Republicans are using Susan Collins with that DADT filibuster so they can turn it against us

[LynneSin]

I remember back in 2002, when Joe Biden was running for US Senate, there was an add that came out that was pretty vile against Joe. I forget what the bill was but basically said that Joe was not willing to protect Social Security for Seniors and the proof was some crazy bill that Joe voted against.

I couldn't figure out why Joe would vote against that bill until I saw that the bill was nestled with a few other amendments that were absolutely horrible - filled with pet projects for Republicans that if Democrats would have voted for this bill the republicans would reap the rewards of raiding taxpayer dollars for their own vile use. Biden and other democrats had no choice but to vote against this bill. I believe the bill failed overall in congress but suceeded in it's overall purpose - it was used to paint democrats as being a group against something that common folks would find shocking. I guess it would not shock any of you to know this bill came out right before the 2002 mid-term elections.

But that was 2002 and the Republicans controlled congress, so they could create these traps to be used to make democrats look bad and they are doing it again with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Exept this time, they can't be tossing in unlimited amendments to make the defense bill totally horrid in the eyes of the democrats.

See this is the trick. We have a defense bill that is cut and dry and Reid is limiting the number of amendments in that defense bill however the repeal of DADT is included. This will probably be a bill that most sane democrats will support. But imagine if Reid caved and the republicans started adding in a slew of really nasty amendments. Trust me, with unlimited amendments allowed the republicans would keep doing it in hopes that one or two manage to slip into the defense bill and make the bill totally unsupportable for the democrats not because of the DADT repeal but because of the giveaways stacked by the republicans in the bill.

Then the trap is set. Democrats voting against it becaus of the bad republican amendments will look like they are anti-gay. Democrats holding their nose and voting for it because of their support of GLBTQ will still look bad because perhaps they funding more war spending or created new rules that made it just as bad for GLBT serving. It's 'Damned if you Do and Damned if you Don't' with these kinds of votes.

We need to convince Harry Reid to stay firm against allowing unlimited amendments into the defense spending bill. It's the only way to truly protect the bill and hopefully allow for the repeal of DADT.

[xchrom]

1. i don't think collins is being used unwillingly. nt

[LynneSin]

2. Oh I agree she knows.

And that makes me more ill.

[hendo]

3. Its an election year, and she is making it an election issue

I may not like it, you may not like it but we have to put up with this BS game every election year.

[LynneSin]

4. As long as he doesn't allow unlimited amendments we have control

If Reid opens the floodgates we're fucked.

[BurtWorm]

5. She was making sour noises in a Times article today about the Tea Party

but at the end of the day, she's a loyal little Republican, isn't she.?