I’m pretty cynical and jaded, but this is truly f***ing outrageous:
This afternoon, as momentum began to build for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) threatened that if Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brings up a vote to repeal the ban, Republicans would not support ratification of the New START treaty. …
Other Republican Senators — including McCain and Graham — have privately hinted that they would oppose ratifying the treaty if the Senate voted on DADT, but Corker is the first lawmaker to publicly threaten to walk away from the measure.
John McCain’s decline into rank cynicism and blind partisan zealotry, in stark contrast to the great honor with which he once served his country and the independent-minded “straight talk” he once exhibited in his political caeer, is well documented. But I thought Bob Corker, my former senator, and Lindsay Graham were better than this.
[UPDATE: According to an update to the linked post, “Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) appeared to distance themselves from Corker’s suggestion that passage for the treaty would hinge on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. Both insisted that the treaty must stand or fall on its own merits.” Good. Meanwhile, Corker is, um, clarifying: Republicans are “not going to oppose the treaty permanently” because of DADT, he said. “But it’s hardening them against doing it right now.” So: a key national security vote should be delayed, not because of anything related to the issue at hand or the procedures surrounding it, but because of… a totally unrelated issue in which the majority dares to hold a vote. Yeah, that’s still ridiculous.]
This is insane. This is absurd. This must be called out by everyone with a conscience, on either side of the aisle, for what it plainly is: a shockingly transparent, utterly cynical ploy to use an important national-security issue as a political football in a last-ditch effort to block an unrelated measure which enjoys such overwhelming public support that Senate Republicans can’t even muster enough of their own members’ votes to filibuster it, let alone actually defeat it on an up-or-down majority vote.
Accusations of “playing politics with national security” often ring hollow, IMHO. There’s nothing wrong with legitimate political disagreements over security-related issues. For that matter, there’s nothing wrong with opposing START on substance. But this, my friends, this is some bulls**t. This is the rare case where “playing politics with national security” is truly happening and is truly an outrage. And it’s Republicans, our self-appointed “Country First” guardians of security, who are doing it.
If you support START, vote for it; if you oppose it, vote against it. Again, I’m not saying it’s cynical or absurd to oppose START on substance. But START and DADT have nothing to do with each other! Whether there’s a vote on DADT should have absolutely no bearing on how you vote on START. Tying the two together, threatening to withhold your support for one if the majority dares vote on the other, is simply indefensible.
Keep in mind, it’s not like Reid is refusing to bring START to a vote, or failing to allow reasonable time for debate on it. It’s next on the agenda after DADT, and he’s scheduled seven days of debate. And it’s also not like he’s engaging in some weird procedural trickery to get DADT passed, trickery that makes it impossible for opponents to resist repeal without resorting to these sorts of extraneous threats. He’s simply got the votes — not just 51 of them, but 60-plus — so he’s bringing it up for a vote, first to break the GOP filibuster, then to pass the bill. That’s how representative democracy works. He’s got the votes, the Republicans don’t — not even 40 of them — so they’re throwing a tantrum, and in the process completely undermining their own credibility on national security.
Bottom line: 1) Reid must not cave in, or he’s an even bigger tool and waste of space than I imagined, and 2) I don’t ever want to hear Corker, McCain, Graham, or anybody who condones this behavior, ever accuse the Democrats of being unserious about national security again. F***ing hypocrites.
P.S. It occurs to me, this would be a great opportunity for Joe Lieberman, Civil Rights Hero, to have a Sister Souljah Moment with his old friend John McCain. I’d love to see Lieberman take to the Senate floor and blast this nonsense.
P.P.S. Now, conservative commenters: tell me why I’m wrong. And please don’t say, generically, that Democrats play political games with national security too. If you want to pursue that line of argument, give me specific, similarly egregious and indefensible examples. If such examples exist, I’ll happily condemn them. But in the mean time, what I’d really like to know is how this move by Corker, and reportedly McCain and Graham, is remotely defensible in any way, shape, or form.
a shockingly transparent, utterly cynical ploy to use an important national-security issue as a political football in a last-ditch effort to block an unrelated measure which enjoys such overwhelming public support that Senate Republicans can’t even muster enough of their own members’ votes to filibuster it, let alone actually defeat it on an up-or-down majority vote.
