Box Turtle Bulletin

“Kill The Gays” Bill Author And His American Friends: The Final Part of Rachel Maddow’s Interview

Last night, Rachel Maddow wrapped up her pre-recorded interview with Ugandan M.P David Bahati, author of the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is currently under consideration in that country’s Parliament. The full uncut video is available here, including portions that were not shown on Rachel Maddow’s show. The third part of that interview which aired last night follows:

This portion of the interview repeats a small segment that aired the day before, and here is the transcript of that portion:

RM: What is God’s law about homosexuality?

DB: God’s law is that homosexuality is sin.

RM: Punishable by…?

DB: God’s law is that homosexuality is sin. …

RM: … In your view, does God’s law prescribe an appropriate punishment for that sin?

DB: God’s law is always clear that the wages of sin is death, whether that is implemented through legislation like mine or by a mechanism of a human being, whatever happens is the end result. We need to turn to God.

Did you catch that? “…Through legislation like mine or by a mechanism of a human being, whatever happens is the end result.” This appears to be justification for killing gay people even if that killing takes place outside of the rule of law, through vigilante justice or other extra-judicial killing. Whatever happens, he says. This is truly a cold-blooded statement. It clearly matches Jeff Sharlet’s observation of him. In his must-read book, C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy, Sharlet interviewed Bahati in his home in Uganda, in which he asked Bahati what his ultimate goal was. This is how Sharlet explained it in an interview on NPR with Terry Gross:

Sharlet accompanied Bahati to a restaurant, and later to his home, where Bahati told Sharlet that he wanted “to kill every last gay person.”

“It was a very chilling moment because I’m sitting there with this man who’s talking about his plans for genocide and has demonstrated over the period of my relationship with him that he’s not some back bender — he’s a real rising star in the movement,” Sharlet says. “This was something that I hadn’t understood before I went to Uganda, that this was a guy with real potential and real sway and increasingly a following in Uganda.”

Bahati also has increasingly a following in the U.S., including people like Lou Engle; Andrew Wommack and his man in Kampala, Leland Shores; and now, a former director of non-public education at the Department of Education under the President George W. Bush. Sharlet has more on that in the next segment.

Sharlet explains in a post on his facebook page that Bahati and Jack Klenk met through Klenk’s “Ugandan missionary work with an anti-gay Anglican religious movement.” (Update: Klenk is on the board of directors for Uganda Christian University, located outside of Kampala.) Sharlet told Maddow that he had spoken to Klenk and said that Klenk wouldn’t take a position on the bill. But Klenk says that the bill comes from a “beautiful place” and that the punishments in it are “loving punishments.” These loving punishments include not only the death penalty for many gays, but life imprisonment for the rest, seven years imprisonment for talking about homosexuality, and three years imprisonment for even knowing a gay person or renting a home or hotel room to him.

Sharlet believes that Klenk is not part of the Family, but he points out that Bahati nevertheless has numerous connections both inside and outside the Family, including Lou Engle, the Family Research Council and Sen. James Inhofe, who regularly travels to Uganda to talk about these issues. Sharlet describes Uganda as an American Evangelical “laboratory of ideas” that they cannot promote in the U.S. By exporting those ideas to a place like Uganda, the hope is these ideas can ferment so that they can then use those “successes” to re-import those ideas back to the West. In fact, Bahati has said several times that he believes his bill will serve as an example for the rest of the world to follow.

The anonymous blogger GayUganda notes that Uganda is in the midst of a very active campaign season ahead of Parliamentary elections in February. He says that it’s odd that Bahati would take the time to go to the U.S. to attend a conference that he likely knew would not welcome him. Given his hob-nobbing with a well-connected former Bush administration official, GayUganda’s speculation that this was actually a fundraising trip gains much greater credibility.

Lieberman Proposes “Hail Mary” To Revive DADT Repeal

According to Towleroad, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is holding a news conference saying that he and Sen. Susan Collins will introduce a stand-alone bill to repeal DADT. He says that Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised a vote on the new measure.  So far, there are no details on the timing. An identical stand alone bill would also have to pass the House.

Reid Calls Snap Vote on DADT; His Failure Kills the Bill

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid made the snap decision just moments ago to call for a cloture vote on the Defense Authorization Bill that contains language repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It failed, garnering only 57 of the 60 votes needed, with 40 voting against. Surprisingly, Sen. Susan Collins salvaged her reputation by voting for cloture at the last minute — but only when it was clear the bill would fail.

