Suspense: Senate set to repeal DADT? Update: Collins won’t vote for cloture tonight

posted at 4:50 pm on December 8, 2010 by Allahpundit

As with DREAM, passing it would mean at least two Republicans broke their pledge not to vote yes on anything until the tax cuts bill is enacted. The key difference here: They’re close to 60 votes for repeal and they’ve gotten plenty of political cover from Gates, Mullen, and that Pentagon study to pull the trigger. A Republican House won’t sign off on it next year so Senate fencesitters are keenly aware that this is their last chance. And as Gates has been reminding them, if they don’t act now and do this in an orderly democratic fashion, the courts are apt to intervene anyway and strike down DADT sooner rather than later. Pressure.

As of this writing, there are at least three Republicans willing to repeal — Brown and Collins said yes last week and Murkowski joined them this afternoon — but they’re demanding a bit more procedural leeway from Reid as a price for their votes. If he refuses and calls their bluff by forcing a vote, will they hold the line or cave? Greg Sargent on the wrangling between Reid and Collins:

Collins has said she supports repeal, but won’t agree to vote for cloture on the Defense Authorization Bill containing repeal if Harry Reid doesn’t allow ample time for open debate and amendments on the bill…

[T]he aide close to the talks defended Reid’s decision [to bring the bill to the floor tonight], arguing that it’s just as risky to postpone the vote on repeal. “There’s concern that members of her caucus will be out the door as soon as we pass everything Republicans want,” the aide says…

A spokesman for Collins flatly denies she asked Reid for unlimited debate. Rather, the spokesman says, Collins has pointed out to Reid that the average number of days spent debating previous defense authorization bills has been 11 days, with an average of 14 or so amendments considered. Collins has asked Reid to come up with a comparable offer, the spokesman says.

No one appears to be disputing that the talks have hit a snag, though.

Murkowski is also demanding an “an open and fair amendment process.” Reid can’t open it up too much, though, as allowing unlimited debate would let DeMint, Coburn, McCain or some other repeal opponent slow things down and obstruct the vote. Reportedly, he offered Collins 15 amendments, 10 of which would come from the GOP, and she turned him down. Which is where the suspense comes in: Will she and Murkowski agree to some limits on debate? And if not and Reid pushes the bill tonight, will either they or Scott Brown relent and vote yes anyway? I’d say Murky’s a fair bet to cave since she won’t face another election for six years, and if the Dems hold together and get to 59 with her, Scotty B will be hard-pressed to vote no and be the man who singlehandedly killed the DADT repeal when he’s facing Massachusetts voters next year.

If they do vote today and fall short, that’s not necessarily the end of the process. Reid and Collins could agree to some procedural patch enabling another vote before the lame duck ends. Tonight’s vote will be interesting anyway, though, just to see how close they get. Exit question: If Liz Cheney is for it, who can be against it?

Update: Looks like they couldn’t reach a deal with Collins to proceed this evening. Are Brown and Murky still in play?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Do we get to read these bills?

PrezHussein on December 8, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Well, they wrecked healthcare and the job market with shady votes, might as well tear apart some other institutions while they’re at it.

fiatboomer on December 8, 2010 at 4:55 PM

If Liz Cheney is for it, who can be against it?

Little ole me.

fourdeucer on December 8, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Taxes are set to go up, we have no budget, and unemployment is 9.8%. But the Senate is focused on amnesty and gay rights.

Priorities.

amerpundit on December 8, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Exit question: If Liz Cheney is for it, who can be against it?

You’re kidding right?

ninjapirate on December 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM

From Ann Coulter:

Here’s a record of the discharges for 2008, according to the Defense Department:
– Drugs: 5,627
– Serious offenses: 3,817
– Weight standards: 4,555
– Pregnancy: 2,353
– Parenthood: 2,574
– Homosexuality: 634

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I have no problem being against something that Liz Cheney is for.

