Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News | Robert Gibbs

Robert Gibbs Remarks on Senate Filibuster of Defense Bill

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs remarked on the Senate Filibuster of the Defense bill as the vote went down:

Gibbs "Sixty is the new 50 and I don't mean age. To do anything in this town now you have to get 60 votes. And it is certainly not the way that many of the people who work in the Senate, including senators, thought that this is the way it ought to work."

Sam Stein adds: "Gibbs also stressed the 'frustration' he and other White House officials feel over the fact that funding for the "Pentagon and for our troops" had been delayed. He also re-affirmed the president's commitment to DADT repeal and the Dream Act. 'I don't think this is the end,' he offered, before punting on a question as to whether or not the package of legislation will be passed in the lame duck session after the November elections. 'Obviously there will be a whole host of issues including DADT that remain undecided. Our focus right now is trying to get the business of the people done as congress remains in session.' (A Senate aide confirmed to the Huffington Post that Reid will be bringing up the same package after the elections)"

Added Gibbs: "You have in the defense bill, obviously, very important funding for the priorities of our Pentagon and our troops,. The president also supports repeal of don't ask/don't tell and the DREAM Act ... And we're disappointed at not being able to proceed to the legislation, but we'll keep trying."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Obama's leadership on this has been nil. Let's face it, he hasn't gotten the job.

    Posted by: justiceontherocks | Sep 21, 2010 5:50:27 PM


  2. When I see Pres. Obama stop ALL dismissals under DADT, support Judge Phillips' decision declaring DADT unconstitutional, and order the DoJ to stop all litigation supporting DADT, I'll believe him. Reid's last-minute inclusion of the Dream Act was a non-starter and made it easier to vote 'no' on cloture.

    Posted by: Jerry | Sep 21, 2010 5:59:47 PM


  3. Robert Gibbs is a tool. And we're all tools for thinking that Obama truly wants to repeal DADT.

    If Obama wanted to repeal DADT, he would have done it in the first year of his Presidency, not 6 weeks before the Congressional elections where members are subject to increasing heat from special interest groups.

    Obama and the Dems have failed us, and so have the gay media who enabled their lies.

    Posted by: jason | Sep 21, 2010 5:59:57 PM


  4. I get why he doesn't want to use an executive order to do away with DADT, but it is now time that he MUST go there. If he wants any shot at keeping the Senate or House, he needs to amp up his rhetoric, get his shit together, and go after the policies he wants enacted full force. He needs to champion his causes and fight for what he believes in.

    He rallied the country behind a platform of change we can believe in... but I haven't seen much change, and I'm not sure I'm a believer anymore.

    Posted by: Jon B | Sep 21, 2010 6:02:28 PM


  5. He's a fierce advocate, but like a drag queen is fierce, like 6 years ago. So not currently. Also, fuck Obama. Gah, I'm just pissy. But I hope they MAKE REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTER. Keep them up all night yammering.

    Posted by: Rebel Agenda | Sep 21, 2010 6:06:45 PM


  6. Rebel Agenda,

    LOL. Obama is a fierce advocate of gay rights, like a fierce drag queen. LOLOL. Classic!!!!

    Posted by: jason | Sep 21, 2010 6:12:48 PM


  7. A few of points ...
    1. Obama said by 'the end of the year'. I'm starting to think it literally- from the start- meant at the end of the year. The time after elections, and before the new Congress takes office, is when legislation is most free of political posturing -
    2. I 100% support Senator Harry Reid's refusal to allow the Republicans to load the bill with amendments. Had it done that, we- the people who reject the principles of the GOP- we have lost either way. If the bill passed, embarrassing amendments would have been used by every unscrupulous operative coast to coast to undermine the Democratic Party. Had the bill failed (because the majority would obviously oppose such maneuvering, the Democratic Party would have lost a great deal of the energized constituents- of what little there is- they had worked so hard to put together.
    3. I am now convinced, more than ever, that DADT will be history by the time the 112th Congress takes charge.

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Sep 21, 2010 6:39:09 PM


  8. @Rebel

    His Lordship, Baron Reid of Searchlight, did away with old-fashioned filibustering back in 2006. Now all the Republicans have to do is say "we are filibustering" to get the Democrats to roll over and cave in. They don't even need to give 14 hour speeches anymore. Reid thought it would be more efficient this way. And it certainly has been...

    For the Republicans.

    There has been a record number of filibusters in this Congress. Several hundred bills passed by the House blocked in the Senate and counting.

    Posted by: John | Sep 21, 2010 6:41:29 PM


  9. Why didn't the Dems call McCain's bluff, and make the call out for cots and coffee, and spend the next month reading the DC phone book...and NOT be able to leave DC to go back to their states to campaign??

    Posted by: acorlando | Sep 21, 2010 6:43:12 PM


  10. "Gibbs also stressed the 'frustration' he and other White House officials feel over the fact that funding for the "Pentagon and for our troops" had been delayed."

    On cue. This is so like I envisioned it, it's like watching a repeat.

