Nathaniel Frank of the Palm Center on today's DADT news

Nathaniel Frank, the Palm Center:

At the end of the day, there remain major problems with the Obama Rule, mainly that "don't ask, don't tell" still exists, something which President Obama could work harder to change by putting repeal into the Defense Authorization Bill. Meanwhile, service members are still at risk of being fired every day for something that has nothing to do with military capability. Even in the new regs, much of the old language of "propensities" and "fact-finding inquires" that stinks of 17th-century Salem, and that has made this policy so odious and so impossible to enforce consistently, still exists, and so there will still be problems as a result.

Maddeningly, as admirable as Secretary Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen have been in showing leadership on this front, they are sending highly mixed messages that will end up making the job of repeal harder when it inevitably comes: they continue to say every chance they get that the repeal process could be dangerous and complicated, and must go slowly, even though research consistently says the opposite: that this kind of transition is best done quickly to avoid confusion and obstruction. Gates said today that moving swiftly to implement repeal "is very risky" and Mullen agreed, saying it could "generate a very bad outcome."

Besides the operational problems these comments will create in a self-fulfilling prophecy (when leaders say a transition will be tough, that makes it tougher), they are politically toxic. Surely conservatives in Congress will find that even the current year-long study period is too quick. For them, another two centuries would be a more appropriate time line, and they will continue to say, even at the end of this year, that change must be "cautious and deliberate," Washington-speak for "never." This is why the mandate of the study group is flawed: while Gates says the group is studying how, not whether, to lift the ban, it is Congress that will ultimately decide whether to repeal the ban; and the more military leaders, with the President's blessing, speak of the danger and risk of repeal (despite evidence that both are negligible), the less likely it is that sufficient votes will emerge in Congress to actually carry out the military's recommendation to end the ban.

Read More...

As for that DADT study, it's about how the law will be repealed, not whether it will end

There was one positive development in the Q & A with Secretary Gates today. Kerry Eleveld posed a question about the confusion over the purpose of the Pentagon's DADT study, asking whether it was a study of "how" the law will be repealed or "whether" it will be repealed. For the past few weeks, Republicans on the Hill have tried to portray the study as an examination of whether the law will be repealed. That's become problematic. Today, Gates was pretty clear that it's a study about how the law will end:

This begs the question of when the law will be repealed. Unfortunately, the study has been used as a delaying tactic. Gates confirmed today when he said he wants this study finished before Congress acts. That could bring us into next year. And, that is not what the President promised in his State of the Union. Delay does not work to our advantage. The law could be repealed pending completion of the study, an idea proposed by Servicemembers United ("Set End-date / Delayed Implementation"). There are ways to make this work for everyone, but no one at the White House seems interested in making it happen. Read More...

HRC's Joe Solmonese praises Sec. Gates for saying no to DADT repeal this year

On the heels of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saying this morning, categorically, that he does not want Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed this year, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign praised Gates' comments, suggesting that they were a "positive step toward repeal this year."

What HRC was referring to, of course, was Gates's proposal for a "more humane" policy of bigotry against gay and lesbian soldiers. HRC chose to ignore the fact that the Secretary of Defense, as of this morning, is now on the record against repeal this year.

Of course, HRC won't criticize Gates because the dirty little secret is that President Obama signed off on Gates' anti-DADT statement this morning. The Secretary of Defense works for the President, and you'd better believe that the Secretary did not blindside the President this morning with his announcement that DADT should not be repealed this year. We all know that HRC won't criticize President Obama, regardless of how many promises the President breaks to our community. HRC has become an organ of the Democratic party, they don't work for you and me, they work for Jim Messina at the White House (and he, most assuredly, does not work for our community). Like FOX News, HRC's allegiance to party comes above all else. And it's terribly sad when the party has no interest in following through on its top three promises to our community, DADT, DOMA and ENDA. I say this as someone who has defended HRC for years. That defense is no longer defensible. Nor are any further donations to the Human Rights Campaign. What is the point? So they can spin on behalf of the President, covering his behind while he makes it harder and harder for us to ever achieve our civil rights?

It's Day 10 since Barney Frank called on the White House to publicly say whether or not they want to see DADT repealed this year. The White House has still refused to reply to Barney. Ten days of the President of the United States, who we all voted for, dissing the most senior member of the gay delegation in Congress, and through him, dissing every single one of you.

Make no mistake. Unless Joe Solmonese finds some balls soon, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal is not happening this year. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but when the Secretary of Defense says no, and the President of the United States is either too scared to defend his own campaign promise, or worse, complicit in undercutting our civil rights, very few members of Congress are going to disagree.

One more point. Let these posts from Joe Sudbay and me be a clear marker. Joe Solmonese and the White House have been warned repeatedly that the Democrats are expecting an electoral bloodbath in the November congressional elections, including the distinct possibility that the Republicans will take over the US House. If HRC and the White House think it's hard to get the votes to repeal DADT now, just wait until after the November elections. Not. Gonna. Happen. Even HRC's Solmonese admitted the other day that the elections were a problem, and that for that reason DADT repeal had to happen this year. And remember, last time we lost the Congress it took 14 years to get it back. DADT repeal in 2024! (Then we can get to ENDA and DOMA after that.) So why is HRC praising the Secretary of Defense for telling us that the repeal of DADT won't happen for years to come? Next year at this time, when HRC and the White House gives us some sad song about how, because of the 2010 congressional elections, we just don't have the votes to repeal DADT, don't let them get away with "gosh, no one could have ever predicted that 2010 was our last chance to repeal DADT." They knew, and they did nothing.

HRC is accountable to no one but their big donors and their board of directors. Perhaps it's time we had a very public chat with both of those groups. It's time to start naming names of those responsible for selling out our civil rights in the name of a cocktail party and a White House tour. Until they fear us, they will not respect us.

UPDATE: I just got a note from someone at HRC, complaining that I failed to note this one single sentence in Solmonese's post. So here goes (I'll even quote 2):

The Administration has reconfirmed its position in favor of ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - through these regulations, through the nation's military leadership, and through our President. With health insurance reform signed into law, now is the time for more visible and aggressive leadership from the White House to push for a vote on repeal this year.

That is the blindingly critical statement about the President that HRC slipped into Joe's post. The problem is that HRC is playing a game far too subtle for the current crisis. Slipping in one sentence suggesting that the White House do more, couched amid all the praise, is not going to cut it. Hell, I didn't even notice that sentence the first several times I read the post. It's a throw away line that HRC can point to and say "see, we're so critical of the President," when in fact, they're not.

Do an entire press release devoted to the White House's need to step up their game, and then we'll talk. Read More...

Video: Gates doesn't want legislative action on DADT this year

The reporter is Chris Johnson from DC Agenda:

This is a real problem. The study won't be completed until the end of the year. If Gates is saying this to members of Congress, we've got a problem. But, it's not new. Despite President Obama's State of the Union vow to repeal the law this year, his press secretary Robert Gibbs would not echo that commitment on February 22nd:

From Kerry Eleveld we learn that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs refused to commit to passing the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell this year, and he isn't very worried about Democrats losing the House or Senate this fall. Then again, the White House wasn't very worried about Martha Coakley losing in Massachusetts until the last several days before the election.

This is the question Kerry asked: Here's Kerry's question:

Senator Lieberman is planning to introduce a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal bill next week. Would the president like to see Congress pass repeal this year?

The answer should have been yes. But, on DADT, we never seem to get the answers we want. Read More...

Gates: 'I do not recommend a change in the law before we have completed our study.'

At the DADT press conference, Chris Johnson from DC Agenda asked if Gates supported a legislative change in the law before the Pentagon completes its study.

Gates:

I do not recommend a change in the law before we have completed our study. There is a great deal we don't know about this...in terms of the views of our servicemembers, in terms of the views of their families and influencers....there are a lot of unanswered questions...

Gates thinks the President is very comfortable with this process. The problem is that we may not have the votes to do this next year. Our opportunities diminish if Democrats lose seats in November.

(I'll have video shortly..it's still processing.)

Later, in response to a question from Kerry Eleveld as to whether the study is looking at whether to implement repeal or how to implement it, Gates did say "the study is about how you would implement it...the study is not about should we do it. The study is about how would we do it." That's helpful because GOPers on the Hill have spun this study into a "whether" DADT should be repealed, which is not the case. Read More...

Gates announces new 'more humane' DADT policy

Quick synoposis at 9:36 a.m.: Gates said he has approved changes to the implementation of the law. They've been approved unanimously by the Joint Chiefs. They reflect the insights gained over 17 years of implementing the law. He raised the level of the personnel who can be involved in different steps in the process. He also placed limits on third party accusations. And, he made certain evidence off-limits (conveyed to lawyer, clergy or therapist.)

These new regulations take effect immediately. All separations from this point forward will take place under the revised regulations, including cases under consideration.
___________________________________

The Secretary of Defense is announcing the new policy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell at 9:30 AM. His briefing will be covered live on C-SPAN3. I'll be watching and reporting on his announcement.

In its promo piece on Gates announcement, CNN is calling this a "policy tweak." We were promised more than a tweak, we were promised repeal.

Also, the Associated Press, which has consistently gotten DADT-related leaks from the Penatagon, has this up at 3:09 AM:

Guidelines to be announced Thursday call for testimony from third parties to be given under oath. The discharge of enlisted personnel must be approved by officers who hold a rank equivalent to a one-star general or above, according to military and defense officials familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement.

The goal is to ensure that the law is applied fairly and consistently across the military and that flimsy testimony from third parties is eliminated, the officials said. The plan is considered a stopgap measure until Congress decides whether to repeal the 1993 law.

Bottom line is that the law will still be applied, even under these "more humane" procedures. Read More...

Senate defeats anti-marriage amendment offered by Utah's Bennett

Tuesday afternoon, John reported that Senator Robert Bennett had offered an anti-gay amendment to the reconciliation bill currently being debated in the Senate:

One of the Mormon Republican Senators is offering an amendment to the health care reconciliation fix in order to kill marriage equality in DC.

Early this morning, Bennett's amendment was defeated by a vote of 36 - 59. The roll call is here. All the Democrat who were present voted No. (Byrd and Lautenberg were absent.) But, there were two GOP defections to our side: The Republican Senators from Maine, Collins and Snowe, also voted No.

On the Senate floor, according to the Senate transcript, Bennett said his amendment (the transcript came in caps):"THIS BILL DOES NOT TAKE ANY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO GAY MARRIAGE, SIMPLY ALLOWS THE DISTRICT TO HOLD A REFERENDUM." Well then, what a coincidence that it's the exact position of the National Organization for Marriage and Bishop Harry Jackson, the leading opponents of marriage in DC.

But, Bennett, NOM and Jackson all lost this morning in the Senate. I have a feeling they'll be back. Read More...