Reply #3: I think we have to wait and see [View All]

[alcibiades_mystery]

There was certainly a lot of positioning around DADT as the negotiations were ongoing. McConnell, for example, stated on MTP that the DAB wouldn't be voted on this sesssion. Needless to say, those without a good sense of how these things are negotiated started screaming bloody murder. A keen ear for the negotiations told another story: McConnell was putting DADT on the table (in my view, probably to get a higher limit and lower percentage on the estate tax). By saying that the DAB would probably not come up, he was telling the counterparties that it COULD come up. The next day, SecDef Gates told assembled sailors that DADT probably won't go away for a while. Again, those who relied only on the surface of the public statements screamed bloody murder. But this was likely Gates sending the Admin's message: "Meh...DADT repeal would be nice. What else ya got?"

Well, why don't they just say that across the negotiating table? I suspect they did, but it's not ma serious offer and counteroffer until you state it on record and show that you're not afraid to take the loss. Gates (i.e., the Admin) was saying "We don't need to offer X for DADT repeal...we can just let it go...watch, we'll even have Gates come out and say it's here to stay for a while." This tells the negotiators on the other side that the Admin is not afraid to lose it (i.e., they have to sweeten).

So, yes, there was certainly a lot of back-and-forth on DADT that would indicate it is part of a deal, but neither party can go back to its people and say "DADT" was part of a tax deal, and especially not the GOPers, as that would rouse up their base somethin' turrible.