So Reid brought DADT (as part of the Defense Authorization Bill) to a vote. It failed to 57-40 (or rather, it won 57-40 but the filibuster had its way in the end). Now Lieberman and Collins are going to bring back a stand-alone version of repeal supposedly today. What does Collins want? What will she get? Why did Reid bring this to a rushed vote, knowing he would lose? What will happen if a stand-alone is brought up for a vote with Collins’s support?
Erik Kain
Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.
Devcat is watching over, but if you notice any problems contact the editors and Devcat will be notified and deployed immediately.
on The Mandate That Wasn’tA mandate is simply the authority given to democratically elected officials. It has nothing to do wi…
on The Mandate That Wasn’tHeh. A fortunate turn of the head doesn't count.
on The Mandate That Wasn’tSome have suggested that the ability to dodge bullets is an indicator of the Mandate of Heaven. on The Mandate That Wasn’tJohn is correct in the dictionary sense. In the political sense, at least as I understand it, a mand…
on The Mandate That Wasn’tNo man has possessed the Mandate of Heaven since the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in 1912. on The Mandate That Wasn’tNot really. But we all know that. on The Mandate That Wasn’t"Who should the Democrats have run instead of Kamala?" If you can't answer this, you've illustrated… on The Mandate That Wasn’tIt's real in some really troublesome ways!
on The Mandate That Wasn’tThey also need better and longer term messaging discipline and to take the media to task publicly.
on The Mandate That Wasn’tMoney is a social construct. Is it unimportant?
November 20, 2024
Movie of a Young Man Calling on a Lady Friend
November 19, 2024
November 18, 2024
November 17, 2024
on The Mandate That Wasn’t on Open Mic for the week of 11/18/2024
on How Republicans Can Save Trump’s Presidency on How Republicans Can Save Trump’s Presidency
on The Mandate That Wasn’t on The Mandate That Wasn’t
on The Mandate That Wasn’t on The Mandate That Wasn’t
on The Mandate That Wasn’t
on The Mandate That Wasn’t on The Mandate That Wasn’t on The Mandate That Wasn’t on The Mandate That Wasn’t on The Mandate That Wasn’t
on The Mandate That Wasn’t
I am really tired of the way our government works….er… doesn’t work?Report
Our government “hasn’t worked” for 221 years. And counting.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/is-the-senate-broken/Report
The assumption behind the article seems to be that gridlock leads to predictability. Maybe that was once the case, but it manifestly isn’t now. Everyone knows DADT will be repealed eventually, but we have to keep firing arabic translators in the meantime to satisfy John McCain’s ego, apparently. The whole country is held up now not even knowing what 2010’s taxes will be, over the largely symbolic higher tax rates that apply to almost no-one, not even to people technically in those brackets. This is really what you want?Report
They’ll work it out. I prefer consensus to majoritarianism.Report
Me too! Tom, very happy you were able to work things out with James Hanley. There was absolutey no way he could been able to screw up the reply mechanism. He’s innocent. I know, because I often encounter the exact problem you had with the reply options. Frequently, my replies just disappear, or end up being a response to someone I had no intention of responding to. In any case, may the truce hold! I think the professor is a pretty good guy, as well. I’ve certainly had my share of dust ups with him on any number of issues and I know that Irish (?) temper may get the better of him at times, but all in all, he tries to be fair, and very generous with his time. Of course, tomorrow we’ll probably be at each other’s throats again, but that’s what I love about this joint!Report
Not very, as a general rule.Report
Me too. But I see the forces that are supposed to drive them to consensus weakening, and the tendency to play chicken as strong as ever. This has happened in other countries – there’s no magic that says the US is immune to destructive gridlock of the kind that once affected, say, Argentina, or medieval Poland. If winning truly becomes more important to them than the national interest, thats the problem, and we seem to be getting closer to that every year.Report
I believe I said yesterday somewhere on this site the American system of government may not be completely disfunctional. On today’s evidence I would like to retract that statement.Report
The Senate made a little more sense before a) the civil war, when a confederation became a nation, b) the ratio of the populations of the states grew to 70:1, and c) the two parties did such a fine job of dividing up the states.
(I’m pretty sure that the factual premises of the foregoing are actually false, so I guess I’m agreeing that the Senate is a bad idea, and a super-majority requirement is just absurd.)
What would happen if an initiative were circulated in California, amending the State Constitution to state that the People of the State seek secession from the US and all elected officials are to use their powers to obtain an amendment to the US Constitution under which California seceded? I think it might pass here, but what effect might it have at the federal level?Report
You know who else disolved the Senate and used the Governors to keep the system aligned? 🙂Report
Augustus?Report
Palpatine?Report
I like Jason’s guess.Report
Yeah, me too. I realized too late that it was Tarkin who said it, but Palpatine who actually did it.Report
Grand Moff Tarkin!!!!Report
Probably no effect since there is no chance of an amendment to the US Constitution allowing California to secede. It would likely come across as Rick Perry posturing.
I do wonder what it would take to allow a state to secede by mutual consent. Thinking less of California (or Texas) and more of Hawaii.
Regarding the Senate, I’m relatively old school on that. Statehood isn’t what it used to be, but it’s still something. I live in a low-population state, but I thought the same when I lived in higher-pop ones. I wouldn’t mind a more Germanesque model, though.Report
Re: secession by mutual consent. The general consensus (ie, my con law professor and some people over at Volokh) is that it takes an amendment to the US Constitution. Kinda like the mob, or the marines: “Once in, never out.” So, 2/3rds vote by each house of congress, then 3/4ths of the States. (note: the President does not sign onto the votes by the House and Senate.)Report
Interesting. I wonder why. It would seem to me that the most straightforward methodology would be to use the same criteria as bringing a state in (Article 4, Section 3).Report
I would like to know what the -hell- Reid thought he was doing. The bugger didn’t even switch his vote at the last minute (Senate rules state that if he switched his vote he could bring the bill up again later for a revote) he essentially killed the goddamn bill. I gather Reid thought that the conservative senators would essentially use the bill to run out the rest of the legislative session and so this strikes me as essentially a “burn the ships” move. He sailed DADT onto the beach and then he set it on fire so the left couldn’t pressure him to keep working on it.
Now of course the that the GOP and especially Mccain are too contemptible for words on the matter goes without out saying (or would if I hadn’t said it). But this is a bitter pill coming from Reid.Report
> He sailed DADT onto the beach and then he set it on fire so the left
> couldn’t pressure him to keep working on it.
Yes. That’s exactly what he did. I think that’s exactly what he thought he was doing. Reid is a political animal through-and-through. He doesn’t want to fight this fight. He wants it to pass as a team victory, or go down as an obstructionist loss. He got the second, which he likes more than the first.Report
Cynical bastard.Report
Who, me? Or Reid? 🙂Report
Which makes no sense, alas, the next election is two years away and the voters have demonstrated over and over again that they either like or don’t give a damn about obstructionism when they’re voting.Report
I’m pretty sure he brought it up to a vote because he knew he didn’t have enough votes to win and wanted to put a vote against DADT on the record for every Republican Senator. For many of the hardcore red, that will be a badge of honor, but for other candidates, like the Senators from Maine, or Scott Brown, for example, that could be a very big issue if the bill doesn’t get passed by some other means in the next few weeks.
I wouldn’t worry about Reid. He’s one of the last politicians in the Senate who is interested in governing instead of getting re-elected. It’s those fucking idiots in the White House giving everything away for free in the hopes that the Republicans will play nice since 2008 that you need to worry about.Report
The Democrats could have changed this policy right after the 2008 election. At some point, Democrats supporters have to face the fact that their representatives aren’t what they think they are.Report
Oh, I see that the time to blame the democrats for things that republicans do has come again. The season really does sneak up on one.Report
I am reminded of a story.
A young lady was climbing a mountain when she encountered a snake that was close to freezing to death. “Please pick me up and put me in your coat, that I may be warm”, the snake said. The young lady then said “EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” and ran in place for a while. “EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” and then, running in place, she slipped and fell and broke her back. “Why did you scream and freak out? Now we will both surely die!”, the snake asked. “You knew I was a chick when you asked me to pick you up”, the young lady answered.
The moral of this story, I have no trouble explaining, is that it’s somewhat more unreasonable to be upset at folks who act according to their true nature than it is to expect that they will.
