"Corporatists" would be a better name for them.

That's taken.

Woolie, hyperbole rarely solves anything.

^ Unfortunately, I find that most libertarians tend to fit that description. They actually scare me more than Stalinists.

OT: I'm trying to think of a good answer, but it seems like my rage is preventing me.

Gotta be honest. With 41 Republican senators and 43 votes against, it's kind of hard to berate the Republicans when the Democrats can't get their own act together and all vote the same way like the Republicans can.

Yes, the Republicans are playing politics, but just about everything that's brought to a vote 2 months before an election is purely about politics. Why do you think the two democrats voted against it?

Stalinism isn't as scary as libertarianism because Stalinism hasn't had an iota of credibility since Stalin died. As soon as he croaked Khrushchev and the other CPSU bigwigs tried to bury his legacy as fast as possible, because even Bolsheviks have standards.

@Swish: Sen. Lincoln is dead meat, and Sen. Pryor is not up for election this year. They could have easily voted yes.

@Woolie Wool: On-Topic Conversations

edited 21st Sep '10 8:20:36 PM by EnglishIvy

^ And yet they didn't.

I'm sorry, if you just need one republican vote, assuming all the democrats vote the same way, you can't demonize the entire republican party when the democrats DO NOT all vote the same way.

Sure you can.

No one ever claimed the democrats had solidarity.

But I think that's the point. Say what you will about the republicans, they'll all vote the same way on an issue.

The democrats can't, and rather than turn on their own (which, honestly, if it's important, they should), they denounce the group that has it's act together when it comes to their agenda.

If the democrats can't vote as one on their agenda, it honestly doesn't deserve to get through to begin with.

I typoed this paragraph too many times and am not paying attention.

The idea is that the Republicans force their agenda down their members throats, while the Democrats, though less unified, allow each participant to act according to their own beliefs.

@#$ Political Parties.

edited 21st Sep '10 8:32:23 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

@Swish: Repeal of DADT did deserve to go through. It's the Democrats who are undeserving, for not keeping their shit together.

@Tomu: If enough Republicans had voted yes, and it went through, it would be seen as a victory for the Democrats. By voting no in lockstep, they deny that victory, thus making the Democrats look weak and the Republicans look strong.

edited 21st Sep '10 8:31:34 PM by EnglishIvy

Forgotten words change meanings. Silly me.

I don't know. I disagree with the notion of political parties to begin with, so the assertion that the Democrats "just need to get their ducks in a row" kind of annoys me.

I don't disagree that DADT should be repealed (And it likely will be in the January session).

My meaning was that the democrats don't deserve the credit for it's passage if they cannot vote lockstep like the republicans. Especially if they're going to blame the republicans for the failure.

What I'm most curious about, is who would the democrats blamed if one republican did vote to bring it out for a simple majority? Would we still be angry at republicans, or the two democrat senators? Something tells me it wouldn't be the latter.

edited 21st Sep '10 8:41:48 PM by Swish

I'd be pissed at the two Democrats, but then again...

Yeah, I mean, because the Republicans are always so borglike, whenever one of their flock goes against the thread-unless they're of the "Not going to get re-elected anyway" vein-it tends to draw a big fuss. But if there was significant (as in 10%) Republican senate support and there was basically any democratics who voted against it, yeah-we'd be pretty pissed at the dems.

I suppose it's worthwhile being pissed at everyone who voted against DADT's repeal.

Yeah, Swish, Democrats are plenty willing to turn on their own, but they're also ready to double-turn. In other words, turn on the Democrats who turned. @_@

The Democratic voters, perhaps. The party itself likes to reward conservative Democrats with large amounts of funding.

The problem, Tomu, is that if 1(One) Republican senator voted for the measure to bring DADT out of discussion for a simple majority vote, then assuming all the democrats also voted for it, it would be up for a majority vote, which the democrats can pass with 9 to spare.

If one republican senator DID break away from the pack on the issue at hand, with the two democrat senators voting against, it wouldn't have gone out to the floor anyway. And republican senators would likely be blamed.

There's something to be said for voting along party lines... and if the democratic party cannot do it, then they don't deserve to be pointing fingers at the party who can.

I don't care either way, because honestly, repealing it doesn't affect anyone who's already been kicked out, and the military hasn't brought a new DADT case forward in the past 6 months anyway (unless the subject wanted out to begin with). And also because within 5 months, after the new session is in (or in 2 months, right after the election), it'll get repealed anyway.

edited 21st Sep '10 8:57:29 PM by Swish

Why would the next, possibly majority Republican Congress repeal DADT?

edited 21st Sep '10 8:59:09 PM by EnglishIvy

One reason for the disparity is because the Democrats are much bigger at the moment. A lot of the Democrats elected in marginal districts back in 2008 are actually conservative. On the other hand, in 2008, a lot of the moderate Republicans lost to Democrats, so only the radical core remains.

Therefore, it's no wonder that Democrats have more trouble voting in lockstep then the Republicans.

edited 21st Sep '10 9:02:23 PM by storyyeller

What if some of us want to see our military go about all Sacred Band of Thebes style? Mmmmm...

I don't.

Anyhow, I support repealing DADT. But on the other hand I would rather our command staff all decided when to do so, the politicians are just using the entire thing as an excuse to.. Well, play politics. This is a military matter, and while I wish it could be kept internal, this is one of the problems of having a military ran by civilians at the highest level.

It means all the highest level decisions get fucked up by incompetence.

I really wish congress would quit using military social policy as a political tool since the civilians get all shook up about it. Does. Not. Make. Sense.

edited 21st Sep '10 9:06:09 PM by Barkey

@ English Ivy: Because the OP isn't wrong. Conservative voters do tend to find the idea of DADT outdated and unnecessary.

Why vote against it now then? Politics. I'm not saying it's right. But that's what it is.

I'm just against the democrat pushing to blame republicans for the failure of it's passing when they can't vote together on it themselves...

Didn't the top brass actually come out and say-albiet not unilaterally-that they no longer have a reason to support DADT? I remember The Daily Show doing a bit on how Mc Cain said that if the leaders of the military came to him and said "This is crap" he'd be all like "Then lets get rid of DADT!" but then it happened, and he was like "I am glad you fuckers don't get to make this decision lulz!"

Democrats can't really blame the republicans-they can however blame the entire notion of political parties in America. Basically, the Democrats are the ones doing it wrong.

edited 21st Sep '10 9:06:52 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

^

Yeah, several high ranking leaders have. We've also had several just as high ranking generals talk about their own doubts, and then fine officers like General Mattis saying that he would wait until after the war to make the transition easier to handle.

This is a social issue within the military that has nothing to do with defense, it should be up to the Joint Chiefs, the respective Secretaries, the Sec Def, and our 3 and 4 stars. Not a bunch of little bastards in congress who've probably never served. It's none of their god damn business.

edited 21st Sep '10 9:08:12 PM by Barkey

Except that it's precisely their business. To the extent that they have the authority to pass legislation, it is their duty to analyze and address and appeal said legislation.

I mean, who implemented Don't Ask Don't Tell in the first place?