Only a complete idiot could not see this coming, given the insistence on a relatively minimal number of amendment votes and time for debate that Sen. Collins was asking for. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) voted against cloture, meaning that he doesn’t even have the social conscience of his predecessor, Robert Byrd.  Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski, and Richard Lugar all claimed that they supported DADT’s repeal, but they support boneheaded partisan posturing even more. Like I said, only a complete idiot could not see this coming.

I wonder if Harry Reid saw it coming?

Just like before, political gamesmanship trumps sound policy. But the problem wasn’t just in the Senate. Remember, it was President Obama who insisted that the Senate shouldn’t act before the Defense Department’s study was released — a report that wasn’t scheduled to be released until December 1, right in the middle of a lame duck session following what everyone knew would be a contentious mid-term election. This was his brilliant plan, and he owns the outcome as much as Reid and the GOP.

The very thing that was all too easy to predict has come to pass.

Update: In an act that rubs salt in the wound, we have learned that Reid kept his vote at “yes” for cloture. By not switching his vote to a “no” vote before voting ended, it means that he cannot bring the bill back up for a vote again under the Senate’s rules. In other words, while the Senate voted it down, Reid has killed the bill for good. That’s pretty much all you need to know about his latest move. For whatever unfathomable reason, Reid engineered its demise, once and for all.

Update: A commenter corrects me on the process:

This was the vote to reconsider the vote by which cloture on the motion to proceed to debate was not invoked.

(See the senate rule here.)

Therefore, Reid switching his vote would have had no effect- you can’t reconsider a vote to reconsider. However, Reid can simply file another cloture motion on the bill which would require 3 days to ripen, then hold another vote for cloture. This happened back in May on the financial reform bill, S.3217. Cloture was filed, rejected, and reconsideration failed. Cloture was filed, rejected, and reconsideration was then waived as part of an agreement, and eventually the bill was passed.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: we’ve got a great bunch of readers. Thanks for the correction.

I would however point out that I do believe that Reid recklessly intended this to go down in flames — or at least didn’t care if it passed one way or another. He knew the vote would be close, but he didn’t even bother to find out if all of his potential “yes” votes were even in the chamber. Sen. Blanche Lincoln was in the dentist’s chair when the vote went down, and Sen. Collins wasn’t even in the chamber when he made the snap call for the vote. If he really wanted it to pass, he would have done what any competent politician would have done and made sure his votes were lined up and present. He didn’t bother to take those minimal fundamental steps, and that omission was unconscionable.

Former Sen. Sam Nunn Supports DADT Repeal

He’s the single most responsible person on the planet for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” being on the books to begin with. Boy, talk about too little, too late.

Send Rachel Maddow a Message

Rachel Maddow is continuing her coverage of Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill tonight.  She’s done a great job of keeping the story in the public eye, but she’s still missing one thing:

The bill would kill gays and would kill their friends, family, or co-workers who didn’t rat them out to the government.  It would be impossible to be a gay person’s friend and not be subject to the death penalty.

I pointed this out in the video below, and it bears repeating.  In fact, I’ll ask you this favor:

Post the link to this video on Rachel’s Facebook page.  Email it to her, too. If enough people do this, it’s bound to get her attention.

Here’s the direct link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fuEsRJp2nU

Thanks.

HRC Fires Rare Warning Shot

You know things are heating up when the Human Rights Campaign issues a rare warning like this one:

Fred Sainz, a spokesman for Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement, “If senators move forward with a vote on NDAA before a deal has been solidified, the vote will fail and all key players will share the responsibility.”

The statement appears to be aimed at Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who has been flirting for 24 hours with scheduling a vote on the defense bill that includes the repeal. A planned vote was scrapped Wednesday night after a key Republican senator said she was not satisfied with the results of negotiations.

Of course, we don’t know how the HRC defines “sharing responsibility,” but it’s good to know that more people are beginning to see through Harry Reid’s machinations and are willing to call him on it.

Meanwhile,  The Washington Post reports that it’s Harry Reid who is stonewalling Sen. Susan Collins and jeopardizing DADT repeal, not the other way around:

[Sen. Collins] said she largely accepted Reid’s offer of 15 amendments, but added she needed four days of debate on them.

Guess what: Reid has yet to respond to her offer, according to a spokesperson for Collins. “As of this morning, Senator Collins has not received a response from the Majority Leader,” the spokesman, Kevin Kelley, tells me.

This is potentially bad news. Word is that the Senate may vote today on the defense authorization bill containing DADT repeal. It seems likely that if Collins’ every demand isn’t met, she’s prepared to stop the defense authorization bill from proceeding, and other moderate Republicans who generally support repeal may also vote No.

Ugandan “Kill The Gays” Bill Author On Rachel Maddow Show

Ugandan M.P. David Bahati, the author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill who traveled to the United States to attend a conference only to find himself banned from the conference’s premises, appeared on Rachel Maddow’s program last night. Here is part one of that interview:

Bahati alleges that the provisions of the bill calling for the death penalty were implemented “to protect the children,” and claims that it was modeled from Uganda’s law against child sexual abuse. However, as we have pointed out many times before, the death penalty provision in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill goes way beyond “protecting children,” and is so broadly written that it can include just about anyone. For comparison purposes, here is the text of Section 129(3) and (4) of the Penal Code, as amended in 2007 (Act No. 8 of 2007):

29(3)
Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4) commits a felony called aggravated defilement and is, on conviction by the High Court, liable to suffer death.

129(4)
The circumstances referred to in subsection (3) are as follows-

(a) where the person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of fourteen years;

(b) where the offender is infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV);

(c) Where the offender is a parent or guardian of or a person in authority over, the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) where the victim of the offence is a person with a disability; or,

(e) where the offender is a serial offender.

The comparable section of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill reads as follows:

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;

(b) offender is a person living with HIV;

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;

(f) offender is a serial offender, or

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

Bahati and others had previously claimed that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was aimed at closing a “loophole” in Ugandan law, which they claim does not cover same-sex sexual abuse, but as you can see, the current law is already written in a gender-neutral way which includes same-sex as well as opposite-sex abuse. The proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill also does not allow for consideration of consent, which is especially important in cases where the “offender” is HIV-positive or has a relationship with someone with a disability (a term which remains undefined in the proposed legislation).

In part two, Bahati commends the editors of the Ugandan tabloid Rolling Stone (no relation to the U.S. magazine by the same name) for publishing the photos of allegedly gay Ugandans, saying that he would hope that in the future, the police would use articles like these to hunt down gay people. He also called homosexuality a sin and said, “the wages of sin is death.”

Laura Conaway, one of the producers for Rachel Maddow, wrote on Maddow’s blog:

To me, one of the most amazing things about that conversation is that it’s able to happen at all — that Mr. Bahati’s able to say to her, “I think the bottom line, Rachel, is to make sure that we protect the children,” and she can say to him, “I think the international community is trying to decide whether or not Uganda is going to become an international pariah, a rogue state, excluded from the community of nations because you’re singling out a minority among your population for treatment that frankly is not the direction that the rest of the world is going.” They can say those things to each other and then keep talking. It’s amazing.

More of the interview will appear tonight.

Update: Afrogay reacts to Bahati’s incredible claim that US$15 million has been shipped to Uganda to oppose the bill and “recruit children into the practice” of homosexuality:

$15m?!! For those who can’t be bothered to put things in perspective, $15m is equivalent to 43,500,000,000 (forty three billion, five hundred million shilling) in Uganda’s money today.

The only viable referral hospital in Uganda, Mulago Hospital, which caters for the entire population of 33 million people asked for $4.8m in 2007 from the government for essential upgrades and they failed to get it.Why? The government of Uganda said that it didn’t have this money. As you can see, $15m in Uganda would be enough to refurbish a hospital that caters for 33 million people 3.5 times over. In fact $15m is more money than is allocated to entire ministries in Uganda annually.

And Bahati really wants anyone to believe that pro-gay groups have sent that kind of money to 10 or 15 people who represent perhaps 500,000 gay men and women in Uganda?

Collins/Reid deal in process; vote not tonight

TMP is reporting that Collins and Reid are in agreement on the number of amendments and that Collins is requesting more time for debate and that it occur immediately following the tax compromise vote. It looks as though they may finally be trying to work together:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already promised her the 15 amendments, but his initial offer was for a day or two of debate. Here’s her response to reporters tonight, after a Senate vote.

