In Albany, hey, you never know

by: Adam Bink

Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 15:00

I've been thinking, too, about strides backwards. I would count losing control of the Minnesota legislature to anti-equality Republicans while electing (narrowly) Mark Dayton as governor. We had a real shot at making Minnesota one of the next states to move on this issue.

The one that comes up the most, and the one I want to write about, is the New York State Senate. I had worked on the fight to pass a marriage bill through the State Senate in December 2009, a fight we lost for a variety of reasons. I'd count losing Democratic, pro-equality control of the New York State Senate this year as a step backward. But as I engage in conversations with colleagues in our movement, as well as friends loosely observing the process, I've noticed a resignation that marriage is off the table for the next two years.

Boy, has that death been exaggerated.

Some simple reasons why:

• Despite losing three Democratic incumbents who voted for the marriage bill, we actually knocked off several incumbents who voted against it through a combination of winning primaries, open seats and close general elections. All told, five new pro-equality members (all Democrats), who either have voted for the bill while in the Assembly or stated they will support it during the campaign, will enter the chamber. Which means a net pick up of two, bringing the number of publicly pro-equality members from 24 to 26 (it takes 32 to pass a bill). We'll need to  hold a few of them to their words, but it was a small, positive step forward.

• Winning 6 more is a tough slog, but it ain't unheard of. It's no secret there are a few Republicans and at least on Democrat who privately pledged to support the bill if it got the requisite number to pass, some of whom are still in the chamber. And as time has shown, some people just come around naturally on their own. The campaign to persuade these members to come out publicly begins now, but we're not talking about changing the minds of six people- we're talking about changing the minds of a few, and instilling some courage in others. Again, that ain't easy in politics, but it isn't impossible.

• It also helps that our community, through the work of community activists, HRC, Fight Back NY and Empire State Pride Agenda, targeted several folks who voted against the marriage bill for defeat and made headlines. Our efforts definitely weren't the turning point in a race like Monserrate's (best known for slashing his girlfriend's face), who was already on his way out, but in a place like my home turf of Buffalo, where Tim Kennedy was elected in a tough race over Assemblyman Jack Quinn III, the money and mobilization made a difference.

• I don't buy the "Republicans now control the chamber, all is lost" argument. After the 2006 election, Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer faced a Republican State Senate with 34 Republican-held seats and 28 Democratic-held seats (32 are needed for majority control). In January, just around the time he took office, he got Republican State  Senator Michael Balboni from Nassau County to take a position as Deputy Secretary for Public Safety in his administration, then campaigned hard for the Democrat running to replace him, Nassau County legislator Craig Johnson. Johnson won. Now there were 29 Democratic-held seats. Later that year, Republican State Senator Jim Wright from the North County region of the state decided to resign to become a lobbyist. A special election was held in February 2008, which Democratic Assemblyman Darrel Aubertine won. 30 Democratic seats, and the Republicans started to sweat over their majority. Sure, Aubertine ended up voting against the marriage bill (and lost his seat last month), but the point is that Democrats came very close to obtaining a majority and therefore control over the agenda.

• Another case in point: last year, the infamous "coup", in which four Democrats decided to switch parties in exchange for more power under Republican leadership- and ended up shutting down the chamber as the battle raged in court for over a month- nearly handed over control of a 32-30 Democratic State Senate to the Republicans.

• Republican State Senator Thomas Morahan from Rockland County died of leukemia on July 12, 2010, during a chamber that was closely divided, 32-30. Had he been a Democrat and a quick special election occurred that ended up with a Republican being elected, it might have thrown control of the chamber back into question.

The battle is joined in the war on anti-LGBT media

by: Adam Bink

Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 09:00

The even better news is that my colleague Kerry Eleveld, the Washington and White House correspondent at The Advocate is going to join them and run the new website, http://equalitymatters.org. It's always a good thing when someone who has been on the inside of the press and journalism world can hop over to the direct advocacy side of the fence we're on, and there are few people I'd like to do it more than Kerry. She's fantastic. I once asked Kerry a simple question on how to get traditional media to use the term "same-sex marriage" or "marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage", and she gave me a 20-minute answer on the obstacles from the journalist's and editor's point of view that I found incredibly enlightening. She gets this world very much.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg at the NYTimes has a longer piece on the new group's formation.

Victory! Senate defeats filibuster on repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

by: Adam Bink

Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 15:30

The Senate will now proceed to 30 hours' post-cloture legislative consideration, which unless it is waived by Senators, will take us into Sunday. At that point, a simple up or down majority vote will send repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute to the President's desk.

The biggest hurdle next is making sure President Obama and his administration, once the President signs the bill, move quickly on certification.

Update 2: MSNBC is reporting that a final vote will occur today at 3 PM EST, which means we'll avoid the 30 hours post-cloture consideration.

Update 3: For those confused on what happens next,

1. The Senate will vote on final passage at 3 PM EST.
2. It will go to the President's desk, who will sign it.
3. The President, Chairman of the JCS and Secretary of Defense must  certify, in writing, to Congress, that repeal is good for the country  and the military is prepared, among other things. Patrick Murphy explains the full list.
4. There must be a 60-day waiting period that the late Sen. Byrd inserted into the bill for no apparent useful reason.
5. After all that is met, the law will be repealed.

See my post here quoting Patrick Murphy's letter to colleagues explaining the certification process for more. This is why it's important, given the military's penchant for insisting on long timelines and dragging things out, to hold their feet to the fire.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cloture vote and the story on amendments

by: Adam Bink

Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 12:00

The most common question asked lately about the impending Senate vote this weekend is "will there be amendments/poison pills that could screw the whole thing up"?

The short answer is no. Sen. Reid, using his prerogative as Majority Leader, has filled the "amendment tree", which precludes other Senators from offering amendments. Filling the tree generally means blocking anyone from offering anything.  The Majority Leader uses his preferential recognition to file friendly  or even pro-forma amendments solely for the purpose of blocking anyone  else from offering friendly or hostile amendments. A brief explanation from CRS (via, oh noes, Wikileaks!):

"Amendment trees" are charts that illustrate certain principles of precedence which guide the Senate amendment process. When all of the amendments permitted simultaneously by these principles have been offered and are pending, an amendment tree is said to be "filled," and no additional amendments may be offered until one or more of those pending is disposed of or laid aside. Given that the presiding officer traditionally affords the Senate majority leader or his designee priority over all others in being recognized, a majority leader can repeatedly secure recognition and "fill the amendment tree" himself by sequentially offering all of the amendments permitted under applicable circumstances. By doing so, a leader can "freeze" the amendment process in place, blocking additional floor amendments, at least temporarily. A majority leader might "fill the tree" in this way to prevent the offering of or voting on of non-germane amendments, to try speed consideration of a measure, or to control the subject or sequence of amendments that may be offered.

[...]

A Senator, particularly the majority leader, might pursue a strategy of "filling the amendment tree" for several reasons, including preventing non-germane (and perhaps politically controversial) amendments to a measure from being offered or voted upon;

attempting to expedite overall Senate consideration of legislation by limiting the overall number of amendments offered;

[...]

After filling an amendment tree, the majority leader may file a cloture petition, either on a pending amendment or on the underlying measure. If cloture is invoked on the measure, not only does it establish a 30-hour limit for further consideration of the bill, it limits amendments that may be offered to those that are germane and any pending nongermane amendments fall. By keeping a tree full until cloture is invoked, a majority leader may be able to prevent action on a pending non-germane amendment, prevent all non-germane amendments from being offered, or limit the consideration of additional amendments altogether.

Of course, Sen. Scott Brown's spokesperson said "if and when a clean repeal bill comes up for a vote, he will support it", so if the Majority Leader has any substantive amendments that are added that could complicate matters, but if they are merely pro-forma amendments for the purpose of blocking hostile amendments and we get a clean, straight up-or-down vote, then the chance increases that cloture would be invoked on the bill. But the bottom line is that, as David Waldman over at DKos notes, there will be a "straight shot" at the issue as hostile amendments are blocked.

House votes to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

by: Adam Bink

Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 18:45

Tonight at 4 PM PST/7 PM EST, Courage Campaign (who I'm working with on DADT repeal actions) will be hosting a post-vote strategy conference call with Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq veteran and the lead sponsor and advocate in the House, to discuss the most important next steps for advocates and what the landscape looks like in the Senate. Click here to obtain the call-in number.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/UrgentDADTCall

I will be updating this post with reactions and further info on the timeline. One good update- Sen. Snowe announced she will vote to repeal DADT.

See you on the call!

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/UrgentDADTCall

Update 1: In terms of the 15 Republicans who voted aye compared to 5 in May, we picked up Bono Mack, Campbell, Castle, Dent, Lincoln Diaz-Balart (which is odd given that he managed floor time for the Republicans on the rule), Dreier, Ehlers, Flake, Platts, Reichert. More commentary later.

Update 2: Here's the e-mail that's being blasted out to Courage Campaign DADT activists. Hope you can join us. And by the way, if you can help chip in to cover costs of bringing us all together with Congress' leading advocate of DADT repeal, you can do so here.

Dear Adam --

I just walked off the House floor, where I saw passage of my amendment  -- co-sponsored with Leader Hoyer -- to begin repeal of "Don't Ask,  Don't Tell." It was one of the proudest moments of my life.

This move by the House puts the ball on the 1-yard line in our efforts  to get it to the President's desk.  So, following the example of my  beloved Philadelphia Eagles, it's time to huddle up and plan how we're  going to put the ball in the end zone.

Join  me and Courage Campaign on a nationwide conference call at 7 p.m. EST/ 4  p.m. PST. We'll talk about what needs to be done to take us to victory  in the Senate. Click here to get the call-in number.

The time to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has come. It has come for the  House -- twice now, in fact, has the House voted for repeal. And on the  conference call, I'll talk about how it will come for the Senate, and  what we need to do.

Sens. Lieberman and Collins, along with their allies Sens. Udall and  Gillibrand, have introduced a stand-alone bill that mirrors our  amendment in the House. But the calendar is tight and there aren't many  votes to spare. Opponents of repeal are lining up to gut the bill by  inserting poison pill amendments.

We  can't let that happen. Join me and Courage on a nationwide conference  call at 7 p.m. EST/ 4 p.m. PST. I'll outline next steps and the most  important things we can and must do together to engineer repeal in the  Senate.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/UrgentDADTCall

Then, we'll go forth and make it happen.

In solidarity,

Rep. Patrick Murphy

"After careful analysis of the comprehensive report compiled by the Department of Defense and thorough consideration of the testimony provided by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs, I support repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' law," Snowe said in a statement.

Again, to join our nationwide conference call tonight at 4 PM PST/7 PM EST, click here to obtain the call-in number. 261 people have signed up so far!

Update 5: We're up to 440 people signed up and have to add a second conference line and operator. Oops.

Also, Rep. Murphy will be taking questions on the call. I'll also be on with Courage founder and chair Rick Jacobs to answer questions after.

House to vote today on repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

by: Adam Bink

Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 12:00

Update 37: Rep. Chris Murphy from Connecticut steps up to note how folks like McCain have moved the goalposts, arguing for a study, arguing for listening to our military leaders. "Our troops are the best of the best and they deserve a Congress that puts our nat'l security over a rigid partisan ideology."

Update 36: Rep. Langevin (D-RI) speaks in favor. Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr., whose father once chaired Armed Services if I recall correctly, is the local majordomo Marine to oppose repeal. He oddly quotes Gen. Powell to make the argument that one can't compare race and sexual orientation. "The United States military is not the YMCA. It's somethin' special!", says Hunter. "The Marine Corps is not the place to have a liberal crusade to create a utopia and a liberal agenda of experiment." Stay classy, Hunter.

Update 35: 234 House members  voted in favor of repeal last May with 10 not voting, though nearly all were anti-repeal. Any predictions on the number in favor now, given the public's movement, the PCWG report's conclusions, the movement in the courts, and the testimony of military leaders? Predictions on # of Republicans in favor also welcome (just 5 last time).

Update 34: A veteran, if not of the military of the civil rights battles of our nation's history- Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)- steps up to give a dozen reasons to "Vote YES!".

Update 33: Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) steps up to quote Colin Powell, who now supports DADT repeal. Andrews has also been one of the louder voices on the importance of passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, though we still have a long way to go on that front. "This shoulda been done a long time ago; today is the day to get it done; vote yes." Rep. Lamborn (R-CO) replies a bunch of nonsense.

