which of course was the entire point of these same GOP senators refusing to vote for it last week when it was part of the defense spending measure. They were never going to let it happen, and now they are off the hook. Now they can say "We wanted to vote for it but there wasn't time. We're not homophobic. We'll bring it up next year."
Which with a GOP House will never happen. Ever.
To recap: Washington Republicans are gay-hating bigots and they always will be. I refuse to get my hopes up that they will allow this farce to end. Yes, Clinton created this mess. It was the Republicans who then made it permanent law by passing it in Congress. The Democrats are trying to end it. It's the Republicans who are stopping them.
Period. Either end it or don't. But stop lying about wanting to end it then refusing to vote that way.
Posts
23 comments:
Yes, Clinton created this mess. It was the Republicans who then made it permanent law by passing it in Congress.
No they didn't. Democrats passed this in 1993 when they had control of both Houses of Congress and Clinton the Democrat was President. This was always a Democrat-created problem. They've had two years and a super-majority in the Senate to end it and they didn't. Republicans did nothing to prevent Democrats from repealing it.
You know what? Then that's all on Clinton's head.
So why stop the Democrats from correcting this long overdue problem now?
I'm back!
Did you know I can't even fact-check basic fucking knowledge, and that this blog is full of factual errors, and that Gay Hating Democrats had nearly six years in which to repeal DADT before 2000, and that President Obama could have at any point as Commander In Chief directed the military to stop enforcing DADT, or could have let the order of a federal judge to refuse to enforce the measure remain instead of appealing it to a higher court and getting an injunction keeping DADT in place?
What have the Democrats done to stop DADT?
Who are the "homophobes" in Congress and the White House?
Why does Zandar refuse to put actual facts in his shitty blog?
No Zandar. The majority Congressional Democrats created this problem in the 103rd Congress, and since Obama's been President, the majority Congressional Democrats in the 111th Congress exacerbated the problem since they refused to put through their own standalone version of Lieberman's bill for two years. Two years. They had a supermajority in the Senate for several months, meaning they didn't need Republicans, just like they didn't need Republicans to pass Porkulus or Obamacare. And yet, all you do is blame Republicans, just like Congressional Democrats do. Nor do you make the appropriate corrections when told the facts.
So why stop the Democrats from correcting this long overdue problem now?
Why should Republicans help Democrats now? As far as I'm concerned, this is a Democrat failure and Republicans should do nothing to bail them out. Then Republicans can go ahead and pass a repeal in the 112th Congress (which is more likely than you think; Republicans can read polls too) or let the courts reverse it, either of which will just highlight how Democrats, especially the leftists in charge now, are utter failures at governing.
Besides Zandar, why do you care? A person is nothing but a piece of commerce according to your legal definition, which is nothing more than a regurgitation of Democratic talking points and not the Constitution or the law.
Zandar's a "liberal" there SteveAR!
You show me an angry "liberal" blogger, I'll show you a lazy college dropout who is too lazy to check facts and wants everything handed to him because he thinks he's smarter than everyone else...
So I don't get the troll points, are you saying that gays shouldn't have rights? Or that democrats are actually the homophobes? I don't get your stupid rants.
Feline Overlord Productions, with assistance from the Wikipedia Foundation, Presents:
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A history of homosexuality in the United States military
For almost as long as the U.S. has had a military, they have had discharges for the crime of "sodomy". Sodomy is defined as the act of "unnatural sexual contact", usually in the context of homosexuality. In fact the first discharge for sodomy was, in 1778 (during the time it was known as the Continental Army), Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin.
Beginning in 1916, "blue discharges" were used to remove gay personnel from service. While "blue discharges" were supposedly neutral (that is, neither honorable or dishonorable), they were denied the benefits of the G.I. Bill, and other people understood the negative connotations of such a discharge, leading into discrimination in civilian life. Media criticism, especially criticism from the black press (as "blue discharges" were used to remove African-American personnel as well), placed the "blue discharge" under scrutiny and eventually it got shut down in 1947 in favor for "general" and "undesirable" discharges. Any servicemember found to be gay (but who had not had any sort of gay sex in service) would recieve an "undesirable" discharge.
Adding to the mix was that, prior to World War II, the military added psychiatric screening to the induction process. As the field of psychiatry considered homosexuality a mental illness, at the time, this was quickly introduced into military practices, and the military began to offically differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
In 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress and Signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures of military law. Among the policies and procedures that were established were the ones for discharging homosexual personnel.
In the 1970s, the gay and lesbian rights movement developed and chose the repeal of anti-gay military policy as one of it's primary targets. As a response (if partially, at least), the Department of Defense issued DOD Directive 1332.14, stating that homosexuality was incompatible with military service.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the policy was under scrutiny, but it became a political issue during the 1992 presidential election as Bill Clinton ran upon the issue of reversing this policy (with him and others citing the murder of Petty Officer Third Class Allen R. Schindler, Jr, a gay member of the US Navy). When he was elected president, Congress swiftly acted to prevent this by enacting the policy into United States law, by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) that required the military to abide by regulations identical to DOD Directive 1332.14.
For those of you too stupid to read shit (re: SteveAR, the Incredible Credibility Problem), long story short, the gay ban in the military has been more or less unoffical policy for 170 years, unoffical "official" policy for 40 years afterwards, offical policy for 10 years after that, with "Don't Ask Don't Tell" being present policy for the past 18 years.
DADT was Clinton's response toward the fact that an outright gay ban was slipped into a defense authorization bill.
Yes, a Democratic congressman led the way for full legal ban, but blaming it solely on President Clinton and a Democratic congress is not only denying the very, very long history about gays in the military, it's outright mendacious.
Zandar, I like you normally, and I consider you very insightful-- particularly in economic matters--and very amusing to read.
That said, STOP CAPITULATING TO THE FUCKING ASSHOLES. Seriously. Placing this solely on Clinton's head is not only demonizing him unnecessarily, but it is forgetting that--in it's own sick way--it is still an improvement over the last 210 years and the only thing he could quickly do given the fact that an outright ban on gays was legally in place.
Clinton did his best to hold himself to his promise, which Congress basically shut down by slipping it into a fucking defense spending bill.
And there is the "Kitty Rage" portion of our production.
As an aside: SteveAR (and the Incredible Credibility Problem) proves, yet again, that politics is like porn.
Why let facts and reality get in the way of masturbation?
And that is where the U.S. stands as far as homosexuality in the military.
This is all that matters regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
1. Democratic Congress passes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993.
2. Democratic President Clinton signs "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law in 1993.
3. Democratic President Obama, who campaigned on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", doesn't use Commander in Chief powers to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
4. District Court declares "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" unconstitutional.
5. Democratic President Obama files an appeal.
6. Supermajority Democratic Congress doesn't bring "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to a vote in 2009 and only in the lame-duck after the November, 2010 elections.
7. Democrat hypocrites, who refused to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when they had the supermajority, blame Republicans.
8. Liberal followers of the Democrats lie about how "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came about and why it hasn't been repealed.
That's the real history of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
For the record, I support it's repeal. Democrats could have done it if they knew how to govern, but they don't. I hope Republicans block it until they get control of the House next year. Then they can repeal and reap all the glory.
StarStorm, you don't know what facts are. All that stuff you put in is nothing but a smokescreen for you to keep from seeing and admitting the reality, Democrats own "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
And... I just noticed that the second part of my "DADT History" didn't post. After I lost it.
*goddamn it*. Smooth move, cat.
StarStorm:
The Democratic "supermajority" was 57-41, with two independents that caucused with the donks.
From September, 2009 through early February, 2010, the Democratic supermajority was 58-40, with two independents that caucused with the Democrats, giving them 60, the minimum for a cloture vote. Al Franken was already installed, Byrd was still alive, and Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed U.S. Senator from Massachusetts after Ted Kennedy died; hypocrite Massachusetts Democrats changed their law to allow the Democratic governor to appoint the interim Senator after having changed the same law a few years ago to keep the Republican Romney from being able to do the same thing. So the Democrats had a good four months with a filibuster-proof supermajority, including Lieberman and Sanders, to repeal DADT before Scott Brown took the seat in early February, 2010. Considering how fast they whipped through Lieberman's bill, that four months was plenty of time.
When I said you don't know what facts are, I know what I'm talking about. Democrats own "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Deal with it and get over it.
"So the Democrats had a good four months with a filibuster-proof supermajority, including Lieberman and Sanders, to repeal DADT before Scott Brown took the seat in early February, 2010. Considering how fast they whipped through Lieberman's bill, that four months was plenty of time."
This is exactly why the constant complaints about not having enough time to pass legislation are bullshit. It's why the Democrats lost spectacularly in November. Given the opportunity to legislate without any Republican interference the Democrats failed to get their agenda passed. They had months. They failed. Period. How can anyone continue to support them?
You know what the sad part is?
After two long rants (half of the first being lost, removing context for quite a bit of what I said)...
I could have simply called you a moron and be done with it.
---
Also, because you know what? Something is *up* with Blogger or something. Fuck it, let's try something else.
One Google Doc, since I'm *sick* of Blogger fucking it all up.
--
I'll probably delete my previous posts, as they're all in the google doc and it would shorten the thread. I am sorry about it. No more long posts on the blog.
--
Edit: Oh yeah, in my rage against Blogger, I had forgotten that Lieberman's attempt *is* the fourth attempt. It's not dead in committee, it's what's going on now. Whups.
I could have simply called you a moron and be done with it.
I'm assuming this is what you really meant to say:
"SteveAR, you've pointed out obvious facts that had I checked out myself, would have confirmed what you are saying. Thank you."
You're welcome.
Yeah, I really should have just called you a moron.
This conversation, I think, is over. At least I gained further understanding about gays in the military.
And no, you did not supply this understanding. You can believe it if you really need to have a self-congratulatory wank, but there's perfectly good porn out there. Seriously.
Post a Comment