Rose on December 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM

From Ann Coulter:

Here’s a record of the discharges for 2008, according to the Defense Department:
– Drugs: 5,627
– Serious offenses: 3,817
– Weight standards: 4,555
– Pregnancy: 2,353
– Parenthood: 2,574
– Homosexuality: 634

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Well, we obviously need to have weed legalization will all possible speed and a fat contract given to whichever US grower will fill the most bongs as the lowest price. It’s a matter of integrity.

fiatboomer on December 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Little ole me.

fourdeucer on December 8, 2010 at 4:56 PM

And the United State Marine Corps…and my husband the former Marine….and me….and my brother-in-law the former Navy LT and…

annoyinglittletwerp on December 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on December 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM

And multiple service chiefs.

amerpundit on December 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM

And what the heck is the difference between getting discharged for pregnancy and one for parenthood? Does this depend on whether or not an abortion was involved?

fiatboomer on December 8, 2010 at 5:06 PM

If Liz Cheney is for it, who can be against it?

Anyone who disagrees.

portlandon on December 8, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Allah, please change the photo on the front page. My God that will scare small children and cause even adults to have nightmares.

With that said, it’s insane these people are still screwing around with social engineering while the Republic collapses at our feet.

gary4205 on December 8, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I don’t think DADT will be repealed today…

As with DREAM, passing it would mean at least two Republicans broke their pledge not to vote yes on anything until the tax cuts bill is enacted.

Exactly, if they break their pledge on DADT then I’m afraid of dominoes falling for the DREAM Act…

Now people are focusing on Scott Brown, but are there any Red State Dems who might be a little iffy here?

How does the fact that this bill is an appropriations bill give them “cover” yet not for Scott Brown? That’s why it’s absolutely important for this vote to be separate. If Scotty B is going to going to vote for repealing DADT, they need to do it individually too.

ninjapirate on December 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM

I don’t think DADT will be repealed today…

It may be repealed later in the lame duck session… but not today.

ninjapirate on December 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Let’s repeal it and go back to what it was in the UCMJ before Clinton. Who would be in favor of that?

stefano1 on December 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Well, they wrecked healthcare and the job market with shady votes, might as well tear apart some other institutions while they’re at it.

fiatboomer on December 8, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Taxes are set to go up, we have no budget, and unemployment is 9.8%. But the Senate is focused on amnesty and gay rights.

Priorities.

amerpundit on December 8, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I have no problem being against something that Liz Cheney is for.

Rose on December 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM

All +100!
Liz Cheney’s great, but her sister is an out lesbonian.
Just sayin’.

Jenfidel on December 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM

BTW, it’s obvious Harry Reid doesn’t want DADT repealed today … or the DREAM Act passed…

ninjapirate on December 8, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Jenfidel on December 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM

She’s as soft on homosexuality issues as her dad.

OmahaConservative on December 8, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Liz Cheney’s great, but her sister is an out lesbonian.
Just sayin’.

Jenfidel on December 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Except for the Lesbian issue Mary Cheney-like her sister-is conservative. A butch dyke she’s not.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM

All of this crap just so that homosexual servicemembers can talk about their sex lives in public and hold hands with their same-sex partner at the post club. At least they won’t be able to out themselves to chaplains in order to get discharged in the middle of deployments (and don’t think it doesn’t happen… I’ve personally seen it twice).

Are my taxes going up in January, or what? Can’t help but notice that neither of these two bills have anything to do with the effing BUDGET!!

CantCureStupid on December 8, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Jenfidel on December 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM

So Mary Cheney is a lesbian-so what. She’s not in the military and is pretty conservative otherwise. A butch dyke she’s not.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 8, 2010 at 5:26 PM

And what the heck is the difference between getting discharged for pregnancy and one for parenthood? Does this depend on whether or not an abortion was involved?

fiatboomer on December 8, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I wondered the same thing.

WitchDoctor on December 8, 2010 at 5:27 PM

What is the main reason people object to gays serving openly in the military?

