Box Turtle Bulletin

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.

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.

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

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.

Texas religious folk weigh in on chaplains’ concerns about repealing DADT

The Dallas Morning News asked a broad variety of religious leaders – Unitarians, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, more Baptists (it is Texas) – about their views on the difficulties that some military chaplains have expressed about repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Specifically, they were asked to address the opinions of Rev. Douglas E. Lee.

Here were their responses:

KATIE SHERROD, Progressive Episcopalian activist and independent writer/producer, Fort Worth

As to the military chaplains, how do these pastors handle the conflict between “Thou shalt not kill” and the often open and widespread killing of innocents during modern warfare? Seems to me that’s a much bigger contradiction than dealing with someone who is attracted to and/or loves someone of the same gender.

CYNTHIA RIGBY, W.C. Brown Professor of Theology, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Chaplains who believe homosexual sex is sinful are not being asked to change what they believe. They are, however, being asked to honor the fact that not all people of faith think the same way by listening, understanding, counseling, and leading worship in ways that model compassion and welcome into fellowship those who strongly disagree. If a clergy person is not gifted at honoring others’ positions, he or she is not called to the particular vocation of being a military chaplain and should seek a ministerial calling elsewhere.

Perhaps chaplains who are more socially conservative would be helped by seeking counsel from their more liberal counterparts, who are well practiced at negotiating the space between their own convictions and military policy. Military chaplains who do NOT believe homosexual sex is a sin have, for decades, been expected to be careful about how they represent their views, especially in the face of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. While the repeal of the policy will be a challenge for some chaplains, it should be remembered that it would be a burden lifted from the consciences of many others.

DANIEL KANTER, Senior Minister, First Unitarian Church of Dallas

My personal approach, and the one I learned as a hospital chaplain, is to meet people where they are to address their deepest needs and struggles. I know that it is possible that my beliefs can get in the way of the healing that can take place in a counseling setting. As clergy we first must aim to make room for people to be who they are as children of God and only in a distant second do we introduce our personal values into the room.

JOE CLIFFORD, Senior Pastor, Head of Staff, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas

If chaplains paid by the government feel they cannot proclaim what their faith believes, then perhaps they should not work for a government that prohibits establishing any one religion.

JAMES DENISON, Theologian-in-Residence, Texas Baptist Convention and President, Center for Informed Faith

At the same time, military chaplains are commissioned to serve people of all faith commitments and none, whether they agree with their beliefs or not. They can serve alongside and counsel soldiers who do not obey biblical teachings without endorsing such behavior. The same seems true regarding sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

As a pastor, I never required those I counseled to believe everything I believed, or felt I endorsed their actions by trying to help them. The darker the room, the greater the need for light.

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

When an individual opts to serve our country to defend our freedom, we must honor that individual to the highest degree and treat him or her with dignity. We should never forget that they are defending every American and not just an exclusive club. Those of us who serve them ought not to forget to reciprocate them with equal enthusiasm and unrestrictive honor.

The Army Chaplains are employees of the nation to serve the men and women who defend our nation, and they ought to serve every defender of our nation regardless of their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, faith, language or appearance.

LARRY BETHUNE, Senior Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin Texas

The religious liberty of the troops and their protection from discrimination when seeking spiritual care is at least as important as the protection of the spiritual liberty of the chaplains.
…
Chaplains will not be required to teach or counsel against their beliefs unless their beliefs compel them to discriminate or disrespect the religious liberty of others, in which case they need to choose a sectarian setting rather than a chaplaincy setting for their ministry. As the U.S. Coast Guard Academy white paper referenced in the Pentagon’s implementation plan (page 9) suggests: “…religious plurality is a core American value.”

DARRELL BOCK, Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

They have to do the best they can to honor their convictions and yet try to serve those they are called to minister to. This is not always easy, but the military is full of such situations given the mix of faiths that are present.
…
Counselors often find themselves dealing with situations where they would act differently. Still, one can always listen and give advice knowing it may or may not be heeded. That is about all one can do.

GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound; faculty member, University of North Texas Jewish Studies Program

It is well past time for this discriminatory aspect of our armed forces to disappear. Gay men serve effectively in other armed forces, such as the IDF. I know some personally.

As a police chaplain who has worked with people in crisis from diverse faiths, I don’t see how the inclusion of gay troops should present any additional difficulty that is not already faced by military chaplains who counsel soldiers, given that many soldiers engage in behaviors that a given chaplain may not morally approve of.