No one is surprised that the Republicans oppose homosexuals in the military. Heck, they opposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a compromise because, tah-dah, it allowed homosexuals to be in the military.
It’s when the folks you thought would be more enlightened turn out to be wimpy squishes that you get disappointed.Report
I’m glad to see you well into the spirit of the season. You even have a lovely traditional folk tale.
So who will take up the corresponding role as the “blame the democrats for the actions of the republicans” grinch and bring up math and the rules of the senate?Report
Dude, I’m one of those “abolish the standing army” types. We need to return to a draft.
In the short term, however, we have to keep in mind that there was a very narrow window within which progress could have been made with regards to DADT… and by “progress”, I mean “overcoming the Republican opposition that could have been taken for granted”.
I take the Republican opposition to DADT for granted.
It’s up to the Democrats to be enlightened here.
It was the Senate Leader who failed here. We can talk about math and obscure Senate rules that only Republicans have bothered to read but, at the end of the day, there was an achievable objective that the Democrats failed to go for.
Sure, the Republicans are evil when it comes to the topic of same-sex relationships. Thrice-divorced protectors of traditional marriage. Absolutely.
But we knew that going in.Report
Looks more like the Season of Democrat DenialReport
Wow!
The whole group made it. So are we going to have some pumpkin pie for desert or did you bring something even more delicious?Report
Think of it this way.
Soon we’ll be entering the season of asking why the Democrats can’t do anything to stop the Republicans from doing anything like the Republicans were able to stop the Democrats.
Then we can explore such thoughts as “well, they’re in the minority, what did you expect?” and other insights.Report
It is important to keep up traditions. Just ask any conservative.
In seriousness I’m expecting some vetoes and non-passing votes in the senate. The senate is the place where dreams go to die. That is a bi-partisan phenomenon.Report
Because the Republicans, while incapable of governing, are brilliant at finding ways to increase their power. (F’r instance, it was the Reagan administration that invented appoint really, really young federal judges.) This is not their only resemblance to the Bolsheviks.Report
What’s really amazing is that you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, yet you keep commenting.Report
Your my inspiration mike. I never could have done it without your bright and shining example. Bob Cheeks, and Heidegger deserve credit too.Report
You aren’t even amusing, just silly and irrelevant. At least you could be creative with your ad hominem attacks and failure to addres the issues — how old are you?Report
Something else you don’t seem to realize, because you’re stuck in partisan stupidity, is that I support repeal of DADT — I support same sex marriage — I support a liberal immigration policy — I support legalizing marijuana — I support more freedoms than most Democrats, because I also support economic freedom.Report
I’m not stuck, I can notice patterns.
Such as you always jump on the opportunity to smear democrats and conveniently forget to slam the republicans for their horrible actions.
So since I don’t care to try to convince the unconvicable, I only care to respond to the specific non-sense you badger on about.
I mean how sill of you is it to support positions and only attack the politicians who agree with you on those issue.
If you constantly criticize only democrats then I don’t care what you claim to support other than “no taxes evar!” As far as anyone can tell the only reason you bring up republicans is to justify your attacks on democrats. Yay! you don’t support either party when confronted.
Good for you.Report
You haven’t been listening if you haven’t heard me criticize Repubs. That’s part of your stuckness, your need to see me as a Repubican, the Other. I slam Democrats because they are in power and can do the most harm right now.Report
One of the curious aspects of the current partisan stupidity is the rejection of the possibility of someone who believes both parites are wrong — there is an insistence to put them on one side or the other. Your need for enemy in a two party system blocks your imagination. Be free — think outside the bottle. Both parties have served to maintain State power and they are exploiting the American people. Partisans are part of the problem to the extent they can’t see the reality of their party and how it contributes to our problems.Report
That season lasts March 15th through March 14th.Report
Mike, it’s not like gays really have an alternative to the Dems. Have you ever met a Log Cabin Republican or a GOProud member? They make beaten housewives shake their heads and go “oh honey why do you do this to yourselves?”Report
*AHEM*Report
Okay, that was oblique even for me.
I suggest third party voting. Ever since I discovered it, I couldn’t be happier. It’s like being able to vote “none of the above” while, at the same time, saying *WHY*.
