2010 Census: Obama likely to lose Presidency in 2012.- Page 3

Posted: 12/20/10 at 3:37pm

Why Goth? Why did Democrats (the party that has supported gay rights) support two awful deals like DADT and DOMA? Because of pressure from the right. DADT was a bad compromise, but on paper should have stopped the ouster of gay servicemen. And you can spend hours debating the motivation behind DOMA but it DID stop Republican calls for a constitutional amendment- which would have been sheer hell to try to reverse.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 6:55pm

A constitutional amendment probably wouldnt have gotten very far, actually.

But speaking as a lifelong Liberal Party member, I do sometimes question the political parties you guys have. The Republicans have, of course, made it clear that they're not interested in gay rights (even though they're supposed to be the party of small government and great personal liberty), while the Democrats look to gays only when it seems to be convenient -- the rest of the time they give the appearance of a party that talks a great deal about equality and justice but doesnt seem to have either the drive or the desire to actually make it happen... until something comes along that forces their hand.

So who's better -- the party that says there's cuter dates at the bar than you or the party that says it loves you but never calls after spending the night?

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:45pm

"...while the Democrats look to gays only when it seems to be convenient..."

Are you inferring that the repeal of DADT has been 'convenient'?

And for the record, I have no political party. My social views have become more liberal as I have gotten older, and my fiscal view is that the government should be flexible in response to economic conditions; ie niether doctrinal liberal or conservative.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:09pm

So who's better -- the party that says there's cuter dates at the bar than you or the party that says it loves you but never calls after spending the night?

Maybe it's just a terrible metaphor, but both examples the same party?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:15pm

>> Are you inferring that the repeal of DADT has been 'convenient'?

Yes. Straight up.

(BTW, before proceeding, bear in mind that I mean the Liberal Party of Canada, which is akin somewhat to your Democrats, but only somewhat)

The issue was sitting around like a wallflower at a cotillion, and suddenly, quite remarkably, after all the postponements and obstructions... suddenly 67 senators say, "Okay, we'll vote for it!" as bill after bill is rushed through in the final days of this congressional sitting.

I am not saying anything untoward about the people who worked so hard to get this thing up there. Dan Choi should be given a medal for bravery after all he went through. But let's get real on a few things, shall we? Reid and Pelosi tried to attach this to a defence spending bill twice, and the bill went down in defeat — because of that attachment. *Now*, when it's a standalone bill, *now* the heavens open, and the wisdom of its passing descends, casting enlightenment?

Gimme a break.

I'm glad it's passed. I'll be very curious to see how long the Pentagon takes to roll it out, particularly with a GOP-held House that could, if it chose to, reinstate it. And my gut is telling me that there has been a deal of some kind made here between the Dems and the GOP, to pass this so the GOP can get something major in the coming session. We've already heard suggestions that the GOP allowed this to pass if it got its way on START, and I would not be surprised one bit were that true... again, considering START has sat around since February waiting for ratification.

And I'm not the only one who's noticed the rather incredible reversal of fortunes for DADT. Commentators from NPR and CNN today were both saying how they'd not seen something like this in a very long time, and they were all just as mystified as I am. So celebrate the victory, kids, but dont be surprised if it turns out to have a hefty price tag attached somewhere along the way.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:21pm

*And* wandering over to Huffington Post, I see the FCC has decided just today that net neutrality is so last year.

... coming on the heels of DADT.

Convenient.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:21pm

So, in other words, you're just making stuff up to put a negative spin on this?

"...particularly with a GOP-held House that could, if it chose to, reinstate it..."

That's just patently false.

"And my gut is telling me that there has been a deal of some kind made here between the Dems and the GOP, to pass this so the GOP can get something major in the coming session."

There's not one shred of evidence to support that supposition.

"suddenly 67 senators say, 'Okay, we'll vote for it!' as bill after bill is rushed through in the final days of this congressional sitting."

It's called being on the right side of history. Many wise people (including me) suggested that the vote would NOT be just 60. There are definitely GOP senators who jumped on the bandwagon.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:30pm

"...Huffington Post, I see the FCC has decided just today that net neutrality is so last year."

I am a fan of HuffPo, but EVERYTHING there needs to be checked. They have a definite point of view, and they can be as selective in their reporting as Fox. The LA Times has an entirely different take on the negotiations.
LA Times

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:44pm

>> That's just patently false.

Really.

Last time I checked, a law could be suggested by anyone sitting in Congress. Just because one law is repealed, that doesnt ipso facto mean it might not ever, ever appear ever again. In case you missed the memo, there is already a movement within the GOP to try and reinstate this next year. Granted, not much of a movement, but given that it's there at all certainly suggests someone will try. We're not talking about a constitutional amendment here, just a simple law. And laws can be put back on the shelf just as easily as they can be taken off.

>> There's not one shred of evidence to support that supposition.

Really.

Look at the countless negotiations required to pass the healthcare overhaul — or any major legislation for that matter — and do please try to tell me that negotiation isnt part of the game in DC.

>> It's called being on the right side of history.

... which sounds very noble. But if these folks were so concerned about being on the "right side of history", why wait until it's a standalone bill? Why not look at it when it was part of something else and say, "You know, I should be on the right side of history here and vote for this"? Did something happen in the weeks between now and the last attempt to get this through? Suddenly an obstructionist GOP becomes all concerned about being on the "right side of history" on something it routinely uses as a wedge issue, even as recently as the November election?