Update 32: Rep. Todd Akin, Republican from Missouri, is complaining about lack of movement on the DOD bill. Again, talk to your friends in the Senate, Todd. We could have moved on the defense bill if they didn't all sign a letter.

Update 31: Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) is making a very forceful, specific argument in favor of repeal. Are we going to get a single pro-repeal Republican to speak?

Update 30: Rep. Vic Snyder, Democrat from Little Rock, is up talking about the valuable contributions gays and lesbians make for America and how his children will be better off with this law repealed. Very brief. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), steps up to complain about the lack of movement on the DOD authorization bill, but we're voting on this. Hey, maybe if Roscoe told his colleagues in the Senate not to hold everything hostage for tax cuts for millionaires, we'd have moved on the DOD bill. That was the stated reason several Republicans voted against last week's motion to proceed. Anyway, he says "now is not the time."

Update 29: Rep. Joe "You lie!" Wilson (R-SC), who is ranking the military personnel subcommittee, rises to spout the usual arguments on "now is not the time". I'd love to see how many of these folks support repeal if we were at peace. Of course, as long as there's a servicemember overseas, it will probably never be considered "peace".

Update 28: She continues by quoting today's WaPo/ABC News poll demonstrating nearly 80% of the American public believe servicemembers should serve openly. Notes the vote in May was a "proud day" for the House.

Update 27: Speaker Pelosi heads to the floor to speak. She thanks a number of members for their leadership. She specifically acknowledges Rep. Patrick Murphy for his military service and political leadership on this issue. She says "repealing the discriminatory DADT policy will honor the service and sacrifices" of those who have defended the country. She notes she spoke on the floor 17 years ago, calling on the President (Clinton) to lift the ban. Laments the resulting policy that has resulted in more than 13,000 (actually 14,000) discharges from the military.

Update 26: Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), who is currently ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and managed anti-repeal debate last time the House voted on this in May, is up. He quotes certain stats from the report, as well as a few service chiefs. He is taking the "repeal is great, but we should do it when we're not at war", quoting from Amos- even though that has been debunked.

Update 25: The White House just released a SAP (Statement of Administration Policy) on the House amendment. It reads:

The  Administration strongly supports House passage of the House amendment  to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965, which would repeal the statute  underlying "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" after the President, the Secretary of  Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that  implementation of the necessary policies and regulations related to the  statutory repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness,  military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of  the Armed Forces.  Congressional enactment of this legislation would  allow a repeal to be implemented under terms and a timetable that would  be informed by the advice of our military leadership.

The  recently-released comprehensive study by the Department of Defense  shows that overwhelming majorities of our Service members are prepared  to serve with Americans who are openly gay or lesbian; it concludes that  overall, and with thorough preparation, there would be low risk  associated with the repeal.  The existing statute weakens our national  security, diminishes our military readiness, and violates fundamental  American principles of fairness, integrity, and equality.

Update 23: Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) getting her pro-repeal tweet on.

Update 22: Okay, floor debate on the bill itself is starting. 1 hour max. Then, at some point afterwards, they will have a vote on final passage and we'll be done in the House. Rep. Susan Davis will manage floor debate on this portion.

Update 21: While we're waiting, I've got video of Rep. Pingree's great opening statement on floor debate today (h/t Pingree's staff):

Update 20: The Heisman vote passed. There is now a vote on a resolution recognizing Gerda Weissman Klein, who I once saw speak at my local synagogue back home, on winning a Medal of Freedom. C-SPAN tells us this will be the last vote in the series of quick votes.

Update 19: The rule passes, 232-180. The House will proceed to 1 hour debate on the bill itself and then vote on passage, after they vote on other business (they are currently voting on a resolution congratulating Cam Newton on winning the Heisman, for example).

Update 18: For those in the comments, this is not the final vote on passage. This the vote on the rule that will govern the bill (which is closed, meaning no amendments). That said, votes on rules often mirror votes on the substance of the bill itself, so it may be similar. This rule will pass, but then we have to have a final vote on passage.

If anyone wants to see the last roll call on passage itself (e.g. the substance of the bill the last time it was voted on), I would recommend looking at the vote count on the Murphy amendment last May. Those numbers told you who was on our side. It's essentially the same language as the bill that will be voted on later today. But if you want to compare apples to apples, you should compare the vote from the Murphy amendment in May to the vote on the Murphy amendment later this afternoon- not the vote on the rule they're doing right now. I will let everyone know when they're voting on the bill itself later this afternoon.

Update 17: While the House is voting, I thought I'd share the first letter to the editor to be published as a result of our West Virginia action asking constituents to write why they think DADT should be repealed and Sen. Manchin should vote to do so. It was published in the Charleston Daily Mail, and you can read it here.

Update 16: Vote on the rule has started.

Update 15: No more speakers on the pro-repeal side. It appears we won't get a Republican pro-repeal speaker. Diaz-Balart has no more speakers either. Pingree closes saying she believes some folks run out of substantive arguments, and so they complain about process.

Update 14: Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Houston, always the best-dressed member of Congress in my opinion (no scarf today, but a lovely red jacket and flower broche) rises to deliver a fierce speech in support of a constituent who would like to serve, and in support of the freedom to serve. Go, girl.

Update 13: Rep. Peters, Democrat of Michigan, a veteran of the Navy reserve, rises to note that he's served alongside brave men and women who were openly gay. I'd love to see one of the 5 Republicans who voted aye in May (Ros-Lehtinen, Ron Paul, Djou, Biggert, Cao) or are supportive now to speak in support.

Update 12: Diaz-Balart rises to complain that the majority is using another bill to accomplish this with broad bipartisan support (a small business bill) and the rule that is being debated strikes that legislation and inserts DADT repeal language "into that shell". Which Republicans have done before, but whatever. This is being done to avoid a filibuster on the motion to proceed in the Senate. But as Frank notes, there has been open debate and votes on this in both houses.

Update 11: Frank continues by noting "we've gone through triple regular order" by noting a vote on the House floor, a vote in the Senate committee, and a vote again today.

Update 10: Rep. Barney Frank is up. He notes the "bizarre procedural argument that we are not adopting regular order." He's referring to Diaz-Balart's complaint on the rules. He notes the House has already passed repeal via the Murphy amendment last May, which I note in the update below this.

