Whether she’s being laughed out of Congress for her fears or marauding gangs of lesbians, babbling ineptly opposite Dan Choi on CNN, or claiming that retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili called for the repeal of the law because he’d suffered from a stroke, Elaine can always be counted on to make a fool of herself and her cause in ways we never could.

Yet in April 2009 when she came up with her declaration that “1,100 high-ranking retired Flag and General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement expressing support for the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military”, I bought it. I figured that Elaine had found a way to link into a network of conservative former military officers who were now free to state their opposition to equality. Considering that military personnel generally are more conservative politically, and considering that those now retiring might reflect somewhat older perspectives, how hard would it be to get a legitimate and relevant list?

And I’m not the only one to assume that her 1,100 officers were representative of some segment of recent members of the Military. John McCain has been waving around this list in the Senate claiming that it represents the views of those who know best. But both McCain and I should have known better. This is Elaine Donnelly, after all.

But Servicemembers United wasn’t fooled; they took a closer look. They’ve not yet gotten through the entire list, but they’ve looked at 200 officers and have issued a preliminary report telling us a bit more about “Elaine’s List.”

So who are these 1,100 Officers?

Well, to start with, some of them make John McCain look like a spring chicken. The average age of their sample was 74, with the oldest living signatory being about 99. “Living signatory” you ask? Well, yes. Because at least one of them “signed” the letter after he died and several more are no longer living.

Others have no recollection of being asked about the list, several indignantly stating that they didn’t authorize the use of their name, and some saying that they don’t support the ban on gay servicemembers.

And then there was the scoundrel problem. Some of her glorious officers left service under some not-so-glorious circumstances. While most signatories were honorable, Elaine had no problem including the fellow who gave false testimony to Congress about an anthrax vaccine, the guy who severely threatened relations with Japan, or various other men of poor judgment.

But whether or not her officers are alive, lucid, and of good character, few were qualified to offer an opinion. Most had left the military long before DADT was put in place.

These guys hail from the good ol’ days when ‘darkies’ knew their place, obedient wives met you at the door with a cocktail in hand, whores were discrete, and an open attack on a fellow soldier suspected of being gay was not only socially acceptable but a sign of your own manhood. Although Captain Jim Jefferis never made it high enough in rank to sign Elaine’s List, his postcard from the 1940’s published at Peter LaBarbera’s site gives us an idea of the mindset of a few of these good ol’ boys.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.

Yes, no doubt. But everything I’ve heard from service men and women today is that they are too busy fighting a complicated war to decide which of their fellow soldiers they were going to murder next. If today’s American soldiers share Jefferis’ appalling lack of character, then we have bigger worries than the Taliban.

So yes, Elaine has done it again. She’s proven again to be a valuable asset to our community. Now that opponents of open service are relying so strongly on Elaine’s List, the exposure of who’s on the list may well drive the nails into DADT’s coffin.

Freshman Mayor Mike Winder urged the council, during a planning retreat in January, to take up the issue in 2010. On Monday, he said, residents have shared with him their experiences of being “evicted or fired” because of their sexual orientations.

“I’m a proud Republican and a proud American,” Winder said. “When I recite the Pledge of Allegiance and say ‘with liberty and justice for all,’ I mean what I say.”

Winder added that, as a Christian, he also believes in treating others as he would want to be treated. “I certainly wouldn’t want to be fired or lose my house because of my personal lifestyle preferences.”

Let’s hope that Winder continues to listen closely, and is joined by many more Christian Republicans who will listen closely to the words they pledge with their hand over their heart.

“I am gay. Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. It is something that is personal, and I don’t believe I felt with my heart that being gay would affect how I do my job,” Ashburn said.

…Radio talk show host Inga Barks wanted assurances that Ashburn would continue to vote in a conservative manner on LGBT rights issues. Ashburn responded, “I believe firmly that my responsibility is to my constituents. I will take a careful look at each measure and apply that standard. How would they vote on this? How would they want me to vote on this,” adding that most people understood what that means.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Thursday he supports the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” putting him at odds with the service’s top uniformed leader.

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has stated that he does not support repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military, at least not until more research is conducted by the Defense Department. President Obama advocated for the abolition of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in his State of the Union address in January, and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also supports repeal.

Donley publicly laid out his views on the policy for the first time during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

“I support the president’s efforts to change the policy and change the law in this area,” Donley said in response to a question from committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. When Levin asked if Donley personally supported repeal, Donley said yes.

Roy Ashburn's booking photo from the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.

California state Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-18), whose rural district surrounding Bakersfield represents the state’s heartland of social conservatism, is married, a father of four, and proud of his consistently anti-gay positions. He was also seen late last night at Faces, a gay bar in Sacramento, just before he was arrested for DUI. There was another man in the car with him at the time of his arrest. And for most of that — he hasn’t acknowledged his presence at Faces yet — he is deeply, deeply sorry.

