September, a month not named “December” or “after the mid-term elections,” is when Sen. Carl Levin believes the full Senate will vote on whether to repeal DADT.
Following the August recess, and before they fight for the opportunity to serve another term, lawmakers will take up the Pentagon’s spending bill that has a compromised DADT repeal deal attached, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman says. “What we’re hoping to do before August is to have an agreement which will pave the way for it being brought up right after the recess.”
But that’s really a matter for Sen. Harry Reid (pictured, main), the majority leader from Nevada, to decide. It would be a nice gesture on his behalf, and I’m sure America’s drivers would appreciate the relief.
If they want the gay and progressive base to turn out for them in the November elections, the Democrats have to earn the vote.
Mike in Asheville
September-ish of what year???
[I’ll believe it when it happens, until then, I am not holding my breath.]
well since enda got its vote…
Why the hell can’t we get ENDA and DADT repeal passed in the most Democratic congress in history when I can even count 2~4 Republican votes in favor?
No, its not Harry Reid’s to decide whenteh GOP filibusters everything. We got 51+ Democratic votes for this thing. That’s not the problem, it is the GOP.
@Andrew: lol, while I agree with your sentiment, this is hardly the most Democratic Congress in history, let alone the most progressive…
@Brutus: I read somewhere this is the most Democratic congress since the 1920’s. Yes, there were points when the Democrats had larger majorities, — however there really was no ‘Democratic Party’ as the party had two factions, Northerners and Dixiecrats, who were as far apart as you can get basically.
During the height of the Franklin D. Roosevelt years, the Democrats had 333 seats in the House and 75 in the Senate. As a political force, the Republicans were basically non-existent. The Democrats peaked again at just under 300 seats during the Kennedy-LBJ administration. But they haven’t had anywhere near that number since then because of the backlash to civil rights.
Nixon finally figured out that racism was a winning strategy. And the Republicans have been running on bigotry – and little else – ever since.
@John (CA): I just checked and your a bit too generous during FDR because while they did have a large majority, the Republicans grew significantly during the end of his term. Same with the Senate.
Likewise, your off by about 50~60 seats during JFK-LBJ. The Dems had about as many seats as they have now back then. Senate wise you are correct though, by about 4~6 seats which is significant in the Senate.
So while the Dems did peak during the early period of FDR, as I corrected in my second post (I was being hyperbolic in my first post) I maintain that we have, allow me to clarify, one of the largest Democratic majorities in history.
I maintain however that the argument of a majority in absolute terms back then doesn’t mean much because of the stark divide of the Dixiecrats whom composed 25~30% of the Democratic party back then and immigrated en masse to the Republicans after the Dems adopted civil rights as a platform issue. Those same Dixiecrat were and are still some of the most Conservative Republicans.
Don’t forget that the Ku Klux Klan was for all intents and purposes an arm of the Southern Democratic Party for much of the 19th and early 20th century.
Robert Byrd case in point.
@Andrew: Since a presidency spans several congressional terms, I used the highest number for the sake of simplicity. Which for Roosevelt was the 75th Congress (1937-1939) and Johnson was the 89th Congress (1965-1967). Though I do agree that this 111th Congress is about as large a majority as Obama’s going to get. The bottom for the GOP is a lot higher than it was before the Southern Strategy. And it is only to get tougher to enact legislation as the years drag on.
If the Republicans win in November, you can certainly put ENDA and immigration reform in the recycle bin. However, Obama could still theoretically veto any attempt by the new Congress to rollback DADT repeal during Byrd’s “review period.” The question is whether he has the guts to stand up to them.
If DADT isn’t repealed before the Congressional elections in November, Obama will never be forgiven by the gay community. This will have huge repercussions not only for his prospects of a second term but also for a large number of Democrats from liberal-leaning states. Think Pelosi, Boxer, Frank…all from liberal-leaning states. They all risk losing their seats if the gays turn against the Democrats.
Obama has forgotten the basic dictum of politics: don’t shit on your base.
No. 10 · Andrew wrote, “Don’t forget that the Ku Klux Klan was for all intents and purposes an arm of the Southern Democratic Party for much of the 19th and early 20th century.”
This is historically false. In the 19th century, the KKK was active from 1865 to 1874 (but followed by other more obscure racist groups). It then rose from the dead in 1915 and continued until 1944. It later flared up again as a series of independent groups in the 1950s and 1960s, subsequently morphing into what one might call “terrorist cells” – very small independent groups that are hard to infiltrate due to their small size and obscurity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan .
Then the comment, “Robert Byrd case in point.” Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan : Byrd joined in 1946 or 1947, at the age if 23 or 24, and dropped out after a year or so. He apologized over and over for the rest of his life. He opposed the civil rights act of 1964 but voted for the civil rights act of 1968.
Comments are closed.