Libertarian? Green? Constitution? Objectivist? Communist? Prohibition?
It’s all there, baby.
Come to the third parties. It is *SOOOO* nice voting without feeling like you need a shower afterwards.Report
All well and good Jay and certainly strong on principal. But despite the frustrating behavior of the Dems the fact remains that gays in America do have a voice in that party and it is heard at least sometimes. Perhaps it’s not great for getting good things done for gays but it’s pretty reliable for preventing bad things from being done to gays; a full fledged anti SSM amendment for instance; or a Federal bill duplicating the Virginia GOP’s policy of invalidating private contracts that even ape marriage benefits.
If gays defected from the Dems and made a little Rainbow party or even threw their weight into some existing third party they could sleep comfortable in their purity. But who knows what their day to day life would look like? Better to raise a ruckus within the party in my opinion.Report
My contribution to the open thread: I do find this procedural Senate stuff baffling. The political bloggers I read seem to have given up on the Republicans entirely, and are trying to work out which Democrats are to blame for this, but my non-insider takeaway is more that the Republicans lose points for going to the mat on a fifteen-year-old compromise that’s so stilted, internally contradictory, and, well, compromised.Report
regardless, most Republicans who oppose it are on record and with reasons why they oppose it. Democrats have supported the policy change but the Democrat representatives didn’t change when they could have.Report
so what were the vote totals in the senate?Report
To clarify my standard and risk pedantry: I’m definitely making a judgment on the merits of DADT here, and also on the Republican reasons for opposing repeal. From that perspective, strategic failure is more forgivable than bad principles.Report
If the principles were important to the Democratic leadership, they would have acted on them when they could make the change — also, I didn’t hear any great outcry from the liberal public for the Democrat representatives to do it. I’ve only seen posturing. No matter what you believe regarding DADT, it can be seen from two sides — most Republicans, from what I can tell, believe the troops aren’t ready for this level of openness and not in time of war. You can disagree with this, but it’s not like the Republicans are saying they hate gays — thy are looking at what they see as the reality of the average mindset in the military regarding homosexuality and how it would affect operations. If Democrats strongly disgree, then they should have changed it when they had a chance. They can’t blame the Republicans for standing up for what they believe.Report
Mike is really into the spirit of the season here. Now we don’t even have to blame the people who hate gays(0r at least court the votes of those who do) actually mean it. Who cares if they filibuster in a way that makes it impossible for the democrats to change things it is solely the fault of the democrats.
And another thing we can ignore, all of the research and polling of the soldiers themselves showing they don’t have a problem with openly serving gay people. Your so festive Mike.Report
I didn’t say that was my position, I’m for repealing it, but the democrats should have repealed it when the Repubs couldn’t filibuster. You, sir, are caught in partisan stupidity.Report
“No matter what you believe regarding DADT, it can be seen from two sides — most Republicans, from what I can tell, believe the troops aren’t ready for this level of openness and not in time of war. You can disagree with this…”
I think that’s all I’m doing, or at least that’s all I mean to do. I’m only keeping track of points (figuratively) for the next relevant election.Report
Bt, william, you are talking about bad principles are worse than bad strategy — principles mean nothing, speaking of Democrat principles, if they aren’t acted on. It has nothing to do with bad strategy, it has to do with a failure to act on principle. At some point, Democrat supporters are going to have to realize that their representatives talk more than they act. If the Democrat base had demanded a repeal early, they would likely have gotten it. The same with SSM, it’s all talk and no action — the same with immigration reform — the Democrats lost all this in the beginning when they had the power to push it through, even the public option.Report
If bad principles aren’t worse than bad strategy from the voter’s perspective, then your line of reasoning ends in this exchange:
“So why did you vote Republican? I thought you disagreed with most of their policies?”
“Oh, I do. I think they’re going to ruin the country. But they really do know how to get things done!”Report
My problem is that I suspect that “bad principles” overlaps heavily with “principles that I do not share”.