Lots of soldiers, for example, drink alcohol socially. Are the current hard-shell Baptist and Muslim chaplains simply unable to counsel such troops without getting entangled in arguments about liquor?

WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and Professor of American Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University

Anyone who serves as a military chaplain chooses that career path in ministry. No chaplains today are drafted. Therefore, every chaplain knows that proclaiming the faith and providing pastoral care must be professionally done without insisting that one’s own personal or denominational preferences will prevail.

It would be outside the role of chaplains, in a military that allows gay and lesbian personnel to serve, for the chaplain to condemn or deplore the orientation of a uniformed person’s sexuality. If a chaplain finds someone’s sexual orientation to be offensive or unacceptable theologically, the chaplain must arrange for a less offended colleague to offer ministerial care. Or the offended chaplain must consider finding another venue for exercising her or his call to ministry.

Ya know, if the Texas Baptists really aren’t seeing this as a hardship for chaplains, well then I really don’t think that religious liberty is at stake.

The White House IS Showing Leadership on DADT Repeal

It’s just not the leadership we expected to see two years ago. Consider the evidence as The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld reviews Reid’s announcement of the Senate’s floor schedule:

Oh yeah, that.

The near-final nail in the coffin was delivered by Senate majority leader Harry Reid over the weekend when he announced the floor schedule for the week of December 6: nothing Monday, on Tuesday/Wednesday an impeachment trial of a federal judge from Louisiana, with the first votes of the week likely to come on Thursday.

Once the impeachment is a wrap, Reid noted that left “a pretty clear path” to what else needed to be addressed – tax cuts, a Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded, and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty plus votes on some other extraneous bills, one of which included the DREAM Act. …

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin — perhaps slightly dismayed at no mention of the National Defense Authorization Act — prodded Reid to “say something about the Defense bill.”

Oh yeah … that. “We’re also trying to figure out a time to move forward on the defense authorization bill,” Reid added, along with offering some minutiae about process and time being too scarce to debate the bill without putting limitations on the number of amendments and length of debate.

In other words, it’s not on Reid’s radar. Especially now that  he can’t milk it for the midterm elections.

Kerry also notes that DADT repeal hasn’t made the White House’s list of “must-haves” for the lame duck session. In fact, the White House’s list just happens to match Reid’s list to a tee. It’s also not among the White House’s talking points, nor does Press Secretary Robert Gibbs mention it unless asked directly — usually by Eleveld.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates can read the tea leaves as well as anyone. While he has supported DADT’s repeal from the very beginning, he told sailors aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea today, “I’d have to say I’m not particularly optimistic that they’re going to get this done.”

There’s a lot of talk that the demise of DADT repeal reflects Obama’s lack of leadership on this issue, but I disagree. I think it’s time we recognized that the White House HAS been showing leadership on DADT. It’s just not the kind of leadership we expected when he said its repeal would a a priority for him. Examples of Obama’s leadership include:

• Setting the contentious midterm year of 2010 as the year for repeal.
• Agreeing to a timetable that called for the Pentagon to study repeal but not complete its work or release its report until December — with just one month left before the 111th Congress expires.
• Actively discouraging any attempt to repeal DADT before the Pentagon releases its report.
• Refusing to lobby Capital Hill for DADT’s repeal.
• Opposing DADT’s demise through the courts by appealing the decision striking down DADT as unconstitutional.

Just as Harry Reid got exactly what he wanted when he deliberately set DADT repeal up for failure last September, we would have to be the world’s greatest fools not to conclude that Obama has gotten exactly what he wanted in this entire debacle as well. The entire strategy was laid out too deliberately to conclude otherwise. How this consciously engineered fiasco is supposed to serve him, I haven’t the foggiest clue. But then, I’m not the one make the political calculations here. All I can do is look at the evidence that is right in front of my nose. And it reeks.

And by the way, the HRC’s political calculator is worse than the President’s. Remember when Joe Solmonese was so confident in Obama’s plan? Good times.

The VERY stupidist chaplain excuse for opposing DADT repeal

Anti-gay chaplains in the military are all in a dither about whether they will be able to continue to preach their objections to homosexuality if gay soldiers are allowed to serve their country. Rev. Douglas E. Lee, a retired Presbyterian* Air Force chaplain and brigadier general who now counsels and credentials chaplains, had this to say: (WaPo)

“There’s a strong possibility that a chaplain wouldn’t be allowed to proclaim what their own faith believes, and not give people the information they need to be a good Christian or a good Muslim or what have you,” he said. “If there’s no protection for the chaplain to be able to speak according to his faith group, that might affect the number of chaplains we recruit or our ability to do our duty for the troops.”