Yeah because Democrats would never ever hold up legislation for political reasons, or tie passage of a bill to another bill.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you to discover that there is politics involved in governing this country……
More bullshit from gahrie trying to deflect blame to Democrats in a vague manner without addressing the issue at hand. The point, gahrie, is that this particular instance is indefensible. As Brendan said you can bring up other SPECIFIC examples and he will address them, but don’t come up with the same old tired, generic “oh the Democrats do bad stuff” as some sort of defense for the bullshit some members fo teh GOP are engaging in on this issue. Either its right or its wrong, either such behavior is ok from both parties or its nto, and if you think its ok then you better damn well better not come back and try and crticize Democrats on any sort of political positioning they ever do in the future, such as complaining about procedural rules to block stuff, etc. etc.
Just make sure you double check with Papa Beck before you respond to make sure you are saying what he tells you too, would hate to see you get in trouble for thinking for yourself…
Has there been a thread on this very blog about the new Wheeper of the House, John Boner, yet? How disturbing is all of his crying to the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and smart people around here? It’s crazy to see this guy break-down on election night, in interviews, 60 minutes, in the House. I mean if any democrat behaved like this, s/he would be totally crucified. Just imagine if Reid or Pelosi broke down in public like this guy has done anytime over the past 4 years. Only 6 weeks since the election, this doofus has broke-down 3 times in major public appearances.
What’s ironic, is that Boner comes from a political party that has been calling democratic leaders girly-men or saying they need to “man-up”, yet their only current leader in Washington is crying like a lost little girl at the mall every time I see him on TV.
I think Gahrie is commenting on the way Brendan’s way of characterizing this story and not trying to deflect blame. Brendan is not just commenting on the specific act but he is also suggesting that the Republicans just committed some kind of an atrocity by claiming the act reached “new heights of absurdity”, is “unbelievable”, and “f***cking outrageous”. Gahrie’s point is that, while the Republican’s behavior may be disappointing or even offensive, Republicans should not be labeled as some kind of evil monsters for doing something is sadly common.
@Stumpy88 – That’s a reasonable explanation i’d be more likely to accept if gahrie didn’t have a long history of reacting in a similar fashion anytime the GOP is criticized on this blog. Plus Brendan specifically ASKED people not to take that approach and address the substance of the issue instead.
stumpy ftw!
Note: I’m not saying it is OK for the Republicans do it because the Democrats do it too.
]I’m saying this is exactly how the place works, and Brendan’s outrage is either, faux, or uninformed.
By the way, just out of curiosity…..why no mention of the Cancun climate conference?
gahrie – our blog-host, as is customary for him, is indulging in hyperbrendany – an exaggerated expression of hyperbole …
The “substance of the issue” is that Federal politicians on Capitol Hill indulged in traditional politics classically expressed by any and all sides of the aisle …
It is offensive when done by any side, when considered from a rational perspective … and that is one of the reasons it is better to see neither one’s sausages nor one’s laws in the process of being made …
Now, if Reid was speechifying about how it had been a travesty of justice and an unreasonable expression of bigotry over the past 15+ years – or if he had even acknowledged that DADT was something that the Democrats should not have done, and it is time for democrats to correct the mistake they made, Brendan’s hyperbrendany might have validity … given that Reid is playing politics just as much (which, characteristically, Brendan choose to overlook), while I don’t like the tactic, the GOP would be foolish indeed to elect unilaterally *not* to use it …
Something which I find a whole bunch more irritating is the additions of earmarks to current legislations … I would have liked to see the GOP hold out for no earmarks *already* in the tit-for-tat jostling of Congress … again, not unilaterally – rather, for all sides …
stumpy88 and gahrie: my post implicitly acknowledges, and I will now do so explicitly, that both parties engage in less than stellar behavior on a regular basis. I believe, however, that this is an unusually egregious and indefensible example — and I feel somewhat vindicated in that belief by the fact that McCain and Kyl felt the need to quickly distance themselves from Corker’s remarks, and even Corker kinda sorta tried to backtrack (albeit failed to do so meaningfully, IMHO). I suppose a reasonable question is whether it’s the egregiousness that’s unusual, or the taking it public that’s unusual. But then, if the Democrats routinely do the same thing behind-the-scenes, and the Republicans aren’t calling them out on it publicly… why the hell not?
In any event, there’s a reason I said, “please don’t say, generically, that Democrats play political games with national security too. If you want to pursue that line of argument, give me specific, similarly egregious and indefensible examples. If such examples exist, I’ll happily condemn them.” You’ve both declined to do that, which is obviously your right — I can’t dictate how you choose to respond — but don’t expect me to take your commentary seriously if you can’t even be bothered to come up with a single specific example of Democrats doing something similarly egregious. If all you’re going to do is, as I said, “say, generically, that Democrats play political games” too, your contribution to the discussion has already been anticipated by my post, and is frankly fairly useless.
Again, I acknowledge that everybody plays political games. But some games are worse than others. I believe this one is shockingly awful, unusually so. Prove me wrong.
I believe this one is shockingly awful, unusually so
Why? Neither bill is all that important.
START is all about appearances and there is no real substance. It has been a long time since the nuclear arsenal of Russia or the US has been the main nuclear threat to the world. Today’s nuclear threat is Third World proliferation.
As for DADT, it has been the status quo since Pres. Clinton, and during that time the US has clearly demonstrated that it has the elite military of the world.
If either of these two bills are so important why are they being brought up in a lame duck Congress anyway? They either should have been passed already, (DADT anytime in the last two years, START anytime since April) or they should be held over to the new Congress which more accurately reflects the current will of the American people.
By the way, DADT just passed the in the Senate, despite the unprecedented introduction of rank cynicism and blind partisan zealotry into the working of the US Senate by those eeevil ( or just really stupid, depending on the day) Republicans……….
While I share Brendan’s disdain for this tactic, it can be defended. Corker just needs to point out that politics determine the resolution of national security issues just like anything else. And DADT can be framed as a national security issue.
Here’s how I would defend it if I were Corker:
“Look, there’s a whole range of national security issues that I care about. Sometimes, I’m willing to vote yes on issues that have significant flaws (like START) because I can leverage that support to gain votes for things I find to be more important. However, I will not make such compromises when the other side ignores my objections and forces through important legislation that is harmful to national security.
In my view, DADT will have major adverse effects on our national security. It is being passed over my vehement objections. The Democrat party has chosen to play hardball to get it passed. Well, they’ll soon find out that Corker has the hardest balls of all.”
Okay, the last paragraph isn’t necessary. But you get the point.
Casey and gahrie – DADT was passed over a decade ago … what is being passed now is a repeal …
Brendan – do you count the current administration’s prosecution (well, lack thereof) of WikiLeaks-sourced documents being published in US MSM as “shockingly awful, unusually so.” ?
It’s not a Freedom of Speech issue, since the classified documents are the product of someone else’s efforts – and, as far as I know, Freedom of Speech applies to one’s own efforts, not to making a profit off the work of others …
^ oops, good point.
@Alasdair
You are right, it’s not a freedom of speech issue, it’s a freedom of the press issue. You need to re-read the Constitution a few more times.
The military IS going free the leakers, they have one guy in custody that I know of for example.
Going after not going free. Stupid autocorrect.
In all fairness, Brendan has always reacted to political sausage-making with the same level of over-the-top vehement outrage and disgust since I have known him. So at least he’s consistent. And no, it doesn’t help his hysterics when the issue of gay rights is somehow interwoven.
I hadn’t realised that the US Constitution protects the “right” of the press to publish State Secrets or classified materials … perhaps, in the davidkian universe, the Constitution also protects the “right” of the press to publish confidential patient records ? Or recordings of lawyer-client discussions ?
In the davidkian universe, is there any constraint upon what the press has the “right” to publish ?
AMLTrojan – has he always been so prejudiced, whereby what is acceptable for one side arouses such indignation when practised by the other side ?
Brendan would acknowledge that both sides make ugly sausage, but for whatever reason, the only posts full of righteous indignation that show up on his blog are when the Republicans are at fault….
AMLTrojan – we should give him credit for his own hyperbrendanic version of balance … after all, he will have posts full of righteous indignation against the GOP when the Republicans are at fault – and he ‘balances’ that with posts full of righteous indignation against the GOP when the Republicans are *not* at fault …
({innocent smile})