-
Generation Unwed Motherhood
June 11, 2012 | 64 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
May 1, 2012 | 0 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
April 26, 2012 | 83 comments
-
The Best Last Man Standing
February 15, 2012 | 226 comments
-
Carolina Girl
February 3, 2012 | 30 comments
Political Hay
Politically Frail Democrats — Even on Social Issues
They misfired on more than just “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
A misfire by Senate liberals last month is more proof of the Democratic Party’s political troubles heading into the midterm elections.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn’t muster a 60-vote supermajority to end a GOP-led filibuster of the defense appropriation bill Sept. 21. Democrats had tacked on three unrelated amendments that drew Republicans’ opposition.
One would have repealed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals serving openly in the armed services. A second would have given legal status to millions of illegal immigrants through the DREAM Act, and a third ended a long-time ban on abortions at overseas military hospitals.
As Congress left town last Wednesday, most coverage went to the expiring Bush-era tax cuts that lawmakers opted to put off extending. But Democrats’ failure to act on these three social issues shows their weakness, particularly when it comes to “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
No politician wants to touch radioactive issues in an election year, but polls suggest that repealing the policy isn’t radioactive. In fact, it’s one of the least sensitive social issues Democrats could take on — at least at first glance.
Leftists have scored a win in the court of public opinion by portraying the question as one of civil rights rather than of military effectiveness. Yet Congress still won’t touch it before facing voters’ at the polls, much to the chagrin of far left activists.
Even President Barack Obama, the most leftist chief executive in American history, has treated the issue with kid gloves. The administration made paltry efforts to pass the repeal in September, according to the pro-gay marriage Advocate.
“White House aides confirmed that Vice President Joseph Biden did make one call to GOP Senator Susan Collins on the day of the critical vote,” the publication reported, “but the White House legislative affairs team did not have a visible presence on the Hill according to multiple accounts from people who lobby on the issue and Capitol Hill staffers.”
John McCain is correct when he says the repeal effort amounts to “a cynical ploy to try and galvanize and energize their base.” It would have accomplished that, but also served to reinvigorate the GOP’s socially conservative base, sidelined this year by economic issues.
Sidestepping the abortion question is touchier politically, because polls consistently show that Americans oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. Although the amendment wouldn’t have funded abortions directly, it would have bankrolled the facilities used to end unborn human life. If Democrats had pushed the issue, GOP candidates would have had fresh fodder to peg their opponents with the ominous designation of pro-taxpayer-funded abortion.
Even if Democrats had mounted a campaign to pass more hard-left legislation leading into October, it wouldn’t have closed the enthusiasm gap. The reason, obviously, is that registered Democrats aren’t eager to rally with the economy in the tank and general dissatisfaction with their elected leaders. Even if liberals approve of Obama’s job in office, ask any if they wish he’d done more, and they’ll say yes.
On the flip side, Republicans have every reason to vote, regardless of what Congress does or doesn’t do in the waning hours of the election season. And the growing number of unaffiliated voters — who tilt leftward on social issues — are preoccupied with fiscal issues this year. They don’t care if Republicans block a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” as long as the Party of Lincoln is willing to stem the tide of spending.
Look for Congress to take up the repeal in the lame duck session, when voters have already determined Congress’ fate. Assuming Democrats reverse the policy, a big question is whether Republicans — who are heading for a handy takeover of the House — will spend any political capital reversing the reversal in 2011.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Booger| 10.5.10 @ 6:27AM
From the Desk of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
Dear fellow Democratic Senators:
After reflecting on our current "don't ask, don't tell" policy, I believe that we should not only keep it in place, but expand it, as it may well increase our chances at electoral success. Here are some areas where we should further implement "don't ask, don't tell".
1) Medicare cuts to fund Obamacare. I understand that off year elections are heavily influenced by the "senior" (old fart) vote. Due to misrepresentation by the press, many of these seniors have come to believe we are cutting $500 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. Some of them have even heard about the compassion committees that will determine when they have used enough resources. I strongly suggest using a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in regards to any questions about Medicare cuts are alleged "rationing" to fund Obamacare.