I personally don’t care, but I don’t serve in the military and i’d like to kmow what the objection is?

Is it a moral objection?

Is it a comfort thing?

Why would it be such a bad thing if gays served openly in the military?

joshleguern on December 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Allah: I was making a positive comment about Mary Cheney and not one but TWO comments-because the first one didn’t take-have gone to moderation purgatory.
I was saying that shewas basically conservative and wasn’t a butch rhymes with ‘bike’.
Is the word I meant now in the same category as rev$$$$$$n?

annoyinglittletwerp on December 8, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Senator Collins says she’ll vote “no” if Reid is bringing it up tonight.

amerpundit on December 8, 2010 at 5:33 PM

*fingers crossed*

JetBoy on December 8, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Why would it be such a bad thing if gays served openly in the military?

Because in that case, gays would be serving openly in the military–that’s why!

The US should return to the old system, which was no gays in the military.

Until then, don’t ask, don’t tell–and don’t ask me again!

Emperor Norton on December 8, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Exit question: If Liz Cheney is for it, who can be against it?

Not me. There should be time for debate, to be sure, but if the bill is in fact a clean one, and primarily about repealing DADT, then I’m for it. (Worked for the Thebans.)

Tzetzes on December 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM

What is the main reason people object to gays serving openly in the military?

joshleguern on December 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM

I think that mostly it is an objection to what is essentially intimate contact with someone who could potentially be attracted to you, especially in field situations where there is little privacy. To many people, there is no fundamental difference between showering with a same-gender homosexual or an opposite-gender straight. It also opens up problems with open billeting, again, because there is no such thing as privacy in a combat environment.

As service member of over 20 years, I’ve served with gay troops my entire career. I’m not that fussed personally, but I can see how a bunch of guys in the field whose only shower option is a spicket on the back of a water truck would not be okay with this. Additionally, all of this hand-wringing implies that there is something destructive or untoward about the current policy, and most service members I know strongly disagree with that sentiment.

There is a tendency with our sad and sorry government to ignore real and serious problems in favor of fabricating emergencies and fixing things that aren’t broken. This is simply another example of such. These clowns are wasting time.

CantCureStupid on December 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM

I asked my son, who is in the USAF, what he and his friends think about repealing DADT. These are his own words:

I have more respect for gays in the military then straight people in the civi world because they are willing to take a bullet just like me….but seriously 9 out of 10 people in the military could care less…8 of my friends here are gay.

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 5:40 PM

OT:
Pi$$ ‘tingles’ Matthews just said the Beatles brought us out of the gray and gloom of Kennedy’s assassination, ’cause everyone mourned the loss of Kennedy. He was spittin’, lickin’ and slobberin’ whilst doing so. Guess he got them tingles over JFK, too. Now he’s lauding the sexual revolution and drug addled sixties.

OmahaConservative on December 8, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Hell, why not? There’s nothing else to do.

DarkCurrent on December 8, 2010 at 5:43 PM

The question is posed: if Liz Cheney is for repeal of DADT, who can be against it? The answer is that the overwhelming majority of combat arms Marines and soldiers are against repeal of DADT, and they can explain why best. Liz Cheney, what does she know? Has Liz Cheney ever served as an infantry platoon commander? NO. Have you, Allahpundit? NO.

I am disgusted by all the commentary on this subject by people who don’t know a thing about how the military lives, and that includes supposed conservatives. The whole notion of playing social engineer with our military in a way contrary to the rules of the military going back to George Washington and doing so at a time of two wars is the height of stupidity and irresponsiblity. Gates and Mullen should be fired for failitating a case of political correctness gone wild.

Phil Byler on December 8, 2010 at 5:45 PM

but seriously 9 out of 10 people in the military could care less…8 of my friends here are gay.

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Maybe 9… ;p

DarkCurrent on December 8, 2010 at 5:45 PM

What a great place for a social experiment, right in the middle of combat operations. DUMB!

