The Way Forward on DADT

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

So what’s the state of play on DADT repeal? It’s still a little murky, but here’s how it looks to me:

  • Today’s vote, in which DADT repeal was appended to the overall defense appropriations bill, failed.
  • Both Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) and Scott Brown (R–Mass.) say they would have voted for it, but are sticking to the Republican caucus position that they’ll block all other legislative action until the tax compromise bill passes.
  • If House and Senate Democrats will stop acting like babies, they could probably pass the tax bill quickly. They need to suck it up and do so. The tax bill before them isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it’s not that bad either — and it’s what the leader of their party negotiated for them. For once, it’s time to stick together and let their leader lead.
  • With that out of the way, a standalone DADT bill has the votes for passage. Murkowski and Brown will presumably vote for it, Blanche Lincoln (D–Ark.) says she’ll vote for it, and so will Susan Collins (R–Maine). Her objection to the combined bill was related to the amount of debate time Harry Reid was willing to allow, but this shouldn’t be a deal killer for a standalone bill which obviously is far less complex than a big appropriations bill.
  • So the votes are there. All that’s left is to pass the tax bill and then bring the standalone DADT repeal bill to the floor. Republicans will obstruct endlessly, but the answer to that is to stay in session every single day if necessary before the clock runs out. Don’t like it? Tough.

This still might fail. Maybe the reactionary caucus in the Republican Party can run out the clock. But if it does, it better be clear that Democrats did everything in their power to pass it anyway. That means voting for the tax bill and it means sticking around in Washington for as long as it takes to send DADT into the dustbin of history. Right now, it’s the only thing they should be focused on.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend