Reid would sell his soul for votes

[jack sommerset]

Reid tacks on immigration amendment to defense bill.

Sen. Harry Reid announced today that he wants to attach the DREAM Act — which would legalize young immigrants who want to attend college or join the military — to the defense authorization bill next week.

The amendment could become the defense bill's second high-profile add-on, after a provision that would allow an end to the current policy banning gays from serving openly in the military.

It's unclear whether Reid has the votes to pass the DREAM Act amendment, but some senators whom advocates are hoping will support the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" have in the past filibustered the DREAM Act.

A group that advocates for the end of "don't ask, don't tell," the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, compiled a list of key senators in the upcoming defense vote. Of the 14 senators, nine voted against even holding a floor debate on the DREAM Act in 2007, the last time it came up in the Senate.

Some of the 14 senators on the list represent swing votes on "don't ask"; the SLDN is lobbying the others to not filibuster the bill.

Aaron Belkin, the director of the pro-repeal Palm Center think tank, told The Upshot that he thinks the "don't ask" repeal is safe, no matter what other amendments are debated or added on.

"The defense authorization bill is a must-pass bill, and I'm sure [Senator Reid] would not do anything to jeopardize its passage," he said. "The bill has never failed to pass in 50 years."

It would take a majority vote of 51 senators to strip the "don't ask, don't tell" amendment from the bill, he added.

But Shari Rendall, director of legislation for the conservative group Concerned Women for America, told Congress.org she will lobby Democrats to vote against the defense bill, and that this amendment may be a boon for her efforts.

"We think that if it's true that Sen. Reid fills the amendment tree, this will give us a good opportunity," she said.

Log Cabin Republicans Director Clarke Cooper tells the Upshot that some Republicans his group lobbies to vote in favor of repeal bring up a "laundry list" of add-ons to the bill they object to, including a provision that allows greater access to abortions for servicewomen overseas, and funding for a second engine for the F-35 fighter jet. (President Obama said he will veto the bill if it includes the funding for the engine, which the military doesn't want.)

Cooper says some of the Republican members' positions may change with the addition of the DREAM Act, but that he does not expect a filibuster of the entire defense bill. If a cloture vote is called, 60 senators must vote yes to debate the bill to avoid a fillibuster. Once senators agree to the debate, amendments may be added or removed from the bill with a majority vote.

Six of the nine key senators who voted no to the DREAM Act in 2007 are Democrats, which makes it seem unlikely that Reid could whip up the votes to pass the amendment now.

Here's the SLDN's list of key senators and whether they voted yes or no to cloture on the DREAM Act in 2007:

• Harry Reid (D-NV) yes

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY) no

• John McCain (R-AZ) didn't vote

• Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) yes

• Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)no

• Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) yes

• Jon Tester (D-Mont.) no

• Max Baucus (D-Mont.) no

• Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) no

• Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) no

• Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) no

• George Voinovich (R-Ohio) no

• Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) yes

• Mark Warner (D-Va.) no.

[jack sommerset]

Speaking of the Devil, the leader of the senate said he had nothing to do with the bad economy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

I am sick and tired of unrelated bills being attached to others.

Anyone consider what happens to gays serving in the military if "Don't Ask - Don't tell" is repealed? then the military can look for gays and kick them out! If I'm right, the policy never eliminated the law that says gays cannot serve.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

Log Cabin Republicans Director Clarke Cooper tells the Upshot that some Republicans his group lobbies to vote in favor of repeal bring up a "laundry list" of add-ons to the bill they object to, including a provision that allows greater access to abortions for servicewomen overseas, and funding for a second engine for the F-35 fighter jet. (President Obama said he will veto the bill if it includes the funding for the engine, which the military doesn't want.)

possibly the worst English sentence ever constructed

[LnGrrrR]

I am sick and tired of unrelated bills being attached to others.

Anyone consider what happens to gays serving in the military if "Don't Ask - Don't tell" is repealed? then the military can look for gays and kick them out! If I'm right, the policy never eliminated the law that says gays cannot serve.

Uhm... I'm assuming that if Congress repealed DADT, they would also clear up that oversight as well. I'm pretty sure that any commander who started looking for gays to kick out would find himself a few rungs lower on the O-ladder quickly.

[ElNono]

I am sick and tired of unrelated bills being attached to others.

Been happening forever. Unless a law is passed to specifically disallow it, it will keep on happening...

Anyone consider what happens to gays serving in the military if "Don't Ask - Don't tell" is repealed? then the military can look for gays and kick them out! If I'm right, the policy never eliminated the law that says gays cannot serve.

could get really fruity!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Wild Cobra]

Uhm... I'm assuming that if Congress repealed DADT, they would also clear up that oversight as well. I'm pretty sure that any commander who started looking for gays to kick out would find himself a few rungs lower on the O-ladder quickly.

Expect, unless I'm wrong, they never changed that part of military law.

[Wild Cobra]

Been happening forever. Unless a law is passed to specifically disallow it, it will keep on happening...

I know. That doesn't make it right.

I think we need a cons utional amendment that forbids bills attached that are unrelated to the one being passed. It's one way that the pundits play games. A politician may vote no for a bill he would otherwise vote yes for, then get attacked for voting no, and attacked under false pretense.

[Stringer_Bell]

Anyone consider what happens to gays serving in the military if "Don't Ask - Don't tell" is repealed? then the military can look for gays and kick them out! If I'm right, the policy never eliminated the law that says gays cannot serve.

Excellent observation! Between accepting gifts and meeting with lobbyists and dodging major issues before elections because they are such pussies and refuse to do the right thing at the cost of it pissing off idiot voters, perhaps politicians can find time to work on the oversight first, then repeal the policy to clear up the whole gays in the military situation.

How about you run for the House, WC? Stir up some trouble and get those crazy politicians to actually serve the public.

[ElNono]

I think we need a cons utional amendment that forbids bills attached that are unrelated to the one being passed. It's one way that the pundits play games. A politician may vote no for a bill he would otherwise vote yes for, then get attacked for voting no, and attacked under false pretense.

You don't need a cons utional amendment for that. A law would suffice.
Then again, I can see where tackling multiple items at the same time makes for a more productive Congress. The flipside is obviously that it gets abused.

[boutons_deux]

I am sick and tired of unrelated bills being attached to others.

Only sick and tired when the Dems do it, sorta like being against Dem deficits, but fine with Repgu deficits?

[Wild Cobra]

How about you run for the House, WC? Stir up some trouble and get those crazy politicians to actually serve the public.

If I didn't have a few things in my past that liberals would obviously find and use against me, I would consider it.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't need a cons utional amendment for that. A law would suffice.
Then again, I can see where tackling multiple items at the same time makes for a more productive Congress. The flipside is obviously that it gets abused.

You expect the lawmakers to make laws that limit them?