1. says

    This is such a smoke job from Gillibrand and stall by the Dems.

    Funny how SHE pulled her own amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill that would have suspended discharges for the balance of the 111th Congress when SHE thought she didn’t have enough votes. Even if it didn’t if she would have had it voted on we’d be able to see exactly who the roadblocks are in getting a repeal of DOMA done.

    The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings this fall on “DADT” is not that exciting or meaningful This is political showmanship at its best to stall and to cover her pulling of the suspended discharges admendment. You see not really much can come of it because all the hearing does is provide a debate forum about DADT. That MIGHT in the end get the support of the Armed Services Committee behind trying to get DADT pulled and its very time consuming and slow. So you need to think if its set for Fall it will run through Winter 09/10 and even if they do come up with the opinion to back a Repeal of DADT nothing would probably be done until spring 2010 when a repeal admendment will have to go through the House and The Senate and then be signed into Law. So think MAYBE if all goes well this way just MAYBE there MIGHT be a repeal next late Fall 2010.(Personally I would say December 2010 AFTER re-elections because they won’t want to vote on anything pro-gay BEFORE November.)

    No one should hail her for this or give her any credit.

  2. FizziekruntNT says

    I have been rather suspicious myself, Wolf, after hearing of her complete and utter dismissal of a miscarriage of justice in the Port Jervis area regarding a hate crime incident (which, due to State law was completely bungled). Her original attention to the court case due to a press release I wrote was impressive, and then as stated earlier, completely disregarded as something more “important” seemed to rear its head. She’s doing some maneuvering for something, but I wouldn’t exactly call her our hero just yet.

  3. Jon B says

    I mean, words aren’t as important as action, I’ll grant you guys that. But sometimes words in and of themselves constitute action. However it was that she decided that she was for full marriage equality (whether it was her true position, or one that she came to because of original criticism by the gay community when she was first appointed) she did outright state that she was for marriage equality. Subsequently, several other senators, including Chuck Schumer, have also officially come out in favor of marriage equality.

    Whether you agree with the strategy of waiting for a filibuster proof majority or not, there is at least merit to the strategy. If a vote for the suspension of DADT is voted down (or leads to a filibuster which takes up a considerable amount of the senate’s time), it could harm the chances of getting a vote on a full repeal. Then again, if it passes without much fuss, it could lead to an earlier vote for repeal. Either way, I don’t think there is much of a reason to attack her.

  4. says

    With respect, psychoanalysis is a waste of time.

    While we should not NEED hearings about a patently absurd law, we shouldn’t need to cooperate with a robber either. But there are enough troglodytes in Congress holding the proverbial gun to our heads that we have to play the game, and one step in it is hearings.

    So this is progress. Unlike in the House, a part of the problem has certainly not been the Chair of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Carl Levin. While his House counterpart, Ike Skelton, was THE sponsor of DADT in the House in 1993 and hasn’t had hearings yet on the House bill which has been around for four years, Levin tried to shoot down opposition to gay integrating the military during Sam Nunn’s homohating “dog and pony show” Senate hearings, voted against DADT, and has consistently opposed it ever since.

    But, Barney Frank said today that opposition to repeal is much greater in the Senate than the House. That is consistent with 1. a repeal bill has not been introduced in the Senate, and, 2. House repeal bill lead Patrick Murphy has said that more in the House are willing to vote for repeal than cosponsor it. [The actual vote, of course, is what’s important.]

    But, in June, Levin reiterated what CANDIDATE Obama said in 2007. Levin said [emphasis mine]:

    “It requires PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP. This CANNOT be addressed successfully without that kind of leadership.”

    Still waiting….

Leave A Reply