Maybe I’m just a nihilist today…Report
No, that was exactly what I meant. Subjectively bad, not objectively bad.Report
Though of course if those things line up, that’s great for the subject.Report
It seems odd to use the language of morality when it comes to a discussion of taste, no?Report
Oh, Jaybird.Report
I didn’t say bad principles aren’t worse than bad strategy, just that the problems with Democrats are more than just bad strategy.Report
We likely disagree on the principles, and in the past, the Republicans have violated their own stated principles, but, now, the Democrats are violating their stated principles, and, so far, the Republicans appear to be standing up for their principles, whethe you agree with them or not.
It seems to be even worse to proclaim your principles to get elected, then violate those principles when in office. If I was a Democrat, this is what I’d be pissed about, not bad strategy.Report
I see the problem you’re talking about, and it’s certainly something to remember come primary time. I also don’t think it has much bearing on anything I’ve said so far in this thread.Report
Mike, I am confused, the “official Obama line” on DADT being left until now was that he was waiting on official military reports and giving the Republicans time to come around on the issue as they requested. In other words he was supposedly being bipartisan.
Now, with all of the factors they requested giving a DADT repeal the thumbs up Republicans are still filibustering over unrelated issues. Note also that the Republicans who caused this to fail do not oppose a DADT repeal on any principle, they say they want it done away with, they voted no for procedural reasons.
Frankly none of that excuses the Dems for their failures, but I don’t know if the party should be blamed or if it’s the leadership’s fault for going along with Obama’s happy fun hope hope&change dance that has eaten up so much of his. When the rubber hit the road the party did vote unanimously for repeal (with one exception who reportedly was given a pass since they knew it’d fail).Report
Sorry if I’m sceptical about the “official line”, North.
Yes, William, of course. Sorry I crossed the middle ground and disturbed the balance — carry on.Report
I was a bit brusque, wasn’t I?Report
Mike, the reason I shoved “Obama line” into quotes is because I’m skeptical as well. In fairness to O, the GOP has played this game before.Report
I swear, at some point Democrat supporters will have to admit that all their failures are not caused by evil Republicans — they’ve screwed the pooch all on their own.Report
A song for the holidays.
(to the tune of jingle bells.)
Tax Cuts!
Tax Cuts!
Filibusters don’t exist
Democrats are always the antagonist
Tax Cuts!
Tax Cuts all the way.
Tax Cuts!
Tax Cuts!
We don’t need unemployment benefits.
They just make people take on sits.
Tax Cuts!
Tax Cuts all the way.Report
I can’t understand the partisan mindset. If I believed the stated principles of the Democrat Party, I would be blasting the current representatives and the president — some liberals are, but way too many are doing what you’re doing, making it a game about the evil Republicans. I don’t support either party, although I look on with interest at the new Republicans coming into office because they at least speak about limited government, which is where I stand. I have no problem blaming Republicans for being complicit with Democrats, destroying our economy and propping up a powerful, anti-social State. My principles are different from the modern liberal — they are in alignment with classical liberalism, so neither party represents my beliefs, but if I was a modern liberal, I wouldn’t be wasting time with the obvious, the flaws of the Republican Party — I’d be doing everything in my power to reform the Democrat Party — it’s a fucking mess.Report
Oh look, you finally tried to engage in something useful.
So I will return the favor. It is this I blame the democrats for one critical mistake made in in early 2009. Not changing the filibuster rules. Reforming won’t be accomplished by bagging on them for the evil that republicans do.
The most effective course of action is agitating to change the filibuster and trying to primary senators and congress-critters that are more conservative than their districts. Attacking the democrats and the president on this issue is stupid, we should attack the scum-bags who filibustered and the rule itself. Edward Kennedy dying is why things like this couldn’t get done, we didn’t have 60 and not having sixty when your opponents are vile republicans means it is damned hard to pass anything.
For the record, democrats are disorganized people who can’t fight their way out of a paper-bag in terms of messaging. Republicans are evil and have an entire media empire to push their message. They even intimidate the rest of the media into following. So excuse me for not engaging in a circular firing squad, I’m smarter than that.Report
Calling the republican evil and democrats unorganized is blind partisanhip. Democrats are doing more damage to the economy, the poor and civil liberties than Republicans have dreamed of.Report
So going to Focus on the Family events and supporting and courting don’t count as evil. Comparing gay people and their relationships to bestiality don’t count as evil.
