Dems To Cave On DADT Repeal In Lame Duck

[TampaYankee]

Dems To Cave On DADT Repeal In Lame Duck

Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

First Posted: 11- 8-10 12:28 PM | Updated: 11- 8-10 12:28 PM

The vast majority of the American people want the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy repealed. A majority of conservatives want it repealed. A soon-to-be-released Defense Department study finds U.S. servicemembers do not mind serving alongside gay soldiers. Admiral Mike Mullen wants DADT repealed. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants it repealed. So, naturally, Congressional Democrats are poised to turn tail and run from taking any kind of stand on the matter:

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he wants to overturn the policy, which bans gays from serving openly in the armed forces. Advocates on both sides believed the issue had a chance of coming up in this month's post-election session of Congress. Now that looks unlikely.

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it. With a repeal attached, and amid Republican complaints over the terms of the debate, the defense bill had failed to win the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate in September.

Over at the American Prospect, Adam Serwer puts it pretty bluntly:

Look, if Democrats can't repeal a policy more than two thirds of the American people, including a majority of conservatives want gone then they can't expect people to vote for them.

We take you now live, to the scene of ever diminishing electoral expectations:

Republicans made significant inroads among gay and lesbian voters in the midterm elections, with national exit polls for the House races showing that the GOP captured 31 percent of the vote of this group this year, compared to 19 percent in 2008.

I think that GOP strategists are perfectly capable of understanding what "vast majority of the American people want DADT repealed" means. They are certainly capable of understanding what "31 percent of the LGBT vote" means. But if Democrats think that they can keep stringing along the LGBT community as a captive constituency for one more election cycle, then by all means, they should cave in to pressure and punt on DADT.

By the way, the "pressure" to not repeal DADT is coming from where, exactly?

See original article at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/dems-to-cave-on-dadt-repe_n_780371.html

[TampaYankee]

This is a perfect example of why the GOP Congressional caucus is, more often than not, successful in their legislative efforts and the Dems endure a surprising number of recurring failures. The GOP is consistent focused and sustained in their efforts. The Dems are fractured and most of them run for the hills at the first bit of a serious political fight. They really do not deserve to perservere due to their lack of commitment and willingness to sustain an effort in the face of hard sledding. They refuse to throw down the gaunlet and fight to the last man standing. The GOP is never so skiddish.

Half the democrats want to dump Pelosi because she was so successful the GOP made her a national campaign issue. Regan and the GOP tried to do the same with Tip O'neil. There was no sentiment to dump O'Neil. Is this how the Dem House Caucus stands behind their quarterback for one of the most successful Congresses in history in terms of passing legilation.

Obama says he caving on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Well that's ok. Who cares if we stack another $700 billion to the deficit and the national debt so that the rich get even richer, faster and faster stuffing more currency and gold into their Swiss banks.

Now the dainty Dem Senators are caving on the fight to pass DADT repeal by withdrawing it from the Defense Appropriations Bill. There is no other vehicle on the horizon. This was the best opportunity for Senate disposal of the issue. It seems that term is going apply very literally now.

I'm disgusted with Democrats. The have always been a disorganized, unfocused, weak-knee'd bunch. Uncharacteristically, they managed a rare exception by stumbling to the Heath Care Reform finish line although it was a mess by the time it got there. It seems that effort sapped all the fortitude the Dems had.

I had hoped the Dems would gather some gumption in the realization that this lame duck session is their last opportunity to do much for the next two years. However, they don't want to rock the boat after the elections. Who the fuck is going to vote for any of them the next time? If we want Republican leaning governance, which the Dem's are conceding then who the hell needs Dems? Why bother to vote?

[Lucky]

Good post, TY. Sad, but true. I long for the days of Lyndon Baines Johnson, and no, I never, ever, expected to say that.

Johnson was elected vice-president exactly 50 years ago today.

[alanalt]

Obviously the Democratic party saw different election results than I did in the Great White North. On the one hand, the Democrats lost seats, but still retain a majority in the Senate - a majority larger than GWB had after his first mid-term election; so of course it makes sense that the Democrat-held Senate would cave on DADT... On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi and her 'leadership' team led Democrats in the House to the worst defeat of any majority party in 70+ years; so of course that means the Democrat's House leadership should remain unchanged...

Alan

[Lucky]

And now Obama is talking about how he didn't try hard enough to "reach across the aisle." That's not how I remember it. He reached, they smacked his hand.

[Guest Conway]

Good post, TY. Sad, but true. I long for the days of Lyndon Baines Johnson, and no, I never, ever, expected to say that.

Johnson was elected vice-president exactly 50 years ago today.

He never met an election that he couldn't buy!

[Lucky]

Who, TY? Kennedy? LBJ? Since I doubt you wouldn't speak ill of the dead, it must be TY!

[TampaYankee]

Who, TY? Kennedy? LBJ? Since I doubt you wouldn't speak ill of the dead, it must be TY!

Any election I buy better be pretty damn cheap!

[TampaYankee]

On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi and her 'leadership' team led Democrats in the House to the worst defeat of any majority party in 70+ years; so of course that means the Democrat's House leadership should remain unchanged...

Alan

It is my impression, unprovable of course, but probably shared by more than a few pundits, that this would have been a more run-of-the-mill mid-term election had it not been for the economy and Wall St failure. That means that after the 2008 Dem tide we should expect a 30-35 seat swing the other way. It was double that.

People vote jobs when they do not have jobs or have fear of losing a job. Add to that the government bailing out banks (Bush/Obama) who then turned around and put a thumb in the eye of government by not putting that bailout to effective use in restarting the economy but using it to feathered their own stocks bed and gave themselves record bonuses brought out a lot of resentment. None of this was Pelosi's personal doing. There was little choice in the goverment doing what it had to do - distasteful as it was or pissing people off as it did.

Pelosi didn't run rogue, she pushed Obama's program and the Democratic Platform. That is her job. For the Dems to stab her in the back for success in that goal is to repudiate that Platform and the President. If she is to be sacrificed on the alter of political expediency, well... that is more of the same of my first post above. The Dems don't really have the fortitude or commitment to push their agenda. I'd rather the Dems lose than keep bailing on the priciples and agenda when the going gets tough. Again, why vote for them if they are all to willing to cut and run, to borrow a phrase from Bush.

[Guest Conway]

Who, TY? Kennedy? LBJ? Since I doubt you wouldn't speak ill of the dead, it must be TY!

Actually Johnson. One of the better books on his his history as a developing politician is Robert Caro's "A Path To Power". Johnson had the reputation of "stealing" elections all the way back to his college years. The book is a fascinating account of LBJ's rise to power and how he learned the "influence" that made him a successful politician.