DADT: Senate Republicans Hold Civil Rights Over A Barrel

Senate Republicans have decided to hold civil rights over a barrel. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that Republicans will not allow a vote on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell until they reach a consensus with Democrats over the Bush tax cuts. Republicans favor extending all of the cuts, which have exacerbated the federal budget deficit. Most Democrats, however, favor allowing the cuts for the highest income owners to expire.

Recently, Senators Scott Brown and Susan Collins, two moderate Republicans, have expressed support for repealing DADT. While Brown's statement does not reference a tax deal, Collins explicitly ties her support for a repeal of DADT to a resolution of the tax issue.

The Republicans are simply engaging in smart political bargaining. Democrats know that the DADT repeal must take place, if at all, before Republicans assume control of the House next year. Republicans are using the DADT issue to gain support for their tax plan.

Good politics, however, also requires parties to frame the terms of the debate. Democrats should continue working on the tax issue, but they should also call out Republicans for threatening civil rights in order to provide handouts to wealthy Americans.

Repealing DADT is a cost-free measure. It is unrelated to tax policy. Repealing DADT will end a policy of irrational and unfair discrimination by the national government. Many Republicans support the ban because they or their constituents oppose equal protection for gays and lesbians. Democrats should not allow their bigotry to go unrecognized in these debates.

Senator Scott Brown Backs DADT Repeal

US Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass), has released an official statement that announces his support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says that Republicans will oppose lifting DADT until the Democrats accept their demands on the Bush tax cuts, Brown's statement suggests that moderate Republicans might vote in favor of repeal despite McConnell's threat.

If repeal does not take place before the Republicans assume control in the House in 2011, then DADT will likely remain law for the indefinite future. Even if repeal soon takes place, the Department of Defense will undoubtedly have the authority to determine the timeline and substance of changes to the formal policy. These details will require immense scrutiny from DADT opponents.

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent initially reported Brown's position on DADT, along with a copy of the his formal statement. New York Magazine, however, wins the prize for the best headline regarding this news item: "Scott Brown Does Not Care If You’re Gay If You’re Willing to Get Blown Up for America."

Nancy Pelosi: She Who Saved Comprehensive Healthcare Reform

The New York Times joins Politico with an article that gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi much of the credit for comprehensive healthcare reform. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Jeff Zeleny, and Carl Hulse report that after Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate election, the prospects for comprehensive reform died. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel urged President Obama to abandon the more elaborate package and to pursue piecemeal legislation. Pelosi dismissed this approach as "Kiddie Care."

The New York Times article confirms much of the substance of the Politco article, but it adds factual details. The New York Times describes a partnership between Obama and Pelosi that developed once he trusted her instincts on reform more than his most senior advisor.

Here is a clip from the article:

In a series of impassioned conversations, over the telephone and in the Oval Office, [Pelosi] conveyed her frustration to the president, according to four people familiar with the talks. If she and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, were going to stick out their necks for Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority, Ms. Pelosi wanted assurances that the president would too. At the White House, aides to Mr. Obama say, he also wanted assurances; he needed to hear that the leaders could pass his far-reaching plan.
“We’re in the majority,” Ms. Pelosi told the president. “We’ll never have a better majority in your presidency in numbers than we’ve got right now. We can make this work.”

Now, in what could become a legislative Lazarus tale — or at least the most riveting cliffhanger of the Obama presidency so far— the House is set to take up the health bill for what Democrats hope will be the last time.

For Mr. Obama, who vowed earlier this month to do “everything in my power” to see the bill to fruition, the measure’s passage would be an extraordinary triumph. Its defeat could weaken him for the rest of his days in office.

Only a month ago, several journalists wrote off comprehensive healthcare reform and asserted that Emanuel was right to advocate less. Today, it appears that the opposite is true.

See also: Pelosi Convinced Obama to Reject Emanuel's "Kiddie Care" Proposal and to Pursue Comprehensive Reform.