Rush, Beck, Palin, Bachmann, Huckabee, Gingrich, these people and their rhetoric represent the party and the base. Their principles are evil so are the platform of the state republican parties. Excuse me for not abandoning the only counter-force to them because the filibuster has enabled the crazies a legislative and appointment veto.Report
You can find evil people in both parties, and then you can call something evil that most people don’t consider evil, but to call all Republicans evil is stupid.Report
You know that Focus also uses words like “evil” in their sermons, right?
They even have books with decades of history behind them to back them up. See? Right here. It says “evil”.
Why should I believe in your god and your ontology instead of theirs?Report
I’m asking you to believe yours since I’m pretty sure I know you and your opinion of the sort of people they are.Report
Oh, absolutely.
I have an entire ontology.
Which, of course, leads me to believe that most Politicians are not, in themselves, moral agents… which makes using the language of morality in criticizing them somewhat odd. It’s like a category error of sorts.
I mean, dig this: Let’s say that I called Obamacare “evil”. Not misguided. Not a bad compromise brokered by insurance companies for insurance companies. Not even what happens when the best of intentions meets the sausage making of the legislative process.
Evil.
It seems odd and out of place, no?
Well, the same strikes me when it comes to politicians failing to repeal a compromise they made 15 years ago… in the direction of progress.
It strikes me as an awful, awful policy (I mean, seriously, how many potential translators have we fired?). It strikes me as something that most people would grow to not even notice/think about within months of it passing. Ending the program is something that I think would benefit pretty much everybody directly involved and have negligible impact upon everybody else (excepting “feelings” and who gives a crap about those?).
But I still understand why the Republicans are doing what they’re doing, what they are doing is not particularly surprising given their history, and the Democrats are failing now when they may have succeeded as little as 6 months ago.
So it seems odd to have the Republicans be called “evil” here.
One may as well call a snake “evil”.Report
They have a history of this behavior, that cannot be denied. It is their principle that gay people don’t have the same rights as straight people that I call evil. Their idea that anyone who isn’t a christian in the same way they are doesn’t matter I call evil.
Their stubborn dismissal of many scientific ideas and facts, I call dangerously stupid. Their dedication to providing benefits, cover, and money to corporations and individuals they like I call corrupt, and not very unique.Report
Well, I don’t know that I consider being a soldier to be a “right”, per se.
It seems significantly different than the right to free speech or the right to worship God as one’s conscience dictates, doesn’t it?
Now, I certainly think that it’s stupid to exclude folks from the military… and triply so when you desperately need, for example, translators and you’re firing folks who make decent translators for reasons unrelated to translating.
It’s like they don’t want to win the war. They would rather lose and stick to their own established protocols than win while abandoning them.
We’re in an odd situation where Republicans are actively harming the military and war effort while Democrats, however meekly, are trying to help it. Irony, I think it’s called.
Anyway, as I said, I’m more of the opinion that we ought to abolish the standing army (and pull out of everywhere that we happen to be “in”) and rely on a draft henceforth. (Hey, if you can’t muster the country’s political will for a draft, you shouldn’t be involved in whatever you’re inclined to be involved in.)
As for Christian theology… I’m an atheist. They strike me as perfect examples for an anthropology textbook. Their actions don’t reflect any kind of God… they’re just tribe members acting tribally. If anything, I’m pleased that they’re so civilized.Report
> Which, of course, leads me to believe that most
> Politicians are not, in themselves, moral agents…
> which makes using the language of morality in
> criticizing them somewhat odd. It’s like a
> category error of sorts.
+1Report
While I agree with many of your criticisms of the Democrats, I don’t feel they go far enough.
I also suspect that you give the Republicans far more credit than they deserve.
Additionally, I suspect that there are more people calling their Congresscritter/Senator today (these days) than in, say, the 80’s and 90’s. And not just over Medicare stuff either. They’re calling about normal stuff in greater numbers and trivial stuff in greater numbers. (This could be explained by Tea Party gaming things just as easily as greater engagement on the part of the population.)
Additionally, given the last three elections being “throw the bums out” elections, it’s a lot more likely that politicians act “conservatively” (and by that I mean choosing the status quo/devil they know) than “progressively” (and by that I mean choosing a different devil).
But then I look at the vote totals again and see 57-40.
