In a rational world, at any rate:
Okay, I’ve got some more detail for you on the findings in that forthcoming Pentagon report on the impact repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t tell will have on the military. The upshot: It will leave GOP moderates with no reasons left to oppose repeal.
One of the key findings in the report is that a whopping 74 percent of spouses of military service-members say repeal of DADT would have no impact on their view of whether their husbands or wives should continue to serve. This number comes by way of a Congressional staffer who attended a private briefing that the report’s authors, Defense Department officials Jeh Johnson and Carter Ham, gave to Senate Armed Services Committee staffers this morning.
This finding is important, because it undercuts a key argument made by repeal opponents: That having service-members mingle with gay colleagues could worry their families.
Also: The report will also undercut another key argument being made by repeal opponents: That opposition remains strong in the Marines. According to the source, while the report does find that concern runs high among Marines, it also finds that 84 percent of Marine combat corps combat arms units who said they thought they’d worked with homosexual service-members in the past found the experience either very good, good, or neutral.
The entire report is here (.pdf), and here is the endorsement from Mullens.
As I said, in a rational world, this would be the end of this ugly and discriminatory policy that makes no sense and demeans us as a nation while also limiting our military effectiveness. However, this is not a rational world, and we have a bunch of elected neanderthals who would rather be seen as bigots than do anything that could be perceived as a victory for the opposition party. So, basically, your guess is as good as mine if this will finally be repealed.
me
Emperor for Life McCain says no.
Three-nineteen
In a rational world, the argument “wives will be upset if their husbands serve with gay guys” would not even have been thought up.
cleek
maybe Obama could offer to put this off for a year or so, in a show of good faith to the incoming GOP House.
i joke, i joke.
steviez314
I wonder when Meet the Press will have
Lester MaddoxGeorge WallaceJohn McCain on again.Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
So if DADT is repealed is that a victory or not?
Cuz every time obama does something, bloggies run to the keyboard to say some version of “big deal” or “weak tea”.
cleek
Sean broke the blog!
Kryptik
In a rational world, yes.
But in this irrational world, it’s probably the death knell for the repeal effort for a few more years. Because we have way too many fucking assholes in charge who thrive on unprincipled contrarianism and/or chronic ‘bipartisanship’.
ruemara
It should be, it can be, but I think the focus will be “why hasn’t Obama done __X__” instead of, “who’s the fucking Senatorial Asshat blocking this and how can we make his life miserable until he votes yes”. I’d cash in some quarters for $5 to that Move On ad.
kth
I live in a town with a large military presence, and I’m just wondering if the spouses were able to keep a straight face when asked if they were afraid that their husbands/wives would be “moed” by glbt service people.
E.g. “you know that my man gets shot at, right?”
Sean
@cleek: The story of my life.
S
Blue Neponset
@Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century): Of course it would be a victory if DADT were to be repealed. Just as it will be a GIGANTIC FAILURE if DADT isn’t repealed.
Zam
@ruemara: Yea, the repub line will be “Obama has too many other important things to deal with so we will waste everyone’s time blocking this bill.”
Legalize
Seriously.
But what about the neighbors of service-members? Or their mail carriers? Huh?! What about them?! I demand a study!
Elizabelle
I wish Lindsey Graham would support an up or down vote.
Graham serves in the Air Force Reserve and is uniquely qualified to say “let’s listen to the troops themselves and military leadership.”
Won’t happen, but that would be some political courage.
Man is going to get primaried anyway, and he knows it.
Because it’s only politics holding DADT hostage.
There is more public support for ending DADT than there is for immigration reform (in terms of what, precisely, one enacts in order to reform the system — no consensus at all yet on immigration or even serious discussion).
Jody
“GOP moderates”?
…WHAT GOP moderates???
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
Perhaps obama should employ reverse psychology. He should support the extension of DADT, which will cause the wingnuts to repeal DADT in order to spite obama.
Elizabelle
PS: I know you will snicker at the Graham suggestion for other reasons, but I always love a surprise. You see political courage sometimes in the strangest contexts.
Paris
but, but , but Lindsey Graham says they asked the wrong question so the report doesn’t count (in his gayest closeted voice).
Mike from Philly
Would this make even one liberal happy? Then rest assured it will never happen.
Matt
Nice. I can’t wait for the furor within the GOP when they have to defend the concept of allowing LGBT service members risk their lives for our freedoms while being denied those same freedoms (marriage).
azlib
DADT is all a part of the Republican plan to not give Obama any victories at all. McCain as usual keeps moving the goalposts on this one. It is clear he simply thinks gays serving openly in the military is icky or something and will never vote for repeal.