Update 9: Remember that DADT repeal passed the House 234 in favor, 194 opposed, 10 not voting last May. Interesting to see how much that increases post-Pentagon report.

Update 8: Rep. Berkley and Quigley rise to make very fine speeches as well.

Update 7: Rep. Harman rises to recall her experience as the most junior member of the House Armed Services Committee in 1993, as a freshman member, remembering telling General Colin Powell, when he came to testify, that she believed DADT was unconstitutional. "I opposed it then, and I oppose it now."

Update 6: Rep. Tsongas notes that DADT is the only federal statute remaining that requires people to be fired because of their  sexual orientation.

Update 5: Rep. Pingree is going through reasons to support repeal: the PCWG report; misguided arguments against allowing women to serve in combat; moral reasons regarding serving in slience. Diaz-Balart rises on the other side to mumble nonsense and complaints about House procedure, mostly. Rep. Polis does a fine job articulating reasons to vote in favor of repeal. Rep. Gingrey rises to rant about a social agenda.

Update 4: Rep. Pingree is up. Debate on the rule itself is starting. There will be one hour of debate time, equally divided between Pingree and the Republicans, led by Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.

Update 3: I'm told Pepe Johnson, the veteran discharged under DADT who we quoted in our e-mail blast to West Virginian Courage Campaign members on Monday, stopped by Sen. Manchin's office at 11 AM EST to deliver a boatload of petitions urging repeal. I'll update if there are photos/videos.

Update 2: In a great sign, Sen. Reid says Congress doesn't end at Christmas time:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatened to keep the Senate in  session after Christmas, all the way up to the beginning of next  Congress if the GOP doesn't get out of the way and allow votes on Don't  Ask, Don't Tell repeal, the START treaty and other key Democratic  initiatives.

"There's still Congress after Christmas. So if the Republicans think  that because they can stall and stall and stall that we take a break  we're through -- we're not through," Reid said. Congress ends on January  4."

Update 1: The Speaker's office said a vote is expected around 3-4 PM EST, with debate to occur prior.

Today, the House is expected to vote on repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The bill is sponsored once again by Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, a veteran of the Iraq war and straight ally, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. The vote comes as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll came out this morning showing 77% of Americans support allowing those who disclose their sexual orientation to serve openly. That's the highest level of support ever recorded in the poll and another demonstration of how the public supports this change- whether Republican or Democrat, Massachusetts or West Virginia.

Just now, Rep. Chellie Pingree, Democrat from Maine, who will be managing the bill on the floor, tweeted:

@chelliepingree In  Rules committee, preparing to bring the repeal of DADT to floor.  I  hope to manage bill shortly.  Time to end this discrimination!

Afterwards, the bill will proceed to the Senate under privileged status as a "message", enabling Sen. Reid to avoid a vote on the motion to proceed and 30 hours "maturation" for the motion, saving a few days under this tight calendar. Sen. Reid has not announced a date for the vote yet; expect an announcement pending a deal and movement of the Senate on the tax legislation, and after today's House vote on repeal. Also, stay tuned for a special event tonight from Courage Campaign.

This thread will update as I get notice of when debate will begin, and I will be covering the debate and vote here. Updates will scroll from the top.

BREAKING: Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" blocked in Senate vote

by: Adam Bink

Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 16:30

Just now, the motion to reconsider regarding the National Defense Authorization Act, including repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was defeated, 57-40. An extremely frustrating defeat. Votes were along party lines along with newly inaugurated Sen. Manchin (D-WV) voting no and, in a surprise, Sen. Collins (R-ME) voting aye.

Prior to the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid took the floor to announce he would move forward on the motion to reconsider. I watched him live on C-SPAN2 and typed his comments quickly. His comments consisted of:

• Describing how "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a thing of the past and should be a thing of the post; how we have to match our policy with our principle, repealing it will make our military stronger

• Describing the tax cut letter and lamented how Republicans had signed it and stood by it, asking what sense did it make when "we" have as many things to do as we do

• Noting that "we tried every possible way to move forward on ["Don't Ask, Don't Tell"]

• Describing the other parts of the defense authorization bill

• Casting blame upon the Republicans, saying, "[Republicans] want to block a vote on this issue on all costs; "they're doing all they can to stand in the way of this bill"

• Key lines: "We've gone through all these different iterations on amendments... we can't do it. I offered to bring it up this summer with no restrictions, the Republicans refused. No matter what I did, I couldn't win because the rules kept being changed... we don't have time for unlimited debate. Some of the requests have been really unusual. Seven days of debate. Think about it! Seven in this lame-duck session... Over the last 20 years we've had roll call votes on as many as 20 amendments on the NDAA. I offered 15 amendments, 10 from Rs, 5 from Dems- which by the way the Dems weren't happy about- ample time for debate on each amendment, never could get enough time, an hour, no, that's not enough [I'd be told]... it's quite clear that they're trying to run out the clock."

• He continues, "I want to be clear that my remarks should in no way be taken as criticism of my colleague, Sen. Collins. Quite the contrary, she's tried... I believe she has been doing her very best, and I don't want her to receive any criticism. But at the same time, [members are her caucus] are working to defeat this bill... I don't know how I could have been any more reasonable. I regret to say that it's our troops who will pay the price."

• Collins steps forward and asks for recognition. She said she rushed to the floor once she heard Reid was speaking. Collins says she understands what Reid is proposing, so she would ask if Reid is proposing a procedure where there would be no amendments, or whether he's proposing an agreement that she/Reid/Lieberman discussed yesterday that would allow for 10 amendments for Rs, and 5 for Dems, to "fill the tree". She says she's received conflicting information about how Reid intends to proceed on this important bill.

• Reid responds that he would fill the amendment "tree", yes, as it's the only way to control the amendments.

• Collins asks if it's true he would allow 10 Republican amendments that are of the Republicans' choice, so long as they are germane to the bill. This, as I wrote this morning, is one of Collins' demands.

• Reid responds that he's made a number of different offers. He reiterates the problem of the tax letter and how it's blocking everything.

