"Don't ask, don't tell" bill was blocked

[turbojet]

Linky

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military. The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to the defense bill in the hopes that Republicans would hesitate to vote against legislation that included popular defense programs. But GOP legislators opposed the bill anyway, thwarting a key part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.

Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Socarides said President Barack Obama "badly miscalculated" the Pentagon's support for repeal, while Democrats made only a "token effort" to advance the bill.

"If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments.

Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

Collins said she planned to vote against advancing the bill unless Democrats agreed to extend debate so that her colleagues could weigh in on other issues.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

Dammit all to hell. This is why I think just as many people should turnout and vote for congressional seats because shit like this shouldn't be happening. "But maybe America is not ready?" Bullshit.The people who get elected in the Senate or the House are usually on the extreme side of political things. They aren't moderates and therefore have very far fetched views. I'm not complaining because ,in theory, I am one of these people. However, there should be sanity. We shouldn't have people in Congress that don't believe in global warming, dinosaurs, or equal gay rights. And I am not talking about gay union or gay marriage. This was a simple expanision of one's Civil Rights. I am angry at a lot of people in the Senate as well as the president. As someone once said in here, "I can't believe we are still protesting this shit."

[Tornado]

I'm actually curious about this bill, because the article makes me think that Republicans don't necessarily deserve the entirety of the blame with this. I don't agree with Don't Ask Don't Tell, but it sounds like for this measure Democrats tried to fast-track the bill through the floor without giving anyone the chance to actually read it, and they glued the completely-unrelated military pay raise parts to the bill as an attempt to force Republicans from objecting to it no matter what the reason would be.

Now, fair enough if you want to argue that they had to get it done quickly before Congress ends, but they've had two years to do this and it looks like they instead decided to half-ass it at the last minute knowing it wouldn't pass for some cheap "Look at those awful Republicans" publicity right before the election.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Tornado

[turbojet]

Now, fair enough if you want to argue that they had to get it done quickly before Congress ends, but they've had two years to do this and it looks like they instead decided to half-ass it at the last minute knowing it wouldn't pass for some cheap "Look at those awful Republicans" publicity right before the election.

Actually, I'm more angry at the Democrats for taking their sweet ass time than the Republicans. Republicans will be Republicans. Democrats, however, shouldn't have used this opportunity to try to gain some added political leverage. People need honesty and not deception.

Edited September 21, 2010 by turbojet

[Tornado]

Agreed: I don't see this bill as being drawn up with the intent of actually doing anything. It seems to me based on the article that the Democrats wrote up a bill that they probably knew wasn't going to pass, then they attached part of the defense budget to it so Republicans wouldn't go against it. That way, since they knew Republicans would be against it anyways, when attack ads begin in full next month, Democrats will now be able to run various "Republican Senator X hates our troops" ads. Finally, Reid purposely voted against it so it will come up again during the next Congressional cycle.

Basically, it seems to me that Democrats used a vaguely hot-button issue purely to get on the public mindset as being the "good guys," and with absolutely no regard towards what that issue actually was. I would go so far as to say that the Democrats wanted the bill to fail, because if Republicans had voted for this bill than the Democrats would have been fucked.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Tornado

[EXshad]

Well, that seems to be today's politics: Republicans blatantly make it clear that they hate pretty much... anything that makes sense, while the Democrats seem to write up a bill that has no place being repealed (i.e., the bill which was meant to offer 9/11 rescue workers federal compensation), while taking no measures to have it pass, despite their massive majority in the Senate and House. Then they blame it on the Republicans while sighing in relief behind closed doors that the status quo can remain the same, hoping that they put on a good show for the American people.

In short, this is no surprise; injustice wins again. Would you expect any less from an administration without a backbone?

Edited September 21, 2010 by EXshad

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm actually curious about this bill, because the article makes me think that Republicans don't necessarily deserve the entirety of the blame with this.

I haven't read the article yet, but I did hear it on the news coming back to my dorm and frankly I think more of the weight goes on the Democrats for the amount of time, and even after Obama announced he would want it repealed.

The Republicans had their mind deadset on their decision since the repeal was mentioned if I'm not mistaken, but the Democrats practically waited til the last moment only to have it bite them right in the nuts in order to repeal it. The Democratic part has been in a bit of a mess for a while, while the Republicans for the most part have been more united, and I think that was what really hurt them. Of course, my grip on politics is very weak, so I am more than likely missing some other very big details.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Turbojet

Edited September 21, 2010 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[turbojet]

Agreed: I don't see this bill as being drawn up with the intent of actually doing anything. It seems to me based on the article that the Democrats wrote up a bill that they probably knew wasn't going to pass, then they attached part of the defense budget to it so Republicans wouldn't go against it. That way, since they knew Republicans would be against it anyways, when attack ads begin in full next month, Democrats will now be able to run various "Republican Senator X hates our troops" ads. Finally, Reid purposely voted against it so it will come up again during the next Congressional cycle.

Basically, it seems to me that Democrats used a vaguely hot-button issue purely to get on the public mindset as being the "good guys," and with absolutely no regard towards what that issue actually was. I would go so far as to say that the Democrats wanted the bill to fail, because if Republicans had voted for this bill than the Democrats would have been fucked.

The thing that gets me, Tornado, is that the Democrats really didn't have to stoop so low to gain renomination. If anything, the tea party is doing enough damage as it is. Sure, some states may have been in trouble and they may have been in trouble with filibusters, but honestly, this was an unnecessary punch that didn't need to be thrown.