Lieberman: We Have 60 Votes To Repeal DADT

[UNHWildCats]

Sen. Joe Lieberman said Thursday that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” as part of the National Defense Authorization Act is no longer a question of votes, it’s a question of process.

“I am confident that we have more than 60 votes prepared to take up the defense authorization with the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ if only there will be a guarantee of a fair and open amendment process, in other words, whether we’ll take enough time to do it,” Lieberman told reporters at a press conference, naming GOP senators Susan Collins and Richard Lugar as yes votes. “Time is an inexcusable reason not to get this done.”

Lieberman, an independent, was flanked by 12 of his Democratic colleagues — a core group that seemed intent on urging the Democratic leadership to allow enough room in the Senate schedule for a debate that would be acceptable to Republicans. The senators talked about working over the weekends, and Sen. Mark Udall offered to go straight through until Christmas Eve.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News ... _60_Votes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

WHy does it have to be amended to the defense appropriations bill? Why can't they just vote on the fucking thing on it's merits?

[DSUrocks07]

WHy does it have to be amended to the defense appropriations bill? Why can't they just vote on the **** thing on it's merits?

I can see the ads now..."Republican senator _________ of _________ says he/she supports our armed forces, yet in 2010 he/she voted AGAINST the appropriations bill."

[dbackjon]

WHy does it have to be amended to the defense appropriations bill? Why can't they just vote on the fucking thing on it's merits?

It affects the defense department?


No equality = no money

[AZGrizFan]

WHy does it have to be amended to the defense appropriations bill? Why can't they just vote on the fucking thing on it's merits?

It affects the defense department?


No equality = no money

But it's apparently not important enough to have it's OWN bill?

[Chemhen]

This kind of stuff is part of the problem in Congress. It'd be nice if there was an independent arbiter to decide whether or not amendments relate to the overall purpose of the bill, and if not, strike it. Both parties do it though.

[dbackjon]

It affects the defense department?


No equality = no money

But it's apparently not important enough to have it's OWN bill?

That is the way of Washington. If every separate piece of policy had it's own bill, there would be 30000 bills.

[AZGrizFan]

But it's apparently not important enough to have it's OWN bill?

That is the way of Washington. If every separate piece of policy had it's own bill, there would be 30000 bills.

But this is my biggest issue with Washington, too. It's a political ploy (and I know it's done ALL the time) to FORCE those who otherwise wouldnt' vote for it to vote for it, or to force exactly what 07 said earlier:

I can see the ads now..."Republican senator _________ of _________ says he/she supports our armed forces, yet in 2010 he/she voted AGAINST the appropriations bill."

[ATrain]

But it's apparently not important enough to have it's OWN bill?

That is the way of Washington. If every separate piece of policy had it's own bill, there would be 30000 bills.

And then there would be a lot less spending and a lot more fiscal common sense. Other option: give the president line-item veto through the Constitution.

However, they had the votes to begin with this summer but the Dems proved enournomously ineffective and imcompetent by refusing to yield to a request by moderate Republicans for an amendment process. Obama, as commander-in-chief, could also scrap DADT with just his signature alone.

[AZGrizFan]

That is the way of Washington. If every separate piece of policy had it's own bill, there would be 30000 bills.

And then there would be a lot less spending and a lot more fiscal common sense. Other option: give the president line-item veto through the Constitution.

However, they had the votes to begin with this summer but the Dems proved enournomously ineffective and imcompetent by refusing to yield to a request by moderate Republicans for an amendment process. Obama, as commander-in-chief, could also scrap DADT with just his signature alone.

But he won't, because he's gutless.

[clenz]

WHy does it have to be amended to the defense appropriations bill? Why can't they just vote on the **** thing on it's merits?

I can see the ads now..."Republican senator _________ of _________ says he/she supports our armed forces, yet in 2010 he/she voted AGAINST the appropriations bill."

That is the big thing they are doing here.

They could easily do this other ways if they have the votes. They are setting it up to be used against them in 2012

[Rob Iola]

Didn't they have 60 votes before? Should've been the easiest thing in the world to take care of - no cost, no new govt agency, just vote/sign/implement...

[Skjellyfetti]

. Obama, as commander-in-chief, could also scrap DADT with just his signature alone.

No, he can't. DADT was a law passed by Congress. A Presidential excecutive order can't overturn law. That would create a HUGE, HUGE mess. The President could do whatever the fuck he wanted.

[GannonFan]

. Obama, as commander-in-chief, could also scrap DADT with just his signature alone.

No, he can't. DADT was a law passed by Congress. A Presidential excecutive order can't overturn law. That would create a HUGE, HUGE mess. The President could do whatever the **** he wanted.

of course, he could've steered the agenda in that direction with an Executive Order to start preparing for the overtturn of DADT. And that's been the problem with this Presidency - not enough, if any, leadership from the White House. Deferring to Congress is fine every now and then, but he should be setting the agenda and he's not done it. He had 60 votes for this for almost his entire first year in office - no reason why this wasn't done already.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, he can't. DADT was a law passed by Congress. A Presidential excecutive order can't overturn law. That would create a HUGE, HUGE mess. The President could do whatever the **** he wanted.

of course, he could've steered the agenda in that direction with an Executive Order to start preparing for the overtturn of DADT. And that's been the problem with this Presidency - not enough, if any, leadership from the White House. Deferring to Congress is fine every now and then, but he should be setting the agenda and he's not done it. He had 60 votes for this for almost his entire first year in office - no reason why this wasn't done already.

The Department of Defense study is due in a week or two. Hold your horses and chill out.

