Comments on: On Gillibrand’s DADT Amendment

By: Reid Ready to Move to Stop DADT Investigations

Reid Ready to Move to Stop DADT Investigations — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:17:09 +0000

[...] I didn’t want to miss this development. I discussed Gillibrand’s possible amendment here. AKPC_IDS += "2574,";Popularity: unranked [?] Comments [0]Digg [...]

By: Tyler

Tyler — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:27:46 +0000

I would bet anything that he wouldn’t do that. Congress is running out of time. It still has 12 appropriations bills, Sotomayor, Health care, and energy to pass by the end of October (in the case of appropriations bills, hopefully by the beginning of FY2010 on October 1). Most commentators agree that Obama’s agenda will be much more difficult to push after the new year. So you think he would actually alienate dozens of influential Democrats, whose help he needs passing his agenda, AND send Congress back to square one for passing the largest appropriations bill, just to save face on a bunch of stupid fighters?

No, I do not think the threat is credible.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:46:42 +0000

What? He reiterated his threat TODAY. I think he’s pretty serious and he should be. The f22 is a symbol for spending by congress that doesn’t make any sense. If he backs down, then Congress will ride roughshod over him for his entire term.

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:18:13 +0000

I don’t know if it is fair to Sen. Gillibrand to argue that it is the primary challenge that has caused her to support our issues. In fact, she declared her support unequivocally for same sex marriage, ENDA, and ending DADT at the time of her selection.

A number of gay bloggers were suspicious of her positions then, pointing out that her voting record had been far more conservative as a Congressman. At the time — and now — I wonder if she is traveling the path Charles Goodell took. He was appointed to replace Robert Kennedy after the assassination by Nelson Rockefeller, and the howls of anger almost caused an earthquake. How dare a conservative Republican be chosen to replace Robert Kennedy!

But, whether because he realized himself who he was replacing, because he knew that representing an entire state was different from representing a small district, or even out of pure opportunism — which I doubted — Goodell became one of the most progressive and anti-War Senators — this was during Vietnam — and was the first Senator who called for Nixon’s impeachment, long before Watergate.

Neither seems to be the most skillful or smooth of politicians, but I see no reason to doubt Sen. G’s sincerity.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:15:15 +0000

Chris (the commenter)

Do you really think that the President would veto six hundred billion dollars for the military because he doesn’t want 3/10 of 1 percent of it going to some fighters that important Democratic Congressmen wanted to keep in the bill?

I don’t know why the White House would even issue such an un-believable veto threat, but I know even less about why people keep trumping the threat up.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:51:51 +0000

Exactly what is she thinking? The Defense Appropriations bill is under VETO threat because of the F-22s. If she’s trying to buy brownie points for her primary, then it’s pretty disgusting, because she’s toying with the lives of many folks who really want to see this repealed.