Seriously, Rev. Lee? You really are worried about not being able to tell a Muslim that homosexuality is a sin, but you have no concerns about “your own faith believes” about Islam? Really? You can bring yourself to give theological advice to a Muslim without having to agree on salvation or the deity of Christ, but can’t find a way to allow for a United Church of Christ member or even a fellow Presbyterian who is gay?

Frankly, Reverend, either you are a liar, a bigot, or an idiot.

*(anti-gay PCA, not pro-gay PCUSA)

DADT round-up

Yesterday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense testified before Congress in favor of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Today the Service Chiefs testified with mixed messages.

Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos said that he didn’t want repeal “at this time.” I think it’s pretty clear is that Gen. Amos doesn’t want repeal at any time under any circumstances due to his own personal prejudices.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. believes that DADT should be repealed eventually but not right now.

Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz thinks that the repeal should occur, but that the report is too optimistic. He recommended repeal, but that the change not take effect before 2012.

Only Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead supported the immediate repeal of the policy (LA Times)

Navy sailors routinely train and work in close quarters alongside the service members of allied navies that allow homosexuals to serve openly, said Roughead. After studying the integration of gay sailors into other navies over the past decade, Roughead described the impact on the effectiveness of the force as a “non-event.”

John McCain, of course, will not be listening to the Navy Chief. Rather, he has been obsessing over the subset of the Marines who oppose repeal. Do you get the impression that if the typists in the stenopool were the only servicepeople who opposed repealing the policy, that McCain would declare them to be the most essential part of the Military operation?

Meanwhile, everything is being held up by the Republican Senators’ cohesive effort to force a vote to extend current tax rates. (And no, this is not a tactic that was created to block DADT.) It is difficult to know whether this block will hold together should a compromise plan be proposed (one that does not define a couple making $250,000 in Los Angeles as “millionaires and billionaires” but draws a higher threshold.)

Eventually, the Defense Appropriations bill will go before the Senate. And even in the new Senate, there may not be enough Republican votes to uphold a filibuster.

To date, at least two Republican Senators have pledged support (and more are likely): Susan Collins of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts:

“I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer,” said Mr. Brown, who is in the Massachusetts National Guard. “As a legislator, I have spent a significant amount of time on military issues. During my time of service, I have visited our injured troops at Walter Reed and have attended funerals of our fallen heroes. When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.”

Mr. Brown added, “I pledged to keep an open mind about the present policy on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the secretary’s recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed.”

Meanwhile a very influential voice on the right has joined in calling for an end to the ban.

It is time to recognize the desires of all people competent to serve in our Military and afford them the opportunity to contribute to this noble, often thankless, but very necessary profession.

Dr. Laura was immensely proud of her son’s service in the Marines Army and would often reference it on her show. This endorsement carries a great deal of weight with her listeners.

Although there are various sound-bites that supporters and opponents can latch onto from the past two days of testimony, there is one thing on which all of the Chiefs agree: that legislative repeal will be far less disruptive than a judicial decision ending the policy. And they have good reason to fear just such a decision.

The ONLY defense provided by the Department of Defense in Log Cabin v. the US was that Congress was going to repeal the policy and that they should be allowed to do so. Should Congress fail to take such action, then there is no argument whatsoever that the government has left to make in the appeal to Log Cabin’s victory.

And Log Cabin will not play nice with the administration. They will undoubtedly file with the appeals court that the appeal be tossed out and that, at the very least, the current hold on the injunction be lifted. The Department of Defense can hardly claim a likelihood of success in the courts if they have nothing at all on which to base their defense.

There is a very real possibility that if Congress declines to enact a plan to roll out a gradual repeal, the courts could end the policy immediately. And while McCain would rather play Curmudgeon in Chief, those who care about defense policy should carefully consider the consequences of inaction.

Republicans Unite To Doom DADT Repeal

That’s according to a letter signed by all 42 Senate Republicans to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Read:

…Republicans informed their Democratic counterparts they would not go forward with “any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.”

The letter goes on: “With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate’s attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.” 