2) TARP. Many voters have been quite upset by the funds we provided to save the banking industry. Being the yokel rubes that they are, they fail to see how our taking more of our own money from them to save failing banks is actually good for taxpayers. Rather than trying to explain this to them for the umpteenth time, simply implement a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about any federal bailouts for struggling industry. Let's face it, they're just plain too dumb to understand it anyway.
3) Our President. While we understand that Our Dear Fearless Leader has brought a new period of understanding and reconciliation to our nation, many of those who have yet to receive His true enlightenment are still distrustful of Him. Thus, on any question of whether we support Our Great Leader Obama, I suggest a policy of "don't ask, don't tell", however painful that may be for some of us.
4) "Lame duck session". Some snide prognosticators have actually suggested that many of us will lose our bids for re-election. While I realize this is a laughable idea, we have begun to receive questions about whether we would proceed with our agenda "against the will of the people" (as if!) in a "lame-duck" session. Once again, simply for the purpose of avoiding ugly scenes at those dreadful town-hall meetings, I strongly suggest a policy of "don't ask, don't tell".
Your Fearless Master and Commander of the Senate,
Harry Reid
Hubert Horatio Hornblower| 10.5.10 @ 10:44PM
The . Best. Post. Ever. And I even read it thinking in "Harry Reid's voice!"
Siegfried X| 10.5.10 @ 6:39AM
Democrats would need Republican votes to repeal DADT. Any Republicans who vote for repeal can expect a primary challenge, and if they win the primary, can expect a lot of Republicans to vote against them in the general election. (i.e. vote third party conservative)
RCV| 10.5.10 @ 12:23PM
The President could, and will, repeal DADT with a stroke of his pen and without any Congressional action, just as Truman did to end segregation in the military. He will wait until the study is completed by the Defense department, but rest assured, it will be done.
Tom| 10.5.10 @ 1:12PM
No, he cannot. Don't ask don't tell is NOT an executive policy it is federal law. No President has the power to rescind law just by issuing an executive order. There was no federal law mandating the segregation of the military and Truman as the commander in chief was completely within his rights to desregate.
If Obama wants homosexuals to have the ability to serve openly he has to either have the law struck down in the courts or get Congress to go along with him.
RCV| 10.5.10 @ 2:49PM
You are partly correct, and so am I. DADT is indeed a statute. But the statute mandating it was amended in May 2010 by Congressional action to provide that the policy ends automatically when the study is completed and the President and Joint Chiefs chairman certify that repeal won't harm the armed services. That WILL happen, and by a stroke of the pen.
Moreover, that may not even be necessary since two federal courts have now declared DADT unconstitutional.
Siegfried X| 10.5.10 @ 3:35PM
That provision was what the Democrats tried to pass a couple of weeks ago and it got filibustered. So I don't think the president has the authority to waive DADT, even though he wanted it.
The point was made in Senate debate many, many times that they weren't repealing DADT, but giving the president the authority to do it. They wouldn't have been debating and filibustering it in November if it had been approved in May.
Siegfried X| 10.5.10 @ 3:38PM
From September 10, the day before the filibuster vote:
"The defense authorization act, which is a broad defense policy bill, would not rescind "don't ask, don't tell" until after the Pentagon completes a review of the repeal's impact on the military. The review is due in December and would serve as the basis for necessary certification by the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the military could handle repealing the policy."
Siegfried X| 10.5.10 @ 3:43PM
The House of Representatives approved this in May, the "Murphy amendment", but the Senate filibustered it on September 11. So it is not the law of the land, and the president does NOT have the authority to repeal DADT.
RCV| 10.5.10 @ 5:01PM
From Wikipedia - I double-checked the cites: "On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment[1] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234-194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness.[2][3] On the same day the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee advanced the identical measure in a 16-12 vote to be included in the Defense Authorization Act.[2] The amended defense bill passed the U.S. House on May 28, 2010.[4]"
RCV| 10.5.10 @ 5:02PM
Whoops, you are correct. My apologies.
Tom| 10.5.10 @ 4:43PM
The Senate never passed the bill. The President cannot, at this time, terminate DADT.
Yes, the courts can terminate DADT. And they very well might, which I pointed out in my original post. I am curious how the Supremes will decide, assuming the law is not ammended before it makes it to them.
Jack D| 10.5.10 @ 1:51PM
The military performs two functions: Killing people and breaking things. DADT isn't a civil rights issue, personally I don't care either way as long as homosexuals can kill people just as well as straight people can. I think Obama should create the first "All Gay Brigade" and drop their merry selves in Afghanistan or Iraq.. If they can kill the enemy as well as straight soldiers then so be it, let them in.. If not, well at least we know the fashion sense of our Afghan and Iraqi allies will be improved.
1FreeMan| 10.5.10 @ 4:00PM
Jack (a$$)D,
You are an idiot. Having personally delivered thousands of vaccinations and many tones of supplies to refugee camps along the pakistan border I can assure you I neither killed anyone nor broke anything. Our honored military is so much more than your narrow illusion of a "warrior".
Think next time, would ya? We are highly educated, love our country and have pledged our lives hoping to ensure freedom both in our country and beyond it's borders. Being deployed is incredibly hard and we work with every fiber of our being to be the very best defenders of freedom and ambassadors of our republic. Sure, some screw it up, but most are honor filled patriots far beyond anything you would expect. Get a clue.
Warrior | 10.5.10 @ 4:56PM
Well said. These morons forget that the shelters built in Haiti and food/medical supplies to sunami victims and refugee camps are only two of dozens of examples of how the military assists in non-combat operations. Gay soldiers who serve with honor and integrity scare me less than high ranking officers with political agendas.
Redstateboy| 10.5.10 @ 8:45AM
Once again.. the Lame-stream-media leaves the electorate ill-informed about precisely what the Slave Party is up to. Thank goodness for TAS
Petronius| 10.5.10 @ 8:55AM
Should the election go as predicted and should Harry Reid lose also, the lame duck session will be run by Senator Shumer. And we all know the 2nd Amendment is #1 on his hate parade. Prepare for the worst.
Jack D| 10.5.10 @ 1:50PM
The military performs two functions: Killing people and breaking things. DADT isn't a civil rights issue, personally I don't care either way as long as homosexuals can kill people just as well as straight people can. I think Obama should create the first "All Gay Brigade" and drop their merry selves in Afghanistan or Iraq.. If they can kill the enemy as well as straight soldiers then so be it, let them in.. If not, well at least we know the fashion sense of our Afghan and Iraqi allies will be improved.
Alan Brooks| 10.5.10 @ 4:56PM
Shut down Selective Service, then quibble on DADT.
Alan Brooks| 10.5.10 @ 4:58PM
Finally, someone who isn't a nationalist, but rather, a patriot.
Alan Brooks| 10.5.10 @ 5:00PM
... Jack D. that is...
he demonstrates you don't have to be a jingoist at AS.
fantum| 10.6.10 @ 9:41AM
More Nonsense From the MSM...
THE POLLS ARE UP! DEMOCRATS MAKE GAINS!
In reality it is like a tsunami... Everyone rushes out to pick up sea shells as the ocean recedes... Then...
Millions of average Americans, the sleeping giant, have been awakened and are finding out what Obama and his puppet, Socialist Congress have been doing to our once great nation... and they don't like it one bit! Now they are gathering their strength...
THEY ARE BRINGING A TSUNAMI TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS!
Democrats (and RINOs) are Going Down...
http://usataxpayer.org/htm/goingdown.asp
Democrats - The Party of Hate...
http://usataxpayer.org/url.asp?Show=75233528
ENOUGH WITH "I the Obama" - Let's return to "We the People!"