Rovin on December 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Nothing secures prosperity for a nation like mainstreaming perversion and immorality.

Inanemergencydial on December 8, 2010 at 5:49 PM

*fingers crossed*

JetBoy on December 8, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Just keep ‘em where we can see ‘em

DarkCurrent on December 8, 2010 at 5:53 PM

And what the heck is the difference between getting discharged for pregnancy and one for parenthood? Does this depend on whether or not an abortion was involved?

fiatboomer on December 8, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I would assume one is about your husband being deployed and you becoming a full-time parent.

PrezHussein on December 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Why is this an issue? Its because it isn’t about combat readiness or military effectiveness or anything else related to the military. It is about mainstreaming homosexuality to the point that it becomes a “protected class” (like religion and national origin and race) and thereby forcing it onto the larger american populace.

Folks don’t seem to realize the endgame is always the same. After all we’re now talking about gay “marriage” when just a few years ago the issue was domestic partner laws. But that wasn’t enough, just like DADT wasn’t enough. It will never be enough until their view of society prevails and everyone is made to bow to it.

theblackcommenter on December 8, 2010 at 5:59 PM

To ladyingray:

You are not dealing with combat arms Marines and soldiers. You would get a very different response from them than what you ascribe to the military in general. And if you don’t deal with what combat arms Marines and soldiers think, then you are being irresponsible.

Phil Byler on December 8, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Via Twitter: No more roll call votes in the Senate tonight.

amerpundit on December 8, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Hell, why not? There’s nothing else to do.

DarkCurrent on December 8, 2010 at 5:43 PM

That’s what I think!

Maybe 9… ;p

DarkCurrent on December 8, 2010 at 5:45 PM

You, my friend, are in T-R-O-U-B-L-E!!! ;p

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 6:05 PM

What are the courts going to do?

d1carter on December 8, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Phil Byler on December 8, 2010 at 6:01 PM

I’m sorry? I think you better back off when you talk to me. I’m not here to argue with you or anyone else, I just passed on the words of an Airman who is deployed overseas and does not sit behind a desk.

One source I found listed “combat” troops at 20% of the total military, so that is roughly 12% of the entire military that have doubts. The thing is, those 12% are already serving with Marines and soldiers who are gay…showering with them, treating their wounds, sleeping in close quarters…and most of them probably know it.

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 6:17 PM

If Liz Cheney is for it, who can be against it?
Little ole me.
fourdeucer on December 8, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Me too… Give it time, debate and serious consideration…

CCRWM on December 8, 2010 at 6:22 PM

So is it OK to call them what they are LIARS?

tarpon on December 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Exactly. And wasn’t it that 85% those combat troops that did know they were serving with a gay servicemember reported the experience as positive or neutral?

SDnocoen on December 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM

you can’t make this stuff up:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/08/czechs-defend-arousal-testing-gay-refugees/

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2010 at 6:32 PM

From Ann Coulter:

Here’s a record of the discharges for 2008, according to the Defense Department:
– Drugs: 5,627
– Serious offenses: 3,817
– Weight standards: 4,555
– Pregnancy: 2,353
– Parenthood: 2,574
– Homosexuality: 634

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2010 at 5:00 PM

So a very small percentage of the population is affected by something. And the senate spends months and months and billions of dollars to address the something.

Much like health care, where 5-10% of the people have no insurance and so they spend a year and $1T to fix the problem.

angryed on December 8, 2010 at 6:34 PM

So is it OK to call them what they are LIARS?

tarpon on December 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM

They are liars for obeying federal law?

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 6:43 PM

To ladyingray:

No, Mam, I will not back off. I think you don’t know what you are talking about. You can refer all you want about talking to that “Airman.” I know the combat arms Marines and Army. They are opposed to the repeal of DADT.

Phil Byler on December 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM

I wondered the same thing.

WitchDoctor on December 8, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Prolly has to do with divorce and child custody. One parent.

BigWyo on December 8, 2010 at 7:16 PM

You can refer all you want about talking to that “Airman.”

Phil Byler on December 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM

She said the Airman was her son serving overseas.

Don’t you have any respect?

DarkCurrent on December 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Phil Byler on December 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Guess what, Phil? I know guys who have been seriously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and they could care less if the soldier/Marine/Airman/Sailor next to them is gay, as long as he/she is willing to take a bullet and/or drag ‘him’ to safety. Get over your small minded fear, ‘phobe.

Personally, my only care is that my son has serious people watching his ‘six’. Anything else is your personal fear.

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 10:42 PM

If Liz Cheney is for it, who can be against it?

She’s also backing Cino for RNC chair. Between DADT and Cino the Cheney family has officially jumped the shark.

Rocks on December 9, 2010 at 12:10 AM

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Well LIG, here is one guy who will say exactly opposite of what your sone did. I’ve been in for 34 and don’t know one person I’ve served with who think repealing is a good idea.

Don’t you have any respect?

DarkCurrent on December 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM

That person is entitled to their opinion. He’s quite right about the conditions of the majority of Air Force personnel being different than Army and Marine Combat Arms with repect to how repealing DADT would effect them. There’s also a bit of difference between your average serviceman or woman’s situation being stationed at K16 Airbase in Korea as opposed to FOB Robinson in Afghanistan. At any rate, he’s entitied to his opinion and I’m not sure why this subject tends to bring out the bully in commenters here.

You good people are in opinion, at the very least, helping to perpetuate what I consider the worst thing to happen to the military in all of my years affiliated with it.

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 12:20 AM

‘phobe.

Personally, my only care is that my son has serious people watching his ‘six’. Anything else is your personal fear.

ladyingray on December 8, 2010 at 10:42 PM

And this one LIG is really a pretty big surprise to me. I’m disappointed you, like many professed gays who comment here, reduce this argument to name calling. “Phobe” Really? This is unfair in the highest order. You dismiss any rational argument and concern from this person and quite frankly even me, when you characterize and criticize the debate this way. I have appreciated our correspondance over the last year, but this is just amazing. And again, disappointing.

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 12:28 AM

I miss Donald Rumsfeld.

scotash on December 9, 2010 at 3:40 AM

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Sorry to disappoint. And I take offense by you and others who dismiss what my son does.

Let’s have a rational discussion. How rational is it that a big, strong combat troop male is afraid to take a shower in front of a man who is gay?

ladyingray on December 9, 2010 at 8:53 AM

ladyingray on December 9, 2010 at 8:53 AM

I didn’t dismiss what your son does. I drew a distinction. You draw distinctions too, it seems.

I guess I am among what you consider the “Phobes”. Sorry what I have contributed means even less than what your son and his gay friends have to the military. I know where I stand.

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM

ladyingray on December 9, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Do you consider name calling part of a rational debate?

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Sorry what I have contributed means even less than what your son and his gay friends have to the military. I know where I stand.

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Why would you think that? I never said your point wasn’t valid. I am just saying that my son’s point is valid as well.

ladyingray on December 10, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Do you consider name calling part of a rational debate?

hawkdriver on December 9, 2010 at 9:36 AM

You’re right, and I’m sorry for that.

ladyingray on December 10, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Homosexual behavior is a form of deviant behavior as well as a psychological, sexual, and emotional disorder.

No one in our nation should be coerced into embracing and enduring outward homosexual expression of any kind. Mandating homosexual public behavior and expression is just that. It coerces all soldiers to endure that which is offensive, making the US military a social experiment and abusing the soldiers, including those who were raised with morals, values, and mores which are diametrically opposite homosexual behavior.

Someone is going to be offended, either the homosexuals, or the non-homosexuals. In this case it is important that the majority of soldiers, as well as normal US citizens, are the folks who are considered here rather than trying to placate and soothe the minority who are engaged in offensive, deviant, sexual disorder behavior.

William2006 on December 10, 2010 at 1:28 PM