    Posted by: TANK | Sep 21, 2010 6:52:53 PM


  11. More double-speak from the White House. Even though I know the Republicans can, and probably will be, worse than the Democrats. . .I'm actually going to vote this year against my self interests. If you can't get this done with the House and Senate we worked very hard to put in the legislature to get "our people's work done" then what's the point of trying under this administration. Obama and his ilk need to go and we need to truly find a "fierce advocate" who will actually commit and do the work for "our people." I'm really angry, and it takes a lot of piss me off.

    Posted by: Keith | Sep 21, 2010 6:54:00 PM


  12. Yeah, BIG surprise. Sure. And you keep the bullshit, coming, Mr. Gibbs. We know what you really think of us. You were stupid enough to reveal it just a few weeks ago, you two-faced jerk-off.

    There will be no repeal of DADT under Obama. Deal with it, folks.

    Posted by: Kyle Sullivan | Sep 21, 2010 7:00:35 PM


  13. r all ur brains disconnected from reality?

    3 dems voted against cloture 3 out of 57 so 54 dems voted for cloture, and per the facts all 3 of the nos were going to vote yes till it appeared not 1 single 1 repub would vote yes.

    Not 1 single repub out of 41 = all present repubs 40 voted No on even voting / against cloture of filibuster

    If u r upset then vote out the repubs from the senate 2010
    =====================

    that said, the dems need to get a backbone and force the repub fucknuts to actually filibuster not this vote filibuster bs. force them to read the phone book 24/7 for weeks in diappers and sleeping on cots in the senate chambers

    Posted by: mstrozfckslv@yahoo.com | Sep 21, 2010 7:05:40 PM


  14. Who gives a fuck,troz? Results...and when you're the majority party, the breakdown don't matter. Clinton managed bloodied his knuckles in '93 for DADT. That was regrettable leadership, but better than nothing. Where was Obama in 2010? Guy's an absentee landlord.

    Posted by: TANK | Sep 21, 2010 8:43:05 PM


  15. I'm surprised Gibbs didn't slip and say the real problem is the uppity gays --wanting to be equal and all.

    Why can't they just shut up and ride in the back? They are embarrassing our President.

    Oops, did I say that out loud? Was that mic on?

    Posted by: Wait Your Turn | Sep 21, 2010 8:47:42 PM


  16. If the democrats can't deliver any measurable progress that benefits the gay community with majorities in both houses and the White House, then it no longer matters to me if they're in control. I'll vote for democratic senators purely for Supreme Court nominee reasons (not that it does much good in Texas) but that's it. If Obama wants my vote in 2 years, there better be an executive order out within a week. Judicial branch: keep stepping up and doing what's right - you're the best (only) option.

    Posted by: Blake | Sep 21, 2010 9:20:30 PM


  17. Just for the supreme court nominations? Hey, that's viable...but the downside is that they can continue to say FUCK YOU to you. And that's what the dems have said to the gay community in voting...FUCK YOU, where ya gonna go? Enough is enough.

    Posted by: TANK | Sep 21, 2010 9:24:29 PM


  18. yes tank

    where r u going to go?

    repub? Uhm yeah, did the repubs bring us ENDA etc ? Hell, many repubs want a regress in gay rights not just a halt

    Yeah people r pissed, understandable but get pissed at those who voted against us

    vote the repubs out otherwise ur just crying bs

    Posted by: mstrozfckslv@yahoo.com | Sep 21, 2010 10:44:52 PM


  19. Hey, if the repubs promise to tax cuts in spite of this disastrous impending economic armageddon, why not? Same nothing, but with change in yo pocket. That doesn't motivate me, but it does most people (and most lgbt people, thank you very much--no exceptionanlism)...and thanks for that...because it makes my life a lot easier.

    But even if that won't motivate me, it will motivate me to sit it out, at least...or vote third party.

    Posted by: TANK | Sep 21, 2010 10:54:06 PM


  20. The Democrats who control the elective branches of the federal government are being very cynical here. This filled this bill with stuff like amnesty of illegals, etc., that they knew would fail, but would give them the opportunity to say to their alleged base (Hispanics, illegals, gays,etc.,) that they tried to deliver but, hey, those damn Republicans blocked us...now go out and vote Democrat in Nov. if you want to get your stuff passed in the new year. They even have the audacity to attempt to garner support from vets and others, claiming Republicans are refusing to fund the military.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Sep 22, 2010 4:41:18 AM


  21. I fully support my President and the Democrat party. However, due to a checkbook filibuster, my big Dem check writing pen was unable to get the votes needed so I won't be able to financially support your party until some later date.

    Posted by: Donald | Sep 22, 2010 6:06:45 AM


  22. ratbastard ur either a liar or ignorant. The DREAM amendment only grants legalization for those who serve in the military. 16 yrs +old and first they must show 2 yrs of no issues or problems then another like 6 yrs of military service for the US without issue then they can become legal.

    Something the armed forces WANTS! a huge pool of recruits. Something america needs cause there is no way ur going to round up millions of undocumented people and ship them back to mexico

    Blah

    Posted by: mstrozfckslv@yahoo.com | Sep 22, 2010 11:30:55 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Madagascar, Alexander McQueen, Pizza, Kim Zolciak« «