“The majority leader’s allotment of time for to debate those amendments was extremely short, so I have suggested doubling the amount of time, assuring that there would be votes, and making sure that the Republicans get to pick our own amendments as opposed to the Majority Leader.”

“If he does that I will do all that I can to help him proceed to the bill. But if he does not do that, then I will not,” she added.

Late this evening, per Collins’ request, Reid delayed a test vote he’d planned to hold tonight.

The tax bill may take up most of the week, so we may not see an actual Defense Bill cloture vote until perhaps Saturday.

“I have urged the majority leader to postpone the vote…so that we could get the tax bill considered first — which I believe could be on the floor tomorrow — and completed by Saturday, and then move immediately to the DOD bill, but under a fair agreement.”

DADT Repeal Getting Caught Up In Gamesmanship

This analysis from TPM illustrates the tensions between Reid and Collins:

“I’ve been pleading with Senator Reid, don’t hold a vote on the defense authorization bill, the repeal of DADT, until we have a good opportunity to work out a fair process for the consideration bill with Senator Collins and some of the other Republican,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) this afternoon after a Dem caucus meeting. “Senator Collins really wants to vote for the bill with the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Senator Scott Brown is the same and I think there may be at least one other Republican Senator to make that clear today.”

That third Republican has since been revealed as Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

…From Reid’s point of view the math is two-dimensional. By calling the vote, and leaking to the press, he ups the pressure on Collins to make a decision — and quickly. At the same time, he creates a focal point for liberal animus if the Senate fails to pass repeal before this Congress comes to an end and with it hope for a legislative solution to DADT. That’s not helpful to Lieberman, who wants to keep negotiations fluid, egos unbruised and the bill alive.

It’s not the policy they’re arguing over. It’s all about how they will spin the blame if it goes down in defeat.

DADT repeal support grows

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has now expressed support for DADT repeal

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Wednesday she favors repealing the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law, but says her vote comes with conditions.

The Alaska senator said that she will only vote to break a filibuster of a key defense spending bill with the repeal attached if “the majority allows for an open and fair amendment process.”
…
Murkowski said that “America is the loser when it denies those who are willing to make the great sacrifices demanded of our men and women in uniform the opportunity do so on grounds of sexual orientation.”

UPDATE: Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart lays out Collins’ demands.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told me that she is fine with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) offer of 15 amendments — 10 for Republicans and 5 for Democrats. The only question is the time allotted to debate them. Contrary to the ham-handed efforts by Reid staffers to throw Collins under the bus, she is not demanding unlimited debate time. What she wants is a “reasonable” amount of time. She’d be fine if Reid were to allow, say, two hours of debate (one hour for Democrats and one hour for Republicans) for each amendment. Collins told me that the time issue is important to her because she is “trying to make sure the rights of the minority are protected.” Ain’t nothing wrong with that in my view at this late hour.

This doesn’t seem unreasonable

Ugandan Press Covers “Kill-The-Gays” MP’s Banishment From Conference

Daily Monitor, Uganda’s largest independent newspaper, covered recent events in which M.P. David Bahati, author of the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, was denied entrance to the International Consortium of Governmental Financial Management conference being held this week in Washington, D.C.

Daily Monitor appears to blame Bahati’s banishment on U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but offers no details on that assertion. In fact, the decision came from conference organizers themselves. Some LGBT activists called on the State Department to refuse Bahati a visa, but there is no evidence to suggest that the State Department has acted on that request or put pressure on the conference organizers to ban Bahati. Bahati complained to Daily Monitor that in barring his attendance, conference organizers had shown a “high level of intolerance” that is “inconsistent with American values.”

The Ugandan delegation reportedly raised their objections to Deputy Assistant of Secretary of State Bureau of African Affairs, Karl Wycoff.  There is no report on Wycoff’s response, or whether the pending legislation itself was discussed with U.S. officials. Bahati bragged to Daily Monitor, “[T]he resolve to defend the future of children and pursuit of this wonderful piece of legislation is intact.”

