In DADT Wreckage, a Tale of Two Vulnerable Dems

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/okobojierik/4476390250/">Enrico Fuente</a> (<a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a>).

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell failed Thursday in the Senate, with the Democrats coming up three votes short of being able to block a Republican filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had been negotiating with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to bring DADT repeal to the floor while satisfying Republican demands for more time for debate and GOP amendments to the bill. But Reid was reportedly worried that Republicans would continue to prolong the debate unnecessarily—impeding other Democratic legislation on deck—and then decide in the end to kill the repeal provision anyway

Two Republican Senators—Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)—said earlier this week that they supported DADT repeal. But both GOPers voted no on Thursday after Reid rejected Republican demands for more time and amendments. Speaking to reporters, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) laid down his party’s rationale: “You’re not going to get our cooperation when you take these bills, you bring them up without any chance that we can participate in the debate.” Collins, however, voted yes—despite having been the GOP’s point person in negotiations with Reid and despite having made the procedural demands in the first place.

There was a lone Democrat—a vulnerable Blue Dog soon up for re-election—who joined with the GOP to defeat DADT. Sen. Joe Manchin, the newly sworn-in member from West Virginia, admitted that he ultimately thought the ban on gay servicemembers should be lifted. The former governor defended his opposition to the bill by saying the timing wasn’t right, citing Congressional testimony from two frontline commanders that DADT could be disruptive during a time of war:

I think it’s going to happen and it probably should happen. But it’s the timing issue for me and for my constituents back home… I’m just saying we have war going on, and when you have a war going on, you ought to listen to the front line.

By contrast, another vulnerable Democratic member up for re-election in 2012—Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri—not only supported repeal, but also lit into the GOP for sabotaging the vote. Leaving the Senate chamber, she told reporters that Reid’s attempt to come up with a DADT deal broke down when Republicans demanded the power to offer up amendments that were too extreme. “There was a breakdown over the terminology between relevant and crazy,” McCaskill told reporters. She added that she admired Collins’ “courage” for voting to move forward with DADT repeal, noting that its failure also blocked everything else in the defense reauthorization bill attached to the provision.

Altogether, DADT’s defeat was a depressing reminder of just how intractable the GOP has become. This is just the latest example of the minority party using Senate procedural arguments as an excuse for blocking legislation that may not have another chance to pass for years. Repeal’s defeat also shows how little faith Reid has in the GOP and, perhaps, how few risks he’s willing to take right now given how little time is left in the lame-duck Congress. Earlier on Thursday, the Democratic majority leader decided to defer a tough vote on the DREAM Act, pushing it farther to the margins—perhaps because the Democrats also lacked the votes to put it through. In an increasingly treacherous political climate, moderate and vulnerable Democrats will be under more pressure to protect their right flanks. As Politico‘s Dave Catanese noted, the Manchin-McCaskill split on DADT reveals that such Democrats could either use the GOP as cover—or take a risk and charge to the forefront to attack the opposition.

UPDATE, 6:15 p.m. EST: There may be hope yet for repeal. Collins, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) are co-sponsoring a standalone repeal bill that Reid has said he will try to bring straight to the floor (bypassing the committee process) at the end of the lame duck session. TPM’s Brian Beutler has more.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate