BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT

[Lunar]

It's simply crazy that a policy with this broad base of support [~70%, more than basically every other "controversial" issue combined], has trouble being passed by itself, let alone attached to an important defense authorization bill.   Seems like every remotely moderate Senator should be behind not filibustering funding our military, even if it means allowing our troops to be as gay as Israel's, Australia's or the UK's.

[Lunar]

It's simply crazy that a policy with this broad base of support [~70%, more than basically every other "controversial" issue combined], has trouble being passed by itself, let alone attached to an important defense authorization bill.   Seems like every remotely moderate Senator should be behind not filibustering funding our military, even if it means allowing our troops to be as gay as Israel's, Australia's or the UK's.

Come on Lunar... there are even Democrats who want to offer amendments to the bill.

Yeah, we'ere not in space though, we live in the real world.  You're one of one hundred, you shouldn't filibuster every bill of importance you're presented with just because you don't get absolute control over the process.  The repeal has to be passed before the next session to have a chance, and the repeal is a matter of national security and moral righteousness.

The question is: does the ability to insert amendments outweigh not passing the repeal?  It does not, even ignoring the whole funding the military thing.

[Lunar]

It's simply crazy that a policy with this broad base of support [~70%, more than basically every other "controversial" issue combined], has trouble being passed by itself, let alone attached to an important defense authorization bill.   Seems like every remotely moderate Senator should be behind not filibustering funding our military, even if it means allowing our troops to be as gay as Israel's, Australia's or the UK's.

Come on Lunar... there are even Democrats who want to offer amendments to the bill.

Yeah, we'ere not in space though, we live in the real world.  You're one of one hundred, you shouldn't filibuster every bill of importance you're presented with just because you don't get absolute control over the process.  The repeal has to be passed before the next session to have a chance, and the repeal is a matter of national security and moral righteousness.

The question is: does the ability to insert amendments outweigh not passing the repeal?  It does not, even ignoring the whole funding the military thing.

So, why not pass the repeal as it's own separate bill, where Republicans have NO EXCUSE not to support it?  And, fwiw, I think it will pass next session.

I disagree fairly strongly with the second point (which strongly impacts my POV on the subject, as time is of the essence), and on the former, I'm not in control!  Ultimately, decisions need to be made on the merits of bills without process being the constant source of blame, because process is just an excuse.  "I'd agree to repeal slavery, but I expected twenty hours of amendments and you've only given me four!" -- suck it up and make a decision when pressed!

I don't control process, I can only say how I feel rational and moral lawmakers should vote on a particular bill of importance. 

[Lunar]

But the DADT repeal isn't even the majority of this bill.  The bill is HUGE... amendments should be able to be offered, and doing this in December is just dumb on Reid's part.... a bill that's close to 1000 pages was not the way to repeal it.  And to simplify this bill down to "The repeal of DADT" is dishonest and it means that you're ignoring the other 800-some pages of the bill when you describe it.

So why aren't you talking about the other parts of the bill?  What are the parts of it that you are unsatisfied with or feel should be debated further?  Surely you don't just want to talk about the size of what needs to be discussed further?