Daily Monitor, which is usually a reliable news outlet, slipped badly in reporting on the nature of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The paper says the bill “suggests life imprisonment for homosexuals, and in certain cases, death by hanging for those who recruit minors into the act.”  That is the propaganda that bill supporters have been spreading about the bill from the very beginning, but it is not at all accurate. The death penalty of the bill, which we have posted online numerous times, reads as follows:

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;

(b) offender is a person living with HIV;

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;

(f) offender is a serial offender, or

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by  enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

In fact, sex with minors is only one provision of the portion of the bill providing for the death penalty. Other provisions include merely being HIV-positive (with no provisions for disclosure or consent) along with a provision mandating HIV-testing to determine eligibility for the crime of “aggravated homosexuality.” The bill also mandates death for anyone who has a relationship with anyone with “a disability”, without defining what constitutes a disability and without any provisions for a consensual relationship.

Furthermore, the “serial offender” clause is likely to include just about anyone who is gay and has had more than one relationship. What’s worse, that clause can include just about anyone period, as Rob Tisinai illustrated earlier this year. It’s very disappointing to see Daily Monitor become a mouthpiece for the bill’s propagandists like this.

Another ill-contrived circumcision study

Should there be any researchers reading, let me give you a bit of advice: gay sex and straight sex are not identical. While most heterosexual men do not have penises inserted into their anuses with regularity, this is not an uncommon part of the sexual practices of many gay men.

And further, the easiest way that a gay guy can become infected with HIV is through anally receptive unprotected sex. That isn’t new, surprising, or even contested.

Yep, HIV transmission among gay men in the US is primarily due to taking it bare up the butt. And any research which seeks to understand factors contributing to HIV transmission which does not consider that simple fact is a complete waste of money and time.

And today we get word of yet another Wasted Money Study on whether circumcision impacts HIV transmission between gay men. Reuters:

In a study of more than 1,800 men from the U.S. and Peru, researchers found that overall, the risk of contracting HIV over 18 months did not significantly differ between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Over the study period, 5 percent of the 1,365 uncircumcised men became HIV-positive, as did 4 percent of the 457 circumcised men, according to findings published in the journal AIDS.

Well, gee, that information would be useful to know… if the study wasn’t conducted in a mind-numbingly stupid way.

Because, you see, that study doesn’t take into consideration whether the men were engaging in receptive or penetrative anal sex. I just assumes that gay men pass HIV to other gay men in some unknown and mysterious manner. Maybe by osmosis.

Well guess what? It really doesn’t matter one iota whether a bottom’s penis is circumcised, pierced, tattooed, or wearing a funny hat if he has semen up his butt. And any study that focuses only on whether a penis is circumcised – but not what you’re doing with it – is going to provide useless information.

I will give this study partial credit for even wondering, as a side note, whether circumcision impacts the transmission of guys who are using their penises in penetrative anal sex. And while they couldn’t bother to craft a study that looked at that issue, they did at least ask. Kinda.

And guess what?

The researchers did find some hints that circumcision could be protective among men who primarily had insertive sex with other men. Among men who said they’d had insertive sex with their last three male partners at least 60 percent of the time, circumcision was linked to a 69 percent lower HIV risk.

That difference, however, was not statistically significant, which means the finding could be due to chance.

But the truly stupid aspects of this Wasted Money Study isn’t limited to having no concept whatsoever about how HIV is transmitted. It also made these glaring errors:

Male circumcision is far more common in the U.S. than in most other countries, and 82 percent of the 462 American men in the study were circumcised, compared with just 6 percent of the 1,360 Peruvian men.

D’ya think that this may be a material difference in populations? That perhaps there are differences between the cultures, practices, or even extent of HIV exposure between the two countries?

All of the men in the study reported having sex with other men and were considered to be at increased risk of HIV infection because they were already infected with the genital herpes virus (herpes simplex type 2), which can make people more susceptible to HIV.

So we’re talking about men who potentially have open sores… which are known to be ways in which HIV enters the body… but all that can be ignored to discuss the results of circumcision.

None of which discouraged declarations based on the results of the “study”

Taken together, the results “indicate no overall protective benefit from male circumcision” when it comes to male-to-male HIV transmission, write the researchers, led by Dr. Jorge Sanchez of the research organization Impacta Peru, in Lima.

No, Dr. Sanchez, taken together the results indicate an incredibly stupid study which tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever about circumcision and HIV transmission and was a complete waste of time and money. I really hope that my tax dollars did not fund your folly.