• Collins responds that it "seems evident to me that the Majority leader is not pursuing the path we discussed... I think that's so unfortunate. I want to vote to proceed to this bill. I was the first Republican to announce my support for the carefully constructed language in the Senate Armed Services Committee that would repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'... I just do not understand why we can't succeed along a path... that would allow us to get those 60 votes to proceed... I thought we were extremely close to getting a reasonable agreement yesterday that would allow us to proceed, I was even willing to consider a proposal by the Majority Leader that we would start on the DOD bill, got  to the tax bill, finish that bill, then return to the DOD bill... so I think there was such a clear path to be able to get this bill done, and I am perplexed and frustrated that this important bill is going to become a victim of politics. We should be able to do better, and Sen. Lieberman and I have been bargaining in good faith with the Majority Leader, he too has been creative in his approaches. I just want to say I am perplexed with what happened and why we're not going forward in a constructive way that would lead to success."

• Reid: "This is not any kind of legislative wrangle I'm having with my friend from Maine. She's the only person I could talk to about this legislation. But this is the only way we could do it. I fill the tree, and we try to work through amendments. This has been taking months to do this. And the time has come to stop playing around." He then proceeds to direct the clerk to call the roll on the motion to reconsider.

I'll update this thread with further news/statements that come out today.

Why yesterday was a step forward on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

by: Adam Bink

Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 12:00

My basic working theory, without doing too much tea-leaf reading, is that yesterday, even with the vote being pulled, ended up being positive for those of us who want to repeal this statute. The obvious first point is that with your help, Sen. Murkowski came out in favor of repeal, although not for the motion to reconsider. Excellent news that puts us over the top in terms of votes to repeal the policy.

The second and more important point is that we now have some answers on process. I say that because I have been observing this parlor game for a long time, and from the first vote in September, Collins and the Republicans' position on the process has been that they wanted a "fair and open amendment process." She's been saying that for months and repeated it again yesterday. What does that mean? No one knew, exactly. And Team Collins refused to say. It's hard to meet vague requirements and even harder for external advocates like us to know who is the problem and how to make them stop being the problem.

I noticed that Reid's spokesperson, Jim Manley, said yesterday that at some point, you have to call these things up for a vote. He said that not only because it was looking likely there were not 60 votes for the motion to reconsider and speaking in defense of Reid's move, but because Collins was being intransigent and it's time for a "%&#$ or get off the pot" moment. And the reason I think he did that is to make a public offer, then shove Collins and co. out in the spotlight and make them come up with a counteroffer or look like they're blocking this because they don't want repeal at all. Here's the money part of Reid's statement to reporters  following the caucus meeting that I posted yesterday, with the key line bolded:

So we've been talking.  I haven't worked  this out with either  Lieberman or Collins.  But the average number of  amendments we've had  over the last many years that we've voted on is  about less than 15.

So I'm considering making it so it would be  possible to offer 15  amendments.  We would have an hour time agreement  on those.  Republicans would get 10, Democrats would get five.

We  would also, if the Republicans felt that they needed extra  time on a  couple amendments, they could choose those.  And that would  give them an  extra four hours.  That is, they would have four hours on  those two  amendments rather than - than two hours.

So, again, I have - I  said I have to talk to Senator Lieberman  and Senator Collins. But I  would hope that that - I don't know how,  with Christmas staring right  down our throats, we have to do START,  these other things I've  mentioned, I don't know why that wouldn't be  reasonable.

This led (a) Team Collins to actually be put in the position of defending what they were doing, as her spokeswoman starting releasing all kinds of statistics about how long defense bills "usually" take in terms of time and amendments, and (b) Forced Collins to delineate what exactly she wants. Those demands appear to be:

(1) 15 amendments or more (thus, agreement on this principle, given that 15 is what Reid's offering);

(2) 2 hours' time on debate for each amendment instead of one;

(3) Allowing Republicans to pick their own amendments rather than the Majority Leader;

(4) This should be done after the tax cuts fight is resolved (which is made in part for the sake of getting other Republican letter-signers on board, plus the importance of not caving on the point of the letter itself).

And she laid all that out in her comments to reporters last night.

Then, she put out this statement:

"Senator Lieberman and I requested a meeting with Senator Harry Reid  last week during which we outlined a specific plan for allowing debate  and amendments similar to how the Senate has considered the  authorization bill in the past.

"It wasn't until  1:35 pm today that I received a legitimate offer from Senator Reid,  which I consider a good starting point.  We made a counter offer which  would provide sufficient time for debate, and includes protections to  help ensure that Republicans would be able to offer a limited but fair  number of amendments that are relevant to this legislation.

"I am encouraged that the Majority Leader decided to postpone the vote  he had scheduled for tonight.  I urged him to do this so that we could  consider the tax legislation first, which I believe could be on the  floor as early as tomorrow and completed quickly.  At that point, I  believe we could move immediately to the Defense Authorization bill  under a fair agreement, and I would vote to do so.  I would hope he  carefully considers our proposal.  I believe we have outlined a very  clear path forward for the Majority Leader to take that would allow this  very important debate to occur."

BREAKING: DADT repeal likely to come up for a vote tonight

by: Adam Bink

Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 12:00

Just this morning, Sen. Reid said the following on the Senate floor:

"And I'm likely going to move to my motion to reconsider on the Defense Authorization Act this evening. Allowing, as I will indicate at that time, time for amendments to that piece of legislation."

As I wrote earlier, if Sen. Reid allows for a process that accords Sen. Collins and other pro-repeal Republicans the opportunity to offer amendments with sufficient time for debate, it is very likely they will support the motion to reconsider, which requires 60 votes. That is our last major hurdle to overcome.

But, it's no sure thing (it never is). So, that means it's time to hit the phones for one last big push. The switchboard is 202-224-3121. This cannot be left up to backroom dealing between the Republicans and Sen. Reid. And as Joe wrote, this isn't a political game. Both sides have to deal in good faith and not hide behind process. And then we'll find out tonight who's using us for political football, and who's on our side.

Breaking this morning, we picked up Sen. Pryor. If that's true, and Manchin and Lincoln go our way (and I'm told it's likely they will), we'll need two Republicans. So, based on what a few sources have told me this morning, the following are all potential votes for the motion to reconsider:

--Susan Collins (R-ME)

--Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

--Richard Lugar (R-IN)

--Judd Gregg (R-NH)

--Scott Brown (R-MA)

--George Voinovich (R-OH)

--Kit Bond (R-MO)

--Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

--Mark Kirk (R-IL)

The number is 202-224-3121. Call them and ask them to support the motion to reconsider on the defense authorization bill. This is especially important if you are a constituent. Then, pick 5 family/friends/colleagues, and ask them to do the same. Tell them if there's one holiday present you'd like in the social justice realm, it's 5 minutes on the phone.