I wonder “who were the 3?” and “wait, Reid was one of the 40? The Senate Leader???”
This strikes me as a battle that the Democrats in the Senate *COULD* have won.Report
Jaybird, you are counting wrong. Reid -wasn’t- in the 40 (more’s the pity since by being in the 57 he made it so he couldn’t bring this bill again this legislative session). The 3 nay votes were 2 republicans who said they support DADT but won’t, yet, for procedural reasons and because this is going too fast (lol), and 1 democrat who most insiders say was “allowed” to vote no because Reid knew going in that he wasn’t going to get 60 votes.Report
So Reid deliberately took this topic off of the table entirely?
Well, maybe they’ll pass the Dream Act and make everything okay.Report
My own read on Reid is that he decided that he wasn’t going to let DADT consume the rest of the session (Collins asked for 4 days of debate, Reid claims that the conservative wing of the GOP was going to invoke cloture votes and unlimited amendments to run out the clock) so he drove it onto the beach and then set it on fire.
His reasoning might make sense now, but the fact that he let it sit until the last minute was a fiasco. Whether it happened because they didn’t want/care to get it passed or because Obama once again let the GOP hoodwink him into running out the clock in hopes of a bipartisan vote (or both) depends on who you ask.Report
People need to accept that neither side want this issue resolved for reasons having nothing to do with the position itself. Republicans are basically enslaved by the so called party base. They have no choice but to give it what it wants. As long as DADT stands democrats can use it as an issue to energize their supporters. If DADT is repealed the issue becomes negative for them at least for a few years. Look at health care reform for example. It’s clear that neither side can allow anything at all to be done.
But then gridlock is good right?Report
If Democrats continue to simply act like they will really stand up for gay rights after this, if they merely expect me to take them seriously on that claim, I will go join the nearest Tea Party movement. I’d have a better chance convincing them, probably. Democrats will need to do some shirt-tearing and abject apologizing before gay people in general believe them.Report
A note PPNL, gay support for democrats, financially, is at historic lows. If Democrats think that letting DADT stand is going to work to gin up gay votes they’re clearly mistaken.Report
This is what I was thinking about the whole comment session. The republican filibuster works so very well for them as they know they won’t be blamed. Instead the democrats will get hurt.
This is crazy making. The senate where dreams go to die.Report
But remember that Democrat obstructionism in Congress in the early Bush years is part of what allowed them gradually to take control of the Congress. The filibuster is ultimately a mechanism for causing the Congress to change hands occasionally. The question is whether this is really what we want.
It’s possible that it is not. By maintaining this constant political and partisan tension, the practical outcome is that only the things both parties’ politicians can agree on are what happen. The compromises they make are universally statist. But the platforms of the parties are not strictly statist.
Maybe libertarians should actually want occasional stretches of a single party dominating Congress enough to be able to pass a comprehensive set of legislation that the party in control can then take credit for or be blamed for. If the American public knows what they’re actually voting for, I suspect they would tend to pull in the anti-statist direction over time.
The problem with our current system is that the system itself separates credit/blame from electability too much. I used to really support the filibuster, but having paid attention now for a full cycle–Republicans fully in control, then Democrats fully in control, and the end of that control–I think I really want the filibuster to go away. And I think it won’t, because it does all the things I’ve just said, and politicians love not being easily blamed for things they do.Report
This is why I don’t think that the filibuster will go away.
If there was a vote on ending DADT, do you think it would have been 57-40?
I don’t.
This allows the senators to straddle an issue. “Hey, *I* voted *FOR* (cloture)” and if The People get all furious the way that they do the senator can backpedal and say “hey, I was just voting for Cloture. I would have voted against it! I was voting for cloture so that I *COULD* vote against it!”
The filibuster allows fictions to be maintained politely. That’s it.
All that to say:
Dude, you might be right… It might be very interesting to get rid of the filibuster for JUST THAT REASON.Report
I’m on board with weakening the filibuster. It will make elections matter much more often. I’d say we would have been better with it weakened in the bush years too. Scary though it may seem.Report
I don’t think it would have changed much, if anything, at all.