KOVR Channel 13 in Sacramento is perhaps the only mainstream media (at least that I’ve found so far) reporting on the gay angle and tying it to the other man who was present in Ashburn’s car when Ashburn was arrested. I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but Democratic strategist Steve Mavigio said that Ashburn should “come out” and “apologize to his constituents and the people of California for what he’s done.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

[S]everal House aides told POLITICO that the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that the New York Democrat, who is married with two children, made unwanted advances toward a junior male staffer.

A more senior staffer — Ronald Hikel, Massa’s former deputy chief of staff and legislative director — took the complaints to the ethics committee and was interviewed about them twice. Hikel declined to comment about the situation, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) confirmed that the Democratic leadership had been informed of the allegations before the news broke.

We don’t know the nature of the allegations. Sexual harassment can take many forms, and they may not necessarily be physical. “Inviting” someone to perform a sexual act as an expression of anger could conceivably fit the definition. And that’s the defense Massa is going with:

“Do I or have I ever used salty language when I’m angry, especially in the privacy of my inner office or even at home? Yes, I have, and I have apologized to those where it’s appropriate,” Massa said. “But those kinds of articles, unsubstantiated, without fact or backing, are a symptom of what’s wrong with this city.”

Specifically, it would repeal Section 654 of title 10 (”unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion”) and subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).

Instead, this bill would:

• create Section 656 would be created which would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation
• authorize a Pentagon Working Group which would have nine months to recommend implementation of the new policy, after which the Secretary of Defense would have two months to revise regulations
• require the Secretary of Defense to report back in six months as to whether universities are allowing or welcoming ROTC onto their campus (some had banned or discouraged them due to discrimination policies)

Co-signing with Lieberman were:

Carl Levin (D-MI)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Roland Burris (D-IL)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Arlen Specter (D-PA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)

Listen below or subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (click here, then click “subscribe” in the iTunes window).

Download audio file (2252010btbpodcast.mp3)

Direct link to audio file available here.

In an interview on Monday, General Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commanding general in Iraq, expressed tentative support for gay soldiers (msnbc)

The top U.S. commanding general in Iraq says he thinks everyone — gay and straight — should be allowed to serve in the military “as long as we are still able to fight our wars.”

The comment by Gen. Raymond Odierno is among the first to come from a senior military leader currently leading troops in battle since the Pentagon announced earlier this month that it will study the issue.

Odierno said that he really hadn’t given the issue much thought because it’s always been a “non-issue” to him.

On Tuesday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Secretary of the Army John McHugh both testified before the Senate and expressed concerns about the proposed change but neither took a position of opposition. Both agreed with Mullen’s proposed study but stated their opposition to a moratorium on expulsions while the study is conducted. (CNN)

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Tuesday that he has “serious concerns” over the impact of a repeal of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay and lesbian service members.

“I do have serious concerns about the impact of the repeal of the law on … a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight and a half years,” he told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He agreed, however, that it would be fair to characterize his opinion as not being “strongly” for or against a repeal.
…
Army Secretary John McHugh, also testifying before the committee Tuesday, declined to offer a personal opinion on a possible repeal of the controversial policy. He joined Casey in pointing out potential problems associated with a moratorium on discharges.

Later that day, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz carefully weighed his words but appeared to oppose the change while supporting the study. (Air Force Times)

“This not the time to perturb the force … without careful deliberations,” Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee.
…
Schwartz said the issue of allowing openly gay men and women to serve needs more study and survey of service members, and that he backs Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to conduct a year-long review of repealing the law.

Today brought the testimony of Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Chief, and Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations. Conway, who is considered the most resistant to the change in policy appears to have softened his objections and instead of stating his opposition to the change chose to seek to prioritize the way in which the issue is viewed during the study. (boston.com)

In testimony before a House committee, Gen. James Conway said he supports a Pentagon assessment to determine how to lift the ban. But he also suggested that civil rights ultimately would have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military’s ability to protect the country.

“That’s what they have been built to do under the current construct and I would argue that we’ve done a pretty good job bringing that to pass,” he told the House Armed Services Committee.

“My concern would be that somehow that central purpose or focus were to become secondary to the discussion,” he said.

Conway also opposed the moratorium on current expulsions. (Stars and Stripes)

“Keep it simple,” Conway said. “I would encourage you to either change the law or not, but in the process half measures would only be confusing in the end.”

Roughead’s statements were similar to the others.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told House lawmakers on Wednesday that he, too, wants the study to be complete before any changes are made.

“That needs to be done because only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, (and) not someone else’s,” Roughead said.

A pattern appears to evident. No military leaders will oppose the study on the issue, perhaps each hoping that their own perspectives will prevail and in the meantime buying time until perhaps a more favorable Senate will appear. Further, it seems that the politicians in the Pentagon are opposed to the change, while those officers that are fighting wars really couldn’t care less.

Family Policy Council of West Virginia is planning a rally at the Capital on Thursday to encourage the state Senate to pass a similar measure. Fifteen of thirty-four Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the proposed amendment, but a spokesman for Fairness West Virginia believes the Senate will not pass the bill.