Insofar as trying to put a "negative spin", all I'm saying, sir, is keep your damn eyes open and watch what's going on there inside the Beltway. As noted, I'm glad it passed. But I find parts of the passage process baffling. And I suggest you go back to the Broadway board, where the magic and mystery of theatre can never be assailed. Here, we periodically look behind the curtain. Like real theatre, it's rarely pretty.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 12:01am

I suggest you go back to the Broadway board, where the magic and mystery of theatre can never be assailed.

You obviously haven't been reading the Spiderman threads.

[Q]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 12:38am

I agree with Sean on this. I said awhile ago that it amazed me how the Defense Authorization going down was being labled a defeat of DADT. In line with Sean's thoughts, my feeling is that the accomodations made will be found there when it passes in the upcoming session - with different parameters in place.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 2:22am

I don't get why he's got to be such a snide assh*le. And if really knew this board as well as his sneering condescension suggests I don't think he'd be so dismissive of madbrian, regardless of whether or not he agreed with him.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 6:54am

"And I suggest you go back to the Broadway board, where the magic and mystery of theatre can never be assailed. Here, we periodically look behind the curtain."

I'll take that under advisement, with all the gravity it deserves.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 7:31am

>> I don't get why he's got to be such a snide assh*le.

Deal with it, honey. Just deal with it.

You clearly cannot answer the post, so you go for the messenger. I really dont give a f*ck what you think about me, because you're not participating in the dialogue. You're just being a snide assh*le yourself. So -- once more for reading comprehension -- deal with it.

>> I'll take that under advisement, with all the gravity it deserves.

Whatever, dude. But dont come back whining when the next Congress suddenly says, "Hey, remember that law the old congress repealed? We sorta liked it, so here it is again!" -- which, BTW, Congress can do until the courts tell them otherwise. And even then there are ways around the courts, as the GOP has more than ably demonstrated in the past.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 7:50am

You make Roscoe look like an optimist.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 9:45am

For the record,

The House has to propose a law before it goes to the Senate.

If both houses pass a law, then it goes to the President for signature.

If the President does not agree with a law, he can use the veto, which then requires a two-thirds majority in BOTH HOUSES in order to override the veto - which is not going to happen if the intent is to reinstate DADT. That is not going to happen in the next couple of years, and if Obama wins a second term, it would be very difficult to try and reinstate DADT six years after it was overturned.

So, from my simplistic, Pollyanna perspective, it is a wee bit more complicated than you describe SM. And, I have not even factored in legal challenges if any new law was proposed.

Many of us find the whole procedural workings of the Senate baffling - the 60 vote requirement for cloture has been an effective tool to hold the majority hostage by the minority and has been abused by the GOP in a way that is unprecedented. There are a lot of shenanigans facilitated because of the procedural rules of the Senate which prevented DADT ever from coming to the floor for a vote until Sunday. Those same shenanigans would make it very difficult to reinstate DADT.

But, I guess all of that does not matter - and I will go join MB on the BW Board.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 10:05am

The new chair of the Environment committee thinks we should apologize to BP and that the EPA should be scrapped.

Yes, Pollyanna, weirder things have happened in DC and no doubt will. Be as optimistic as you wish, but do so with eyes wide open so you're not blindsided by what is very, very possible, given how bizarre Washington politics are these days.

[Q]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 10:09am

To clarify - when I said I agree with Sean, it had nothing to do with the possibility of reinstating DADT in some way. I find that scenario too far-fetched to even contemplate.

I DO, however, think it's probable that it's recent turnaround has everything to do with dealings that we will see manifested in the near future. As I said, I personally think it has to do with Defense Authorization (as that's where most of these folks, no matter the stripe, grease their wheels.)

In any event, assuming this was passed based on its merits alone seems highly 'rose-tinted' - at least from what I've ever known about DC.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 10:24am

For the record, am not an optimist, but a pragmatist.

As I sure you know SM, the House has no power to enact any law without the Senate approving it and the President signing it into law. Joe Barton is an ass and a fool. And he can conduct hearings and do a lot of stupid things as a Congressman. He cannot, however, pass a law, and neither can the House of Reps by itself.

If the GOP wants to enrage the Dem Base and guarantee an Obama re-election, they would run on repealing DADT.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 10:26am

Whoops - computer elves.






Updated On: 12/21/10 at 10:26 AM

Posted: 12/21/10 at 10:28am

It's hardly worth engaging with someone who seems to think that an article on the Huffington Post has the force of law.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 10:39am

"If the GOP wants to enrage the Dem Base and guarantee an Obama re-election, they would run on repealing DADT."

The problem with running on the reinstatement of DADT isn't enraging the Dem base, it's losing the independents. You can win midterms by inspiring your base, but you NEED independents to win the White House.

Having said all that, in the end it'll all come down to the economy, and the quality of the GOP nominee.

[Q]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 10:40am

And yet you engage Goth?

I think it bears noting that the DADT repeal came on the heels of the capitulation over tax cuts, and that at the same time the Republicans were apparently caving on DADT, the DREAM Act went down. That was a strong sting to a portion of the Dem base, and had a more immediate negative effect on a larger number of people.

[Q]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 10:41am

Double - sorry Updated On: 12/21/10 at 10:41 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 11:43am

MB - totally a fair point and accurate on the independents.

I also think that trying to repeal DADT would motivate the youth vote back to levels of 2008 - something the GOP does not want to do.