“And if there is any “complaint” it is not to be found in the words I wrote. Nor was this a defense of McCain.”

I think it was the headline that led me to the conclusion that this was another attack on Obama and the Democrats. Maybe the headline should have been:

“DADT repeal caught up in fight over wasteful defense spending.”

But that might not get as many page views as the more provocative headline.

He should discover that his health requires him to spend more time with his family and graciously pull out of the race. In retirement he can reflect on who he really is and perhaps find a way to salvage his image.

But I digress.

Gates has repeatedly threatened to advise President Obama to veto the entire defense bill if Congress pursues the second engine. The House approved the project anyway, overcoming an attempt by opponents to strip it from the bill. That attempt failed by a vote of 231 to 193, with both parties divided on the issue. [Emphasis added]

Additionally:

The Pentagon has disputed those figures, calculating that it would cost taxpayers $2.9 billion more, on top of $1.3 billion already spent, in upfront costs to develop the second engine. Gates has also said that any potential savings from having a competition between contractors would be “theoretical.”

Major defense contractors have carefully established defense plants and subcontractors around the country where they can parcel up the work to ensure jobs are created specifically in congressional districts and states represented by key senators on both sides of the aisle to guarantee the flow of money to their contracts. And they target Dems and Reps alike for a very smart reason: no matter who is in control of either the house or the Senate, major defense contractors want the key leaders to have a stake on whether a contract goes through or not regardless of party affiliation.

It’s my personal opinion — and not the point of this thread — that Obama’s veto threat is completely justified. The blame however rightly rests with the irresponsible Democrats and Republicans both who are fighting to add this costly expenditure to our growing deficit.

DADT’s repeal would be a very unfortunate casualty. And there is plenty of blame for Democrats and Republicans for setting up the conditions for that to happen. Sen. McCain, to his great credit, opposes the jet engine program because it is wasteful and costly. However, his intent to prevent DADT’s repeal is well know. His office now says however that he won’t filibuster the bill in the Senate because of DADT. I suspect his reasons for doing so is because he already knows he doesn’t have the votes to sustain a filibuster from among his own caucus (killing the bill would endanger their own earmarks for contracts in their states), so now he can backtrack on his threat and appear “statesmanlike.” I don’t buy it one bit.

There is no dignity on having your rights voted on. Truth, reality are not decided democratically.

65,000 of you together, do not need to depend on the whims of politicians. you could end all this tomorrow with a tiny amount of self-belief and co-ordination.

The house voted on an amendment to remove the funding but it failed 231-193. Reviewing the roll call, it become clear that this was not a partisan vote. While on a percentage basis the Republicans were more favorable, the result was that 115 Democrats and 116 Republicans voted to keep the second engine.

The Senate bill does not include the funding so unless the Senate amends to include the funding this issue will be an item of negotiation between the House and the Senate. That is probably where it will die.

But if it does not, DADT repeal could most definitely be a negotiating chip for either getting more support for an override or for appeasing some conservative House members who support the engine funding. If so, John is probably correct about either longer “review” time or perhaps sign off by all military chiefs.

1)Obama vetoes the bill and they can’t override.

2)They go back to start negotiations to cut spending.

3)The GOP/conservative democrats say that the only way that they will agree to the funding cuts is if Dems give them DADT.

4) Dems agree

All this presumes that:
1)they wont cut spending before a veto

2)Obama isn’t bluffing (the GOP would attack for vetoing military spending and the LGBT community would attack over DADT neither of which Obama really wants)

3)DADT would be important enough to John McCain and other republicans to cut the spending but not important enough to democrats/Obama to stop a horse trade

4)There’s nothing more important to republicans or less important to democrats that could serve as a decent bargaining chip.

_____________________________
My guess is that the dems wouldn’t cut DADT repeal so much as weaken it even further. Give the DOD a longer amount of time to do it’s study and give them more ways to block open service.

Some legislators want to keep the spending in the bill so as to protect interests in their community.

which only differs slightly from

Gates wants to get rid of an aircraft engine and additional transport aircraft that some lawmakers want to keep. They generally represent areas with defense contractors that would stand to lose business from the cuts.

in that I did not include detail about the exact nature of the projects (ie aircraft engines) as it matters little if they were engines or tanks or any other project.

And if there is any “complaint” it is not to be found in the words I wrote. Nor was this a defense of McCain.

You’ll note that I see this as “an odd turn of events” and as a threat. I did not say that the veto was not legitimate or a denial of promises but rather that it will reopen DADT.