Given the high political stakes behind the extension of the Bush’s budget busting tax cuts, it’s unlikely that the GOP-induced logjam will be broken anytime soon before time runs out. All of those GOP Senators who claimed they would vote to repeal DADT?  As far as I can see, it was nothing but vacuous political posturing. So what else is new?

Chaffetz reacts to DADT report

Utah representative Jason Chaffetz is one of my favorite legislators. Not because I ever agree with him, but because he’s such a loon that he makes for fun blogging.

Chaffetz is the buffoon who, upon the fifth state enacting civil marriage said, “The trend is still 45 states don’t.”

He’s the fumbling, bumbling fellow who was charged with making sure that the District of Columbia’s marriage law was blocked by Congress. Ah, Utah 3rd District, you surely must be proud.

And, consistent with his method of legislating, Chaffetz has now responded to the DADT report. Or, not exactly to the report…

Chaffetz, who has not yet read the study, said he is “still opposed to such a dramatic alteration in the midst of active war.”

Still opposed, based on, oh, nothing. There ya go, Chaffetz, that’s the ignorant lout with an uninformed opinion that we all know and love.

Will It Be the Senate Or the Courts? DADT Report Throws Down the Gauntlet

The Defense Department’s comprehensive review on implementing an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was released today, and its hard to imagine a more ringing endorsement for the policy’s demise. Timothy has already reviewed the report’s recommendations. Clearly the Defense of Marriage Act with its impact on important domestic arrangements remains the greatest single obstacle to achieving full equality for LGBT service members, as it is for the rest of society. But as for the repeal of DADT itself, here is the money quote you’ve all been waiting for (PDF: 8,847KB/267 pages):

Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.

But if anyone decides to forget to read the report (I’m looking at you, Sen. McCain), Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates backed up the report with a statement urging the Senate to repeal DADT this year. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the report’s findings and recommendations “solid, defensible conclusions.”

More significantly, I think, is this warning that Mullins directed toward the holdouts in the Senate:

Mullen added that the implementation of a repeal of the law would not be without its challenges, and that he supports the process taking place through the Congress instead of the court system. “We can best address those challenges by having it within our power and our prerogative to manage the implementation process ourselves,” he said.

This would suggest that the Pentagon sees DADT as indefensible in the courts, which presents a serious challenge to the Republican opposition in the Senate: Do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way?

Some of the report’s key findings include:

• 70% believe that having a gay service member in their unit will have a positive, mixed, or no effect on the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done.”
• 69% reported that they had worked with a service member who they believed to be gay. On that point, the report conceded that “The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today’s U.S. military, and most Service members recognize this.”
• Of them, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was either “very good,” “Good,” or “neither good nor poor.” On that point, the report concluded that “Both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when Service members had the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension.
• Of service members spouses, 74% said repeal would have no effect, while only 12% said “I would want my spouse to leave earlier.”

The report also found that when units in war zones were questioned about whether they thought lifting DADT would hurt unit cohesion, a higher percentage thought that it would, relative to units that were not in war zones. But the report made a key distinction between those predictions and the perceptions of those serving in war zones who had actually had the experience of serving known or suspected LGBT service members:

However, while a higher percentage of Service members in warfighting units predict negative effects of repeal, the percentage distinctions between warfighting units and the entire military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay. For example, when those in the overall military were asked about the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.” Meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.19 Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”

The report also contains a key history lesson, noting that the challenges in eliminating racial segregation in the armed forces in the midst of the cold war and rising tensions in the Korean peninsula were much, much greater.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before the country at large had done so. Our military then was many times larger than it is today, had just returned from World War II, and was in the midst of Cold War tensions and the Korean War. By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense: surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80–90%. Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion. But by 1953, 95% of all African-American soldiers were serving in racially integrated units, while public buses in Montgomery, Alabama and other cities were still racially segregated.

The report noted that the survey’s questionnaire was not intended to answer the question of whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed, but how. The report said that asking whether the policy should be repealed “would, in effect, have been a referendum, and it is not the Department of Defense’s practice to make military policy decisions by a referendum of Service members.”

As I said, it’s hard to imaging a more compelling case for DADT’s repeal if it had been written by Servicemembers United themselves. The Senate now has a stark choice: Either allow DADT to die an orderly death according to the Pentagon’s implementation plan, or risk throwing it open to the chaos of an immediate injunction from the courts. If they really were interested in combat readiness and unit cohesion, the answer should be obvious.