[clenz]

of course, he could've steered the agenda in that direction with an Executive Order to start preparing for the overtturn of DADT. And that's been the problem with this Presidency - not enough, if any, leadership from the White House. Deferring to Congress is fine every now and then, but he should be setting the agenda and he's not done it. He had 60 votes for this for almost his entire first year in office - no reason why this wasn't done already.

The Department of Defense study is due in a week or two. Hold your horses and chill out.

He has been in office for 2 years. If it was important to him it would have been done already

[Skjellyfetti]

Because Presidents always do everything that's important to them in the first 20 months of office. Anything after that isn't important to them.

WTF are you talking about?

[AZGrizFan]

Because Presidents always do everything that's important to them in the first 20 months of office. Anything after that isn't important to them.

WTF are you talking about?

Do you ever get tired of riding Obama's dick?

[clenz]

Because Presidents always do everything that's important to them in the first 20 months of office. Anything after that isn't important to them.

WTF are you talking about?

THis would have taken him almost zero effort to get done.

Introduce the bill and the votes take care of it. It isn't like he would have to spend a lot of time/energy getting it done.

[Skjellyfetti]

Because Presidents always do everything that's important to them in the first 20 months of office. Anything after that isn't important to them.

WTF are you talking about?

THis would have taken him almost zero effort to get done.

Introduce the bill and the votes take care of it. It isn't like he would have to spend a lot of time/energy getting it done.

The Department of Defense has been working on a report outlining the implementation of the repeal. The report is due in a week or two.

And, fyi, the President doesn't get to introduce bills in Congress.

[GannonFan]

THis would have taken him almost zero effort to get done.

Introduce the bill and the votes take care of it. It isn't like he would have to spend a lot of time/energy getting it done.

The Department of Defense has been working on a report outlining the implementation of the repeal. The report is due in a week or two.

And, fyi, the President doesn't get to introduce bills in Congress.

Come on, they didn't even start this review until this year. Again, this could've been initiated from day 1. An executive order could've been issued that would've basically neutered DADT until Congress could repeal it. And there was all of 2009 when this could've been started. The DOD review that's coming back is going to say what all of knew before - generally, people have no problem with repealing DADT, while there will be some pockets of resistance throughout the military. So basically, no new information.

And don't be simple, of course the President doesn't introduce bills himself - but plenty of Presidents (i.e. every one of them) before Obama found ways to direct the legislative effort and to find willing members of his party to introduce legislation for him. But I guess Obama was hindered because his party held a supermajority.

I'm an Obama guy and flat out, this is just one issue of something where he hasn't stepped up to lead the effort - just get'r done already.

[AZGrizFan]

The Department of Defense has been working on a report outlining the implementation of the repeal. The report is due in a week or two.

And, fyi, the President doesn't get to introduce bills in Congress.

Come on, they didn't even start this review until this year. Again, this could've been initiated from day 1. An executive order could've been issued that would've basically neutered DADT until Congress could repeal it. And there was all of 2009 when this could've been started. The DOD review that's coming back is going to say what all of knew before - generally, people have no problem with repealing DADT, while there will be some pockets of resistance throughout the military. So basically, no new information.

And don't be simple, of course the President doesn't introduce bills himself - but plenty of Presidents (i.e. every one of them) before Obama found ways to direct the legislative effort and to find willing members of his party to introduce legislation for him. But I guess Obama was hindered because his party held a supermajority.

I'm an Obama guy and flat out, this is just one issue (IN A LONG LINE OF ISSUES) of something where he hasn't stepped up to lead the effort - just get'r done already.

FIFY.

[GannonFan]

Come on, they didn't even start this review until this year. Again, this could've been initiated from day 1. An executive order could've been issued that would've basically neutered DADT until Congress could repeal it. And there was all of 2009 when this could've been started. The DOD review that's coming back is going to say what all of knew before - generally, people have no problem with repealing DADT, while there will be some pockets of resistance throughout the military. So basically, no new information.

And don't be simple, of course the President doesn't introduce bills himself - but plenty of Presidents (i.e. every one of them) before Obama found ways to direct the legislative effort and to find willing members of his party to introduce legislation for him. But I guess Obama was hindered because his party held a supermajority.

I'm an Obama guy and flat out, this is just one issue (IN A LONG LINE OF ISSUES) of something where he hasn't stepped up to lead the effort - just get'r done already.

FIFY.

I have no problem with that correction.

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, we're going to argue in circles... but, I (and Obama) don't think it would be wise for a President to issue an executive order that would "basically neute[r]" federal law. It creates a terrible, terrible precedent. The correct way to go about repealing DADT is the way it's being approached. It's not the quickest or the least painful... but, it's the way it has to be done, imo.

The DOD review that's coming back is going to say what all of knew before - generally, people have no problem with repealing DADT, while there will be some pockets of resistance throughout the military. So basically, no new information.

The report is going to say a whole lot more than that. The reasons you list are reasons WHY it should be implemented. The meat of the report will be HOW to implement it. That will be A LOT of new information.

-What benefits will be afforded to gay couples in the military (equal benefits were granted to federal employee couples as single sex couples in 2009. Would this extend to military?)
-training manuals must be updated.
-will gay soldiers have separate barracks? will gay couples receive the married couple benefits in regards to on base housing?
-repeal ban on sodomy in UCMJ
-update Military Equal Opportunity program
-will DoD provide retroactive compensation and reenlistment to members kicked out under DADT? How will that work?

those are just a few issues that need to be resolved before DADT is repealed. It's not a simple or quick thing to do.

[dbackjon]

He could have said on day one - You over there, not doing anything - start this study on how to repeal DADT. I want it on my desk by before Teddy croaks.