Mike in NC
@Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):
How will the wingnuts react if he proposes repealing DADT only for those service members who make over $250K a year?
Michael D.
The argument will NOW become:
“Do you REALLY want to lose 16 percent of our Marines?”
Wait for it.
celticdragonchick
@Matt:
They will have no problem with it. Most of them will still say teh homos are butt raping straight soldiers in their sleep anyway.
Brachiator
In an ideal world, the Democrats would have a bill ready to be introduced right now, to put this issue finally to bed. And demand action and an up or down vote.
Short of that, they should stick it to the Republicans, to the Tea Party, to Sarah Palin, and to any other opposition. “Here’s the report. Gays in the military is not an issue for anyone except the socially backwards. Let’s move on.”
And we’ve got Hanukkah and the Christmas holidays coming up and any other number of official and unofficial family festivals. Light up the dinner conversation with a lively debate about DADT, start some fights, send people home crying.
OK, maybe not the crying.
El Cid
But… but… what of all those mass naked showers that plague Republican minds, all those hot steaming bodies together that represent such temptation, such sweet, sweet irresistible temptation…
Kryptik
@Michael D.:
Isn’t that basically Tony Perkins’ argument, down to the T? We lose these guys, we have to make a draft, because Real ‘Merkins don’t like to serve with ‘teh gays’?
Joseph Nobles
Reposting from last thread:
Buck McKeon (new Armed Services chair) and Joe “You Lie” Wilson (new Military Personnel sub chair) just effing announced that they plan to hold effing oversight hearings on how the effing DADT repeal survey was conducted as part of their effing due diligence effort to effing “understand the” effing “ramifications of overturning the” effing “law.”
Eff them.
celticdragonchick
@El Cid:
They are busy having something “shoved down their throats…”.
Comrade Dread
Yes, but what about those who’ve never served, have no plan of serving, but who daydream of themselves as 40 lbs lighter and more in shape fighting back the Islamic hordes storming the beaches of America with burqas for all, who would now refuse to join their fantasy army because the idea that the guy next to them might be teh gay makes them feel funny in an uncomfortable sort of way?
Think of all the quality chairborne commandos we’ll be missing out on.
Turgidson
I don’t see how this study refutes the “BECAUSE SHUT UP THAT’S WHY” rationale for continuing DADT.
And as we know, that’s the argument that usually wins the day in our political system.
joe from Lowell
Let’s remember the legislative vehicle here: DADT repeal is buried with the Defense Authorization bill – the one that hands out all the money all over the country. The one that supports da troops.
Scott Brown (R-Raytheon) and Senators Snowe and Collins (R-Bath Iron Works) are all on record in favor of repeal, along with large majorities of their constituents, and would have to vote to filibuster money for their home-state defense contractors in order to for this not to pass.
I don’t think they’re going to do that. I think they’re going to pass the bill.
celticdragonchick
@Joseph Nobles:
I am considering finding where Joe “Sons of the Confederacy” fucking Wilson’s office is in SC and giving it a nice new coat of pink paint with pretty sparkles mixed in.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
I’m not betting on it, but it wiould make a nice surprise.
soonergrunt
It’s effectively over. McCain and a few others will try to fight a holding action, but this thing is done.
The smartest, best way to do this will be to get as many senate co-sponsors as possible lined up on both sides of the aisle. This means of course, that they won’t do it that way, and it will take another year or two.
Kryptik
@soonergrunt:
I believe the repeal is inevitable, but what happens now is probably the difference between the repeal happening now, or a decade down the line at minimum. And as broken as things fucking are right now, I’m putting safe money on ‘decade from now’, because the country refuses to back Dems on issues even they agree with, simply because a Dem likes it.
Citizen Alan
I would give anything to be able to ask John McCain the following point-blank question (not even snarkily; I really want to know what his answer would be):
At your age, most politicians start thinking about their legacy. Given the fact that DADT will almost certainly be repealed and even gay marriage legalized relatively soon (and probably within your lifetime if not before the end of your Senate career), does it bother you at all to think that future generations will look at you the way we look at George Wallace? As a bigot who preyed upon the prejudices of his constituents to score a few cheap political advantages?
kay
I just think it’s a fundamental mistake to look at negotiations with the Senate on each issue in isolation. I don’t know why it would work that way, and I think looking at it like that probably leads to a lot of frustration and misunderstanding.
Obama wants some things (DADT repeal, START, are two that come to mind), and the GOP are going to extract concessions on some other issues in return for their votes on whatever his priorities are.
