Senate fails to stop GOP filibuster on DADT and DREAM Act

Maybe I’m missing something, but that vote tally is only 99 votes. I thought that the senate had 100 members–2 from each state. Where is that 100th vote?

If the democrats were honest, they would bring DADT to the floor as a stand-alone bill. Same with the alleged “Dream” act.

But they’re not. So they didn’t. They tried to sneak it through like somebody trying to sneak their underage ne’er-do-well little brother past the bouncers but they got caught.

Funny thing Dennis, everyone in Congress does this.

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83

We’d have to have a real law like ‘One Subject at a Time’ before this kind of thing was stopped. Besides aren’t you much happier rooting for an effective change to the Status Quo rather than rooting for another hypocritical filibuster?

Sneak it through? Really? Especially since those three amendments are widely known along with vigorous public discussion for some time now. The political process continues.

Hi Lane,

Isn’t the fact that Congress passes bills together even though they have nothing to do with each other more interesting than the particular pejorative Dennis chose to use to describe the act?
You’re right this is the political process for now, but it doesn’t have to be.

Thanks,
Les

It must be an election year. The Republicans show some backbone.

Les, perhaps you didn’t notice that Dennis’ particular perjorative was directed at the Democratic senators rather than at the long-standing act of passing bills with unrelated bills attached as amendments.

To answer Jason, Senator Murkowski (R-AK) did not vote.

Lane, my point being, by bundling it with a bill that everyone supports, they provide cover to those who otherwise would have to explain their vote to constituents who may disagree.

“Oh, I was voting YES on the defense appropriations bill like any good patriot would. That other stuff? To vote YES I have to accept everything in the bill, even if I disagree with it.”

Stand-alone bills make them defend their controversial vote.

Dennis,

You fail to see the irony of your position. The Democrats wouldn’t feel the need to do this if there weren’t so much hatred and prejudice against GLBT people, a state of affairs which is amplified and cultivated by many Republicans.

Which is worse? The Dems using a less than fully accountable process to pass a bill, or the Republicans making that necessary because they’re building their political fortunes off of discrimination against GLBT people?

I noticed, it’s just more interesting to ignore inflammatory comments rather than validate them. I think the root of what Dennis takes issue with is a real problem and I think the One Subject at a Time Act is worth discussion and could potentially provide a solution.

Les, thanks for clarifying where you are coming from. Moi – it is a judgement call whether to respond to trolls or not, and if I do, it is either to debunk or supply factual information or both always keeping other readers in mind.

With the exception of constitutional amendments and other acts that the people directly vote on, it seems the one-subject-per-bill is not realistic in the everyday horse-trading that goes on in legislatures given we still have so much ignorance, prejudice and greed in a society that still has a long ways to go towards stigmatizing these negative qualities. Yep, democracy is very messy business.

Sen. Reid knew the bill would not pass. He is just trying to gain support for his fledgling campaign before his political carrier comes to an end.

Hi Lane,
OSAT certainly isn’t realistic if Congress is expected to keep up its current pace of legislation (The senate passed 23 bills at 773 pages in August, and that’s with a break from Aug 3rd to Sept 4th!(http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/bills-passed-in-congress-august-2010)).
As you can probably tell by the nature of the downsizeDC website — I’d like to see that rate slowed a bit.
With respect to the ignorance of society; I think it’s a bit of an Ouroboros, don’t you? So do you want to educate the masses so we can enact change? or enact changes to educate the masses?
I admit this would be a big change but we’ve seen big changes happen before (even in Congress. . .)!

We shouldn’t be evaluating congress by how many bills they pass but by the wisdom of any new laws that get enacted.

And yes, law making is very messy business. But it should be an honest business before all else.

Two-thousand page bills that overhaul the healthcare system or the banking system or bundling unrelated issues do not sit well with most people, especially when congress is distrusted by the people as much as it is.

That’s how and why phenomenon like the Tea Party happen.

Hi Dennis,
And how would you propose we measure that wisdom? Who gets to define wisdom? How would such a vague metric provide any practical improvement for our democratic process?
If you’d read the link I posted io think you’d find that OSAT, though it would be jarring, has some real teeth.
I’m curious what you’d have to say about it.

Thanks,
Les

Les, generally speaking, every time congress passes a new law it represents more power to the government and less freedom for the people.

Something as seemingly innocuous as the “lightbulb bill” that mandated CFL bulbs and caused the end of incandescent lightbulbs not only removed your choice as a consumer as to which form of lighting you get to choose from (more power for the government, less freedom for you), but it also resulted in the closure this week of the last incadescent light bulb factory in this country costing hundreds of jobs. All CFL bulbs will be made in China.

Michele Bachmann fought that legislation tooth and nail and people here said she was nuts for wasting her time on such meaningless legislation. So now all light bulbs that worked with little wire filaments will be replaced with flourescent lightbulbs that have toxic components that will live in our landfills for generations.

Not wise.

Hi Dennis,

That is called a case study. And while interesting, it gives me no information on how to judge or measure wisdom (Except implying that I should just come to you to render a “wise” or “not wise” verdict).
You seem to be very concerned with individual bills you disagree with; I’m suggesting that there is a process problem here. So instead of concerning ourselves with the symptoms let’s just get right to the root of the problem.
I think OSAT addresses some of those roots. . .check it out. . .you might like it!

Les

Ok, Les, here’s your quick reference guide:

If the bill gives the government more power, it’s bad.
If the bill gives you less choice or less freedom, it’s bad.
All others are probably good.

Bad bills = unwise
Good bills = wise

Dennis,
Your glib response is insultingly simplistic and only serves to emphasize your prioritization of egotistical chest beating over affecting real change.
I truly regret engaging with you.

Les

[...] better yet don’t vote. (Of course, what the Spanish-language ads don’t mention is that every single Republican Senator filibustered and killed the DREAM Act that President Obama and the D…, but they figure that Latino voters don’t know that. They figure [...]