Then, post in the comments what you heard.

Let's do this.

Will Scott Brown become the new Dave Reichert on Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

by: Adam Bink

Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 16:30

In June, I did a piece titled "How not to pander to the LGBT community on DADT". It was about various Republican members of the House of Representatives voting against repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, then turning around and saying they wanted to vote for it but just, sigh, couldn't get there. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) was a classic example, who said:

"Let me be clear: I am not suggesting homosexuals should not be able to  serve openly in the military. One of the greatest duties of this  Congress is to protect the freedoms and liberties of all Americans. I  hope we can all agree that it is unjust to deny people the right to  pursue the American Dream and realize success and opportunity in the  workplace. That's why I've supported legislation such as the Employment  Non-Discrimination Act. However, I believe policy decisions affecting  the military must reflect the input, perspectives, and judgment of the  generals in command, and a decision on this issue must be entrusted to  them. We must continue to support the men and women who are risking  their lives each and every day and ensure that they have the best  training and equipment available to carry out their duties."

Reichert is trying to have it both ways in terms of wanting to get  LGBT community support. Since January, everyone has bent over backwards  with the purpose of helping individuals like him are moderates or from  tough districts have enough "cover" to get to a yes vote in favor of  repeal, and he still can't do it. The President announces at the SOTU.  Sec. Gates and Admiral Mullen testify in support. Colin Powell and even  Dick Cheney (you read that right, Dick Cheney) come out in support. Last  week's CNN poll put the public at 78% in support, a number that goes  back, give or take a few points, for three years. Then a compromise is  made to give the Pentagon review even higher attention and priority and to require the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the  Joint Chiefs to "certify" that this is essentially good for the country.  Then a 60-day waiting period is added to the language,  post-certification.

All of this, and Reichert still can't bring himself to  vote for repeal? Please. Don't come 'round here saying you really wanted  to vote for repeal but just couldn't bring yourself to do so after the  entire world bends over backwards to give individuals like yourself all  kinds of reasons to support repeal. The same goes for Jim Webb and  anyone else using that excuse.

Cue Joe Solmonese:

The largest gay rights organization, Human Rights Campaign, said in a  statement that Brown's announcement was "welcomed" but ultimately "of  little value" without a commitment to advance the underlying bill.

"The true measure of whether or not one supports an end to this  policy will come as the Senate considers if they will begin debate on  the defense bill. Make no mistake, a vote against the motion to proceed  is a vote against DADT repeal," HRC President Joe Solmonese said.

Brown knows full well that if repeal does not advance this year, it has a slim-to-none chance of doing so next year. This is our last shot, and tax cut politics be damned, Senator. So he stays on my target list, and he should on yours. Call 202-224-3121 and ask Brown, along with the other swing, Senators listed in this State of Play post, to commit to repeal and to vote for cloture the motion to reconsider.

Update: Over e-mail, the following excerpt of a press release is also spot-on.

"Given that Sen. Brown signed on to the GOP letter earlier this  week, saying that they would obstruct all lawmaking until their demands  of specific tax cuts and spending bills are met, we would like to remind  Sen. Brown that our community and America is watching," said Claire  Naughton, Co-chair of Bay State Stonewall Democrats. "We hope that, as a  soldier, Sen. Brown is aligned with what military leaders have been  saying in Senate hearings: that the military is based on a culture of  integrity and DADT demands just the opposite."

Live from the Senate Armed Services Committee: Day 2 of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell hearing

by: Adam Bink

Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 09:04

11:58: Unfortunately, that's it for me today- I need to jump on an urgent noon EST conference call, but it appears to be good timing. Sen. Lieberman and Levin are the only two Senators left, all others having departed. Sen. Levin is asking a few more questions. Sen. Collins was present, but no longer is- she may or may not come back. All the key players aside from Collins have been heard from.

If you're looking for more coverage, my colleagues Chris Geidner and Waymon Hudson are doing the best tweeting, and AMERICABlog Gay is also doing a pretty good live blog and chat, so I'd encourage you to head over there. I'll be writing up some thoughts and commentary later today.

11:55: Reply to Brown's question: We're all ready and we're not shrinking violets. Amos: We have great confidence in DOD leadership to do this the right way. Brown: Casey, I gotta hear from you before our time is expired. Casey: I'm very comfortable that we have had and will have access to [The Three Certifiers]. Brown concludes by thanking everyone. Today's comments were not as positive, but still leaves room for hope that he'll be with us.

11:50: Brown continues, it seems to me no one is opposed to repeal. I do have very serious concerns about battle readiness/effectiveness. Cartwright: Each of us have represented the areas that the mitigation has to handle. This issue of, can we put one more stone in the rucksack, leaves some questions. Brown: Only issue that matters to me is safety/security. I'm hopeful that if in fact we do move forward with this at some point- [Jeh Johnson] told me march would be when next court battle takes place- I hope that when/if DADT gets repealed that you will be given the proper respect/input with Prez, Mullen, Gates who will sign the certification do. So let's say it's time and it's repealed... I need to be made aware of/comfortable with is that you will due your utmost to convey to The Three Certifiers that yes, we have a plan for education/implementation/strategy. But with the battle units, they'll be left as is, but when they come home, we'll implement that training/education. I think it would be detrimental to go overnight, too disruptive. I'm basing that on everything I've learned. Is anything I've said there, sirs, that you feel needs to be corrected?

11:47: Brown starts off by bleating about the need to focus on jobs, as Wicker did. Pledged to have an open mind, learn, try to understand the intricacies of this very important decision. Honored to meet/speak with you, Petraeus, McChrystal, et al. I've been in the military 31 years, so I get this issue more than others. As a JAG, I read rules/regs. Never seen a voluntary survey. I'm confused still why it wasn't a mandatory survey, given how critical this survey was. Any thoughts on why the survey wasn't mandatory? Casey: Don't know. Cartwright: We use surveys for various purposes. We thought this was a good way to sample the force.

11:45: If my counting is correct, Sen. Scott Brown will be up next. Given his comments yesterday, (I discussed here ICYMI), it will be interesting.

11:40: Sen. Hagan asks about certification, eliciting the usual responses, and about ambiguity resulting from current court cases in an effort to point out that Congressional repeal is preferable. Service chiefs concur.