You’ve heard the criticism that we need cameras in the committee rooms so that “the people” can appreciate the negotiations that go into a bill… but the counter-criticism is that the *REAL* negotiations would happen somewhere else (off site) so that they could engage in the Kabuki negotiations in front of the cameras before they engaged in the Kabuki vote.
I suspect that the filibuster is Kabuki… rather than representative of any actual process.
But, I may need to point out again, I’m one of the crazy people.Report
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that tyranny of the majority is not a good thing.Report
That is why we have courts and fundamental rights that can’t(constitutionally speaking) be taken away.Report
General Welfare! Interstate Commerce!Report
OMG — see that’s the kind of creative humor I’m talking about.Report
I don’t understand why you think that the democrats are so dumb that they don’t understand that not passing this hurts them way more than “losing it as an issue.” Certainly the president would like it as a notch in his belt to re-open the GAYTM as it has been referred too.Report
I don’t understand why you think that the democrats are so dumb that they don’t understand that not passing this hurts them way more than “losing it as an issue.
All I can do is ask you to keep watching the Democrats. Just keep watching. I suspect that if you do so, you’ll inevitably come to the same conclusion that I have.
They are, in fact, that dumb.Report
It’s sad, but true. I have watched the political class in general go from Kennedy and McNamara and Kissinger and Moynihan to Pelosi and Reid and Rangel and Biden and AxelrodReport
and Boehner and SteeleReport
Kennedy and McNamara? Kennedy was a simpleton, a Senate showhorse who never accomplished anything of note, and McNamara may have been a decent businessman, but he was simpleton enough politically to not understand that our screwing around with Cuba is what caused the USSR to put missiles there. I find nothing in that administration to be impressed with other than that they managed to avoid WWIII after bringing us to the brink of it.Report
Generally speaking, it wouldn’t surprise me if the average IQ in Congress was less than 90.Report
And the Republicans are so dumb that they don’t understand how they are being hurt by issue after issue? Both parties are being driven by the need to address short term tactical issues so that longer term issues of principle are lost. We don’t have a government of the majority so much as a government of the most obnoxiously intransigent.
But then gridlock is good right?Report
And the Republicans are so dumb that they don’t understand how they are being hurt by issue after issue?
This is a pretty apt description of 2004 and 2005.Report
Not really. They aren’t so stupid as to not see the damage that the Glen Beck’s and Fox news are doing to any principled conservatism. I even participated in a conversation where a republican thinking of running for office actually straight out said that he would have to pretend to be a creationist. He understood the damage but to win he had no choice. Many republicans look at the tea party with horror exactly because they understand that they created it. Worse they understand that they will have to continue to service its needs.
This is what happens when you create a system that rewards the most obnoxiously intransigent.
Somebody somewhere needs to grow some balls.Report
“any principled conservatism”
Well, I was specifically talking about Republicans.
That said, I am more prone to believe that the Tea Parties are principled than any organized political organization… in the same way that the random folks who showed up at anti-war protests are much more likely to be principled than, say, Democratic Politicians.Report
“That said, I am more prone to believe that the Tea Parties are principled than any organized political organization… in the same way that the random folks who showed up at anti-war protests are much more likely to be principled than, say, Democratic Politicians.”
In the sense that they honestly think that Glen Beck represents good common sense rather than just pretending yes they are more principled. But…Report
Try to be open-minded.
Just because the principles aren’t yours it does not mean that they are not principles, let alone principles not worth having.Report
Well in fact the supposed principles are mine. I do believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. That’s exactly what makes the whole TP movement so facepalm worthy.
Sorry, being open minded about Glen Beck isn’t happening. It is true that it isn’t fair to paint the whole TP movement as Glen Beck followers. But the problem is that you can’t paint the entire TP movement with anything. The idea that they have much in common at all is an illusion. You just have undirected anger and a lot of left over republican talking points that have no actual meaning. The fact that they allow Glen Beck followers in their midst at all shows just how little self awareness they have.
I do not fear the tea party. I fear the man who manages to heard the ignorant beast back under the authoritarian tent that it escaped from. There is some small chance that the beast will develop some self awareness and address it’s internal contradictions. I’m not holding my breath.Report
Apparently a stand alone vote in the house on DADT tomorrow.Report
Maybe they can amend a defense bill to it.Report