Pelosi Convinced Obama to Reject Emanuel's "Kiddie Care" Proposal and to Pursue Comprehensive Reform

Politico writers Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush report that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi convinced President Obama to renew the push for comprehensive healthcare reform after Scott Brown won the election to replace Senator Edward Kennedy. If the Brown and Thrush article is accurate, then it soundly refutes the notion that passing healthcare reform legislation would vindicate Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel, as several media sources have reported, preferred a piecemeal approach to healthcare reform.  According to Brown and Thrush, however, Pelosi rejected this strategy and dubbed it "Kiddie Care." The article also reports that Obama was torn between Pelosi's comprehensive approach and Emanuel's incrementalist proposal. Due to Pelosi's advocacy, Obama finally embraced the comprehensive plan and rejected Emanuel's advice.

Despite the upcoming passage of a comprehensive reform package, Politico writer Ben Smith recently argued that the reform legislation would vindicate Emauel.  Liberal bloggers immediately blasted the idea. Now, Smith's own colleagues have finished ripping his theory to shreds.

What A Joke: Republicans Deny Similarities Between Massachusetts Healthcare Refrom And Democratic Proposals

This one is from the surreal vault. Republicans are trying to distinguish Massachusetts healthcare reform -- endorsed by Mitt Romney and Senator Scott Brown -- from the federal proposals pending in Congress.

Last week, Brown described the Democrats' reform proposals as "bitter" and "destructive." David Axelrod, appearing on ABC's This Week, criticized Brown's statement, noting the similarities between the Democratic proposals and the Massachusetts policy.

Senator Lindsay Graham, who appeared after Axelrod, however, disputed Axelrod's comments: "No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington." Graham explains that: "We didn’t cut Medicare — they didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts. They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts."

Graham's effort to distinguish the Massachusetts policy from the Democratic proposals is foolhardy. First, states cannot raise federal taxes, nor can they reform the Medicare program. So, Graham's explanation regarding the differences between Massachusetts policy and the federal proposals is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the Massachusetts plan and federal proposals are also quite similar in terms of substance. The Wonk Room has compiled a side-by-side comparison of the two packages, showing the dramatic similarities. Also, Think Progress nicely summarizes the similarities:

[T]he plan implemented by former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts is very similar to the Democratic proposal. Both plans require people to purchase coverage and both provide affordability credits to those who can’t afford insurance. Both create insurance exchanges, both establish minimum creditable coverage standards for insurers, and both require employers to contribute towards reform.

Romney implemented the Massachusetts plan as governor of the state, and Brown voted for it as a member of the state legislature. Romney apparently wants to run for president again, and he believes he must portray the Massachusetts reforms in a false light in order to appeal to Republicans. Brown is trying to score points with the GOP as well, and he is distorting history to achieve this goal as well. Their weak effort to distance their prior stances from highly similar Democratic proposals, however, is not fooling anyone. The record is too clear to deny.

Tea Party Members Blow Gasket Over Scott Brown's Job Bill Vote

Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown recently voted, along with 4 other GOP members, for cloture on President Obama's $15 billion jobs bill. The Tea Party goers are not amused, and they are blasting Brown's and his daughter's Facebook pages with angry commentary (Gawker and Wonkette have absolutely devilish takes on the subject). Apparently, the concept of a "New England Republican" escapes them.

Query: The Republicans originally agreed to a much larger jobs bill -- $85 billion -- but Harry Reid slashed it to its current level. Why didn't the Tea Party folks flip out over the original Republican position, which was more expensive? Perhaps, they did not complain because the original bill was laden with business tax cuts (as is the final bill) or because Fox spun Reid's decision as an act of partisanship. If conservatives voiced complaints with the original bill please send me the links. Thanks.

Sen. Scott Brown Joins Democrats to Push Jobs Bill to a Vote

Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown crossed the aisle today and sided with Democrats to push a jobs bill to a vote. Brown explained that he acted as an "independent voice."