DADT repeal blocked

Local, National, Politics, Virginia 1 Minute

The dysfunctional Senate voted 56-43, thus failing to advance legislation that would have repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

That it takes 60 votes to get anything done in this age of the Republican filibuster is why I consider the Senate dysfunctional. In 2006, Democrats theoretically gained control of the Senate, with 51 of them. Outside of committee chairmanships, just what has having the majority brought Dems? A whole lot of nothing. This is why I have so little concern for Washington and what those folks do there. It’s not like they are listening to what the people want; rather, it’s all about scoring political points.

I guess tyranny of the minority is OK, even if tyranny of the majority is not.

Thanks to Virginia Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner for being in the majority on this vote. The cynic in me says they probably knew the vote was going down so they had nothing to lose by voting to end the filibuster. Nevertheless, the vote is appreciated.

Published

21 thoughts on “DADT repeal blocked”

    1. I watched the debate. He spoke in favor of it. His vote was procedural after knowing it was not going to pass.
      From the AP story on it:
      “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, doing so enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.”

      1. I watched it too. He spoke in favor…and voted against.

        That sounds an awful like someone trying to play both sides. For him, the answer to “did you vote to repeal DADT?” is, for the time being, “no.”

        All his efforts to do exactly that to the contrary, of course.

    2. Thought: you don’t have the first clue about how the Senate works. As noted below, it provides him with the capacity to revive it later. This happens all.the.time.

      1. It’s quite simple, really. The idea is that cloture is a vote to end the debate. If you vote to end the debate, then you can’t the subject up for debate again. So he voted NOT to end debate.

        1. Precisely. My point originally. It’s called a “motion to reconsider” and you can’t do that unless you voted with the prevailing side. Then you get a motion to lay it on the table, so you can bring it back up later. But of course, you’ll get those that don’t understand that claiming you voted the wrong way and using it in political ads against you. We need more civics education.

    1. Why not? John McCain once tried to use a defense appropriations bill to push through campaign finance reform. John Thune tried to use one to push some kind of national concealed weapons legislation. Sam Brownback tried to clip on an amendment on indecency standards. Orrin Hatch once tried to attach an immigration reform amendment.

      Republicans only get upset about these kinds of amendments when Democrats propose them. They’re perfectly happy to be non-germane themselves.

  3. Alright. So, regarding Reid:

    There’s a rule of parliamentary procedure in the United States Senate that says that any Senator who votes to continue debate during a cloture vote can move to revisit the vote at a later time. Only the Senators who voted against cloture can do this. So by voting against cloture this time, Reid has retained a parliamentary right to revisit the question if at some point down the line he finds that he can secure the remaining three votes he needs to end debate and bring the issue to a floor vote.

    The tally is certainly disappointing, but regarding Reid specifically, try not to freak out. In his case, it’s actually a good thing.

  4. It’s disgusting to live in a country where you are denied basic civil rights because of your sexual orientation. Seems to me that I was represented by Ed Schrock in the 2nd district. Turns out he had been in the military and was also gay. Don’t know how his marriage turned out with the revelation but the 2nd district didn’t collapse because of his sexual orientation. Too sad, that so many Americans cannot serve their country and be allowed to be who they really are in every aspect of their lives.

      1. Coby, DADT is not protecting those who are outed. I served with a Major Almy in the 606th Air Control Squadron in Spangdahlem Air Base, and he was kicked out of the Air Force because he was outed out as being a homosexual. He never told anyone about his sexual orientation and he was also a fantastic Air Force officer. Air Force officials actually went through his government e-mail to find the evidence, then went out of their way to bring up charges and dismissal. I know some would say that he shouldn’t have been using his government e-mail account to talk to his lover. I would say that the government shouldn’t have been violating the privacy of someone who was not a security threat. Major Almy should never have been forced out of the service and there needs to be a reform of DADT to provide protection.

          1. If the military protected people who were outed and who otherwise didn’t involve their personal sex lives in their work, then he couldn’t be blackmailed.

  5. James, when one is in the military, or classified work of any kind, one does not HAVE a private life. All of it is subject to government scrutiny.

    1. And again, if the rule didn’t exist that you could lose your job for being outed, there would be no reason to be concerned about blackmail. Plus the DADT policy itself is supposed to bar superiors from engaging in fishing expeditions of this type absent some independent evidence of homosexual behavior. Your “all of it is subject to government scrutiny” attitude directly contradicts this policy.

Comments are closed.