I would just suggest that maybe looking at this with a little broader frame than “we’re winning on DADT repeal, but we’re losing on taxes!” might make more sense, and be closer to what’s actually going on.
MTiffany
Until we actually start calling these people bigots, that remains to be seen…
Anyone else notice the lack of the ‘b’ word being used in the MSM these days, especially when it fits?
Oscar Leroy
Yup.
canuckistani
Someone remind me what the Marines actually do that the Army couldn’t do.
El Cruzado
@steviez314: I thought he was the regular host.
Oscar Leroy
@joe from Lowell:
Or, they could easily strip repeal from the authorization.
@Matt:
Within the GOP? Are there really enough prominent figures within the GOP who, by going out on a limb to defend gay rights, would cause a furor? Besides, it’s a GOP group–the Log Cabin Republicans–that has scored the biggest victory in gay rights this year.
Martin
@cleek:
Just out of curiosity (and not directed at you), why does Obama still garner criticism that the Senate has not approved this, and who do not report to the WH, but that Gates came out so strongly for repeal, twice in fact – effectively ordering Congress to do it – and who does report to the WH.
I’m at a bit of a loss why Gates’ words are not interpreted as Obama’s words, which is a reasonable conclusion to draw. You know that Obama had to sign off on the report and on Gates statement.
Stefan
Someone remind me what the Marines actually do that the Army couldn’t do.
An Army friend of my Dad’s who served in Vietnam once referred to the Marines as “the most efficient machine for getting young Americans killed that’s ever been devised.”
Dave S.
@Michael D.: No doubt about it. Also too:
1) If 74% said no problem, 26% said yes problem; it’s gotta be 100% or nothing!
2) The report says there would be little risk in repealing DADT, but that means there is still a risk! A Risk! Risk being the level at which these people approach foreign policy.
Earl Butz
Just had the dubious privilege of hearing some gasbag from the “Center for Military Readiness” get granted a minute of precious public airwave time to indulge in the biggest orgy of butthurt I’ve heard on the radio in a long, long time.
She finished up by insisting that Mullens was the commander-in-chief, not Obama, saying the use of the term for the president was “purely ceremonial”.
Good times we’re living in, folks.
Earl Butz
@canuckistani: Combat.
The Army hasn’t fought in offensive combat operations since Vietnam, and really is not trained to these days.
cyntax
@Earl Butz:
Hmmm… you’re using a definition of combat I’m not familiar with. Or at least not from my times in combat in the Army.
celticdragonchick
@Earl Butz:
What the fuck are you smoking?
Martin
@Oscar Leroy:
Wait, what?
There was no victory there. It’s a decision tied up in courts with no real impact on anyone yet – no different than Prop 8. And regardless of who brought the suit (as it’s very far from the first one brought over the issue of DADT) it was the action of the court or at the very least of the legal council, not of the Log Cabin Republicans. Nobody gives Oliver Brown credit for a civil rights victory. That credit has always gone to the court or at least to the team that argued the case.
You’re working awfully hard to give credit to a group that has done fuck-all to actually enact a change here. How many Republican Senators did the Log Cabin Republicans net on that DADT vote? That’s where they have direct influence – within the caucus – and they got zero votes. Fuck, anyone can bring a lawsuit…
Pococurante
I guess the Marines could bunk the gay guys with straight gals, gay gals with straight guys – all would be hunky dory. AMIRITE?
More seriously, I haven’t noticed my male Marine buds were all that impressed with women either. But then the guys I know were mostly “serve your country or serve your time – choose one” types.
It’s a done deal. The folks who serve will fall in line to continuing serving with honor. There will be tragic incidents. But then there are already tragic incidents. We’re just adding another, err, flavor.
celticdragonchick
@Kryptik:
I’m in the pool for 15 years from now if it fails this December.
No Dem will want to touch it with a ten meter pole, and even 15 years from now there will still be a gazillion socons who hate gehz.
Martin
@celticdragonchick: Yeah, that might be the craziest thing I’ve ever read here.
Weren’t Army Special Forces the first on the ground (other than the CIA folks) in both Afghanistan and Iraq?
Brachiator
@Earl Butz:
WTF? Seriously, WTF? I mean, W.T.F.?
What next, that the use of the term “president” for Obama is “purely ceremonial?”
These are some seriously deluded fools, making up reality as they go along.
Martin
@celticdragonchick: I think it depends on how it’s handled. If its an EO or a court decision, then yeah, you won’t see a legislative resolution until such a time as it seems absurd that the law is still on the books – kind of like NC or SC finally getting around to eliminating their miscegenation laws after 30 years.
Barring those outcomes, then Dems will stay on the issue because they have nothing to hide behind. An EO is the worst possible outcome IMO, because while it’s immediate, it’s also potentially temporary and Congress is by it’s nature a bunch of chickenshits that don’t do things unless they’re forced to. And the EO gives them cover so they’d just drop the issue.
A court decision is better, but it potentially leads to the Roe v Wade scenario where something lives in legislative limbo to be fought over for all time. A court resolution without a legislative one (though perfectly legitimate) feels involuntary and gives everyone license to keep refighting the issue. And again, it allows Congress to hide behind the result – though I think it’s a bit less likely to happen in the case of DADT.
DADT just doesn’t seem to have the kind of culture war legs that even DOMA would have. The public really isn’t split on the issue at all. They’re overwhelmingly in favor of repeal for DADT, where RvW and DOMA has remained fairly balanced.
DOMA is the much, much harder fight. DADT repeal is inevitable, IMO. Even if it fails to be repealed this Congress, it’ll come up constantly in the next (barring EO or court decision).
Tsulagi
That’s funny. Actually I hadn’t heard that one before from the nutters.
So they were arguing wives were worried their husband Sam would irresistibly go ass up in the presence of Ted with his well-trimmed eyebrows? There would be nothing he could do to prevent it? Talk about projection.
Maybe that was the outcome every time they ran the scenario in their sandbox think tank with nutters gleefully roleplaying. So as with the unpossibleness of a tracked vehicle running over a dog, it must be true.
themann1086
@Brachiator: Erm, you do know that the Dems do, in fact, have a bill with DADT repeal? It’s even passed the House, just waiting on the Senate (again).
Anyway, just started reading it now. This is a deathblow for sure; hopefully an immediate one and not a “15 years from now”, which is what will happen if we don’t finish this now. Which vulnerable GOP Senators are up for reelection in 2012? Here’s some free ad advice:
*color shots of happy military families, soft music*
VO: “Our military stands up for our freedom both at home and abroad”
*dark cord, cut to b&w shot of Senator Asshat*
VO: “But when our military wanted Congress to repeal an unAmerican policy it was forced to follow, Senator Asshat said “NO”; Asshat even refused to allow debate! What does Senator Asshat have against our military men and women?”
*close with “paid for and authorized etc etc”*
Could be worded better but that’s off the top of my head.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
This is what it feels like to be a
liberalAmerican – 75% support of an issue in most groups surveyed, and we’re still wondering how long it will take to get it to go away, or if it will go away at all thanks to the broken system.Suck It Up!
@Martin:
When members of Obama’s admin says something that liberals agree with, it is never attributed to Obama. I’ve noticed that a long time ago.
Brachiator
@themann1086:
Still works. Tea Party People and Regular Republicans goofballs have made a big deal about trying to prevent that sneaky guy Obama and the Democrats from trying to sneak up on them with laws and stuff. So, “here, the bill is already out there, you should already have read it, you can read it right freaking now, debate it, vote it, done.”
Sounds good.
lol
As a compromise, why don’t we give gays their own units?
Gayborne Rangers
Mary Corps Recon
Bear Force Special Operations Command
and, of course
The Navy
themann1086
@Brachiator: I’m thinking that’s an ad for VoteVets to run; they’re good with that.
celticdragonchick
@Martin:
Yep. Army combat units fought like hell in Fallujah and all over Iraq the past 8 years. Don’t get me started about Army units fighting in Iraq in the first Gulf War…
joe from Lowell
@Oscar Leroy:
No, they couldn’t. They don’t have anywhere near the votes. It would take a floor amendment, which could be filibustered. Not easily, not at all.
What they could do is not pass the bill, and then have to start over writing it in the next Congress, which takes months, and includes all of the goodies different senators got included this time maybe not making it in next time. That’s a pretty long shot.
That’s not even remotely close to true. This year, the administration extended federal benefits to the spouses of gay federal workers, lifted the HIV entry ban, and banned discrimination in housing that receives federal funds.
The Log Cabin Republicans have a single case still tied up in the courts.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
Wait, what? DADT repeal has something like 70% approval among the public.
Supporting that position is most certainly not sticking out your neck politically.
RalfW
Johnathan Capehart at WaPo today:
A number of BJ commenters are saying it may be years before Congress repeals DADT, I saw 15 as one bet.
But cases will keep coming. And I may be wrong, I’m not a lawyer, but I’d suspect that this here report will factor in any lawsuits not yet heard at trial.
Its over, DADT will go down. Maybe this month, maybe with a solid court case in 18 months, but I sure wouldn’t bet on 15 years.