11:34: I got back just in time to hear Sessions say "we live in a great country with lots of different views and lifestyles." Curses.

11:28: Sen. Sessions begins, which means it's time for my blood pressure medication a bathroom break. Deride amongst yourselves.

11:26: Sen. Manchin, a critical swing vote on cloture, is up. He asks if this will be a cost-effective measure. Casey replies that we have to understand benefits and how those will work- he's no doubt referring in part to the recommendation of the report to provide benefits to same-sex partners of openly gay/lesbian service members. Manchin asks if it's fair to say there will be an additional cost. Gen. Schwartz replies that the report estimates around $50 million for the entire armed forces. Manchin asks again about chaplains (this was his focus yesterday). Casey estimates 2,800 Army chaplains and that the attrition rate will be small. Gen. Schwartz agrees for USAF chaplains. The rest of the service chiefs agree. Manchin muses that sooner or later, repeal will take effect. "With that being said, if we took no action whatsoever... and the President as I understand it has the authority relating to promotion, retirement or separation of armed forces... if we don't repeal this, would it still be in the purview of the President to act on this if he thought it was in the best interests of national security?" Amos says he doesn't know. Another service chief says, "you may have come up with a question, Senator, that is above our pay grade." It is very unclear where Manchin will fall on this as he concludes.

11:17: Via Twitter, the NYTimes' Jeff Zeleny reports that President Obama just arrived in Afghanistan on a secret trip. Let's hoping he remains involved in lobbying efforts.

11:15: Amos reiterates, in response to comments from Wicker, all that's going on in his branch on his and his Marines' plate, and how that makes right now a bad time to do this.

11:13: Just in over the wire, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have endorsed repeal this morning. Extremely good news. Their statement here.

11:10: Sen. Wicker muses about why we are here when our best military minds should be focused on two wars. Half the eyes in the gallery roll upward. Believes this was a political decision made in the White House. Says it reminds him of the time spent on health care debate with everything else going on.

11:03: Sen. Mark Udall, a strong, loud-and-proud repeal advocate, begins by pointing out additional surveys of service academies that had similar results to the CWGR, and how as long as the sample size is large enough, that in tandem with margin of error ensures a survey's validity. In fact, he notes, the Marist poll staff wondered why the sample size was as large as it was.

10:57: Sen. Thune asks about certification, and service chiefs assure him certification is valued. He makes similar attempts as Inhofe did to get people to agree with fundamentally incorrect statements about repeal and the survey. By and large, the service chiefs tell him, uh, no, that's not quite right, Senator.

10:55: Sen. Lieberman walks over to glad-hand and whisper with Brown, Collins. Work it, Holy Joe.

10:49: Sen. Webb asks, if we keep the present law, how will we overcome the dilemma of closeted service members serving in silence? No one seems to be able to respond directly or understand his question. Still, it's promising to hear him say that, perhaps a sign of his evolution on this.

10:43: Over Twitter, several people noting that lack of pay raises and extended tours of duty are more likely to have an impact on retention than DADT. Point.

10:41: Sen. Chambliss asks about impact on readiness. Amos replies that it would impact combat forces, but not as much on remainder of armed forces.

10:36: Sen. Reed asks a long-winded question about the standards of open service. Casey makes weird comment about how knowing someone is gay is weirder than thinking someone is. Hm. Reed gets into reply starting by talking about mannerism and such. Weird exchange.

10:25: Inhofe asks Casey whether the referendum question re repeal should have been asked. Casey replies no. "This isn't a democracy in the military." Inhofe continues hunting for a supporter, asks Amos. Amos replies no as well; "I got the information I needed." Inhofe keeps making statements and hunting for a service chief to agree with them. They all keep contradicting him. Thanks for the assist, Inhofe!

10:22: Inhofe asks about statistics re retention. Casey notes such statistics are overstated, and how it would be an acceptable risk. Amos agrees it's overstated, "knowing Marines for 40 years", and doesn't sense such a mass walking-out-the-door. The tenor of Inhofe's comments is that he's searching for someone to agree with his argument. So far, no one is.

10:18: Sens. Collins and Hagan are now here. Lieberman goes onto affirm each of the service chiefs appreciates and understands the certification process. They all affirm they do. Inhofe up next.

10:17: Lieberman concludes that ultimately, "all 6 of you" favor repealing DADT; question is timing. Then goes on to point out the certification process. Lieberman is making a very smart, lawyerly argument in pointing out overall support; pointing out timing concerns; going on to explain that he understands those concerns, which is why he was part of the team writing legislation to make sure the certification process happens. Essentially, he is attempting to defuse their opposition.

10:15: Lieberman is pointing out how despite service chiefs' opposition to repeal, they all said yes, they could implement repeal. Very smart. Goes on to point out the silver linings in Casey's, Schwartz's, Amos' comments regarding how they ultimately believe the law should be repealed. Asks Amos his overall feelings on repeal and when it should happen. Amos replies that the law should be and will be repealed, just not when "my Marines are not singularly tightly focused on what they are doing in a deadly environment."

10:06: McCain: "When you look at the report, it's a lot like studying the Bible; you can draw most any conclusion." He's in fine form today. Asks Casey his "personal opinion about repeal at this time." Casey: "Senator, I believe that the law should be repealed eventually." Says he doesn't  agree that gay and lesbian service members don't post an unacceptable risk. Casey: "I would not recommend going forward at this time given all that the Army has on its plate." That is a lot more blunt than his earlier comments; it appears he is now the 3rd service chief to not support moving forward and bluntly says so. Asks Schwartz the same question, who repeats his earlier comments.

10:06: Sen. McCain is up. He wants to hear from the senior enlisted personnel responsible for training and implementation, theater commanders, which is just another way to get more hearings and more delay.

10:02: Levin Q re whether certification being a barrier is important. Cartwright: Prefers as much prep time for repeal, so supports certification. Levin appears to be simply emphasizing for those listening that the JCS Chairman and SecDef should give "reassurance". Amos: "I think it goes a long way towards easing some of the pressure."

9:58: Question from Levin to Casey on whether repeal depends on "leadership." Casey replies that a leader won't be able to devote full attention to all tasks if focusing on repeal, which appears to be a backhanded way of saying "there are more important damned things I should be worried about than this."