We don’t really need studies that inform us that anally receptive men don’t reduce their HIV risk by becoming circumcised. They also aren’t benefited by having flocked wall-paper or a charming haircut.

But I, for one, would be interested in a study that looked at whether HIV transmission could be reduced by means of circumcision among anally penetrative men. That question has not been answered (this Wasted Money Study, notwithstanding) and it would be beneficial to know whether circumcision is a risk mitigator among this subset of gay men, and to what extent.

And, I guess they did add that recommendation to their nonsensical reporting of their results.

They add that studies should continue to look at whether circumcision affects HIV risk from insertive sex and do so in larger, more diverse study groups.

Yeah. Ya think?

Possible DADT vote today

There has been a heightened tension over the past few weeks surrounding the partisan positioning over whether to raise the current tax rates – and on whom – along with the extension of unemployment benefits and whether this battle would eliminate the possibility of a vote on the Defense Authorization Bill (which includes the repeal of DADT). But though I’ve had my douts, I’ve maintained a certain degree of optimism around the prospect.

This is too important to the White House. Not that the President is particularly impassioned about repealing the discriminatory policy, but he needs to shore up support from the more liberal end of the Democratic Party and this is an action that can help that goal. And I’ve also assumed from the beginning that a compromise would be reached in the tax/unemployment negotiations once everyone had an opportunity to make the speeches that their constituents want to hear.

So I’m not particularly surprised that Sen. Reid has announced that he will bring the Defense Authorization Bill up for a cloture vote today. And there is a good chance that it DADT repeal can be achieved.

In September, there were 56 Democratic Senators, of which two – Senators Lincoln and Pryor – voted against cloture. The two Independent Senators supported the vote, but all 42 Republicans withheld their support, claiming that the process cut them out of any ability to challenge specific spending items.

Since September, the Illinois special election removed one Democrat, replacing him with Republican Mark Kirk. But Sen. Pryor has announced that he will support DADT repeal and “will support procedural measures to bring it to a vote this year.” Unfortunately, his support is offset by Democratic Sen. Manchin who has now raised objections to the repeal. Thus, the count of all-but-certain votes for cloture are 53 Democrats and 2 Independents.

This means that five additional supporters are required from Republicans (and/or Sens. Lincoln and Manchin). There are currently two Republicans who have pledged support of repeal: Sen. Collins and Sen. Brown. But this support is conditional; Sen. Reid must allow Republicans to challenge and debate controversial provisions of the bill, including spending on certain programs that are believed to be based more on financial benefit to specific well-connected military contractors than on actual need. Reid, however, is fearful that unlimited debate would result in the hijacking of the process by endless irrelevant amendments intended to run out the clock.

And this may be the sticking point. Rumors are flying, and posturing, finger pointing, and accusations have begun. The Washington Post reports the position of Reid – as provided by an aide:

Reid has offered Collins a total of 15 amendments in order to get her to vote Yes — 10 for Repubicans and five for Democrats, the aide continues. Reid views this as a reasonable offer, because previous debates on defense authorization bills have had roughly this number of amendments offered, the aide adds.

But as of now, Collins has indicated this offer is “unsatisafctory,” the aide says. A Collins spokesperson denied this account in an email, but declined to elaborate.

I think it rather likely that this little battle will resolve itself. Senator Collins gains nothing by being portrayed as unreasonable and she is a experienced politician who is particularly skilled in crafting and controlling her image.

Assuming that Collins and Reid will find a mutually acceptable position (as, for now, I do), the question is just who else will vote for cloture. There are at least ten other possible supporting votes who are holding their cards close to their chest. We need three.

The President is reported to be calling Senators on both sides of the aisle.

UPDATE: Senator Lieberman is refuting the claims made by Reid’s aide:

“Senator Collins has been working in good faith to achieve an agreement on the process to move forward with the defense bill that contains the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” Lieberman said. “I categorically reject reports by uninformed staffers who have suggested otherwise.”

Lieberman said he wants “those responsible for such baseless allegations” to stop immediately and work to get to an agreement to the defense authorization bill to the Senate floor.

“We are making progress toward an agreement to move forward on the defense bill that includes the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and I remain confident that we can reach an agreement, which is necessary before any vote on the motion to reconsider is taken,” Lieberman said.

If this turns out to be a posturing ploy from Reid’s office, it likely will backfire. Our community has become unwilling to accept the claims of Reid at face value.

Call Your Senators

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has issued a call to action for today’s possible vote for cloture on DADT repeal. The Senators who need to hear from you the most are:

• Susan Collins (R-ME): 202-224-2523
• Olympia Snowe (R-ME): 202-224-5344
• Richard Lugar (R-IN): 202-224-4814
• Judd Gregg (R-NH): 202-224-3324
• Scott Brown (R-MA): 202-224-4543
• George Voinovich (R-OH): 202-224-3353
• Kit Bond (R-MO): 202-224-5721
• Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): 202-224-6665
• Mark Kirk (R-IL): 202-224-2854
• Joe Manchin (D-WV): 202-224-3954

Update: An action alert from Servicemembers United adds Harry Reid to their list of Senators to call:

A handful of Republicans have indicated a willingness to vote to proceed on NDAA if the amendment and debate process is “fair and reasonable.” Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) alone controls the amendment and debate process, pressure needs to be put on both Senator Reid AND the handful of moderate Republicans to come to an agreement.

SU also recommends calling:

• Harry Reid (D-NV): 202-224-3542 
• Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): 202-224-4843
• John Ensign (R-NV): 202-224-6244

DADT Cloture Vote May Come Up This Evening

Is this the end game for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s” repeal? Alex Nicholson at Servicemembers United smells more empty political posturing which, if true, could end up dooming DADT for at least the next two years:

If Senator Reid has received confirmation that Republican supporters of repeal are satisfied with the tax cuts deal, then the issue becomes the number of amendments and amount of floor time that Senator Reid is offering on the bill. As of this morning, it is our understanding that he is still lowballing his offer and presumably hoping that we will just blame ‘the Republicans.’ If he does not move his offer into the realm of reasonableness, then he will be intentionally throwing the vote when he brings it up.

Sound familiar?

Senate Republicans have already announced that they will block all bills in the Senate until the tax deal is worked out. Clearly that’s not the case yet, as many House and Senate Democrats are in open rebellion over the compromise reached by President Obama. Only two GOP votes are needed to break the Republican logjam, and Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are seen as two possibilities for achieving cloture for the Defense Authorization Bill which contains the measure repealing DADT. But as I see it, that’s a very shaking foundation for going forward. On every single vote — whether its health care reform or DADT repeal — in which Snowe and Collins were seen as potential bipartisan supporters, they have reliably refused to break ranks with the GOP every time. I would be dumbstruck if past behavior didn’t portend future behavior. And so the political theater continues.

Update: A spokesman for Susan Collins provides another soliloquy in this political theater:

Senator Collins has maintained that the Senate should be focused on taxes and the economy (especially since the tax provisions expire on January 1) and obviously we need to pass a bill funding the government before Friday.These are top priorities and there is limited time.

However, she believes there is time to consider other issues as well, and she has made it clear that if the Majority Leader brings the Defense Authorization bill to the floor, for example, and allows sufficient debate and amendments, she would vote to proceed to the bill.

You see, that’s how you say yes while actually saying no. And since Reid knows full well Collins’s position and is lowballing his offer anyway, he, too, is saying yes while actually saying no. They both just hope we’re too dumb to notice.

Update 2: Sen. Joseph Lieberman pushes back on the naysayers:

“Senator Collins has been working in good faith to achieve an agreement on the process to move forward with the defense bill that contains the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ I categorically reject reports by uninformed staffers who have suggested otherwise. As she always does, Senator Collins is working diligently and across party lines to find solutions to the challenges that confront our country. I call on those responsible for such baseless allegations to stop immediately and instead work to get to an agreement to bring this critical bill to the floor for Senate action.  

“We are making progress toward an agreement to move forward on the defense bill that includes the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and I remain confident that we can reach an agreement, which is necessary before any vote on the motion to reconsider is taken. I am working closely with Senator Reid and Senator Collins and other members who want to reach a fair and reasonable agreement to move the defense authorization bill that that is so essential to the needs of our troops, veterans, and their families.  

“It is now more clear than ever that we have 60 or more votes in support of repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ so it is vitally important to reach agreement on the right process to move forward.”

It’s that last part, “the right process to move forward,” which is the lynch pin.