9:52: Chairman Levin to Gen. Casey, asking if he's discussed repeal with his counterparts abroad. Casey: In October, sat down with counterparts in about half a dozen other countries. They all said there was minimal disruption. They did, however, point out two differences (a) in almost every case, there was broad national consensus (b) in some cases, the countries actually had laws supporting civil unions. Levin asks Cartwright the same question, who replies that his counterparts told him repeal was a "non-event". Notes that changes abroad occurred, in most cases, over ten years ago. Asks Roughead, who affirms the same. Asks Amos, who replies that he did not talk to such counterparts abroad. Emphasizes that US is involved heavily in combat when other countries may not have been. Asks Schwartz, who replies that while he spoke with counterparts, but does not believe that evidence is "necessarily compelling." Asks Papp, who replies that the Coast Guard places service members on foreign ships who have integrated services, and there's no effect.

9:50: Chairman Levin to Gen. Cartwright: Can you comment on Gen. Amos' testimony and contrasting views, given your similar backgrounds as Marines? Cartwright: Repeats story yesterday from Sen. Collins of the Navy SEAL regarding the "guy who was the biggest and meanest and killed the most bad guys... but gay". Discussing his focus on the over-90% statistic positive/mixed/no effect contrasting with the focus by other service chiefs on other statistics.

9:46: Overall, according to testimony, it appears four of the six individuals testifying today support moving forward with repeal at this time. Gen. Amos and Gen. Schwartz with the Marine Corps and USAF, respectively, do not.

9:44: Admiral Papp with the Coast Guard is discussing (a) the attention of the Coast Guard to this issue (b) concurs with recommendations in the report (c) how repealing "DADT" will improve, ultimately, his service... "continuing to serve [while closeted] is a choice they should not have to make" (d) how gay and lesbian service members serve with distinction in his serve (e) Coast Guard service members on the whole, he believes, find gay and lesbian service members acceptable

9:41: Gen. Schwartz (a) does NOT agree that the risk, as described in the report, to the force is low (b) Remain concerned with the study ass. with the risk of repeal... is low. That assessment is too optimistic (c) The problem of placing additional demands (d) I therefore recommend delaying full implementation and certification until 2012..."

9:39: General Amos is emphasizing (a) the value of the report (b) The infamous 45% statistic with regard to Marine opinion of repeal (c) The survey's lack of reporting on risk to the force while combat operations are ongoing (d) How open service has "strong potential" for disruption and distract from an almost "singular focus" from preparing units for combat (e) "I cannot reconcile nor turn my back on the Marines... we asked their opinion and they gave them to us." (f) How the Marine Corps will fall in line if the law is ultimately repealed (g) "My recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time." That's the blunt statement we've been expecting.

9:33: So far, those known to have concerns about repeal are discussing them openly, but ultimately emphasizing how their respective service branches can deal with repeal and do it effectively. General Amos is next, the most vocal opponent to date. Sens. Manchin and Burr have also now arrived.

9:32: Admiral Roughead is emphasizing "increased stress on the force" and concerns over showers and bunks and the importance of focusing on the minority who have concerns over this. However, he is also emphasizing report recommendations to address this. "Repeal of the law will not fundamentally change who we are, and what we do."

9:28: General Casey, who in the past has been known as a repeal opponent, is discussing (a) how the force is already stretched (b) that repeal would have a negative effect on cohesion and morale (c) statistics regarding unit effectiveness and morale from the report (d) "As such, I believe that the implementation of repeal of DADT will add another level of stress to an already stretched force; two, be more difficult in our combat units; and three, be more difficult than the report suggests.

That said... the principles in the report constitute a solid basis that will mitigate the risks I just described. I do not believe the repeal of DADT will keep us from accomplishing our worldwide missions... we can... oversee the implementation of repeal with moderate risks to our force. So it's my judgment that we could implement repeal with moderate risk to military effectiveness... the Army will work to finalize implementation plans and with the same level of service that we've [provided] to this country for over 200 years."

9:24: General Cartwright begins his testimony. He is emphasizing how service members are fully capable of adjusting to open service by gays and lesbians. He is also reiterating Mullen's and Gates' argument regarding how important it is for Congress to repeal the law, rather than a judicial ruling striking it down. He is also emphasizing very clearly his support, in no uncertain terms, for repealing the law in his final words.

9:16: While McCain is pontificating in the same general manner as yesterday, here's the bios of the service chiefs testifying today.
Vice Chairman Cartwright
General Schwartz- Air Force
General Casey- Army
Admiral Roughead- Navy
General Amos- Marine Corps
Admiral Papp- Coast Guard

9:12 AM: Chairman Levin has gaveled the hearing to order, introduced those testifying today, and reiterating the value of the service chiefs' advice both from his own views and quoting comments to the same effect from yesterday's witnesses. About the same number of Senators are present as were at this time yesterday. Sens. Brown, Wicker, Thune, Chambliss, Sessions, McCain, Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Webb, and Udall are here.

9:04 AM: The chiefs are here and Senators are still filing in. Another packed day today in the audience. As I wrote this morning over Twitter, I'm genuinely interested to see how much the JCS undermine the Commander in Chief in today's hearings. They've spent the last year or so making public comments to that effect.

Thoughts & reactions from today's Senate hearings on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

by: Adam Bink

Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 16:30

A couple reactions from being up close and personal:

• If you read between the lines, Scott Brown may be a very real possibility (he announced his opposition to repeal over the summer, but has since said he would pay close attention to the report). His phrasing and even substance of questions, his body language, all are that of someone positioning himself to move.He asked for assurance of Secretary Gates, "you will not certify you feel the process can move forward without damage to safety, security of men and women serving, and that effectiveness to fight will not be jeopardized?" He mused about how he's never asked whether veterans who have died in the line of duty, or gravely injured, whether they were straight or gay, and how he didn't care. He asked a number of other thoughtful questions on timing, which units would be "integrated" first. He was even one of only four Senators left, with all three others (Levin, McCain, Lieberman) being a lot more out front on this issue than he. In other words, if I were someone concerned about my upcoming re-election who wanted to painstakingly make a case for why I'm switching positions, and ask for the kind of assurance that would make him and his constituents/supporters comfortable in their shoes with this, I would do exactly what Scott Brown did today.

  Of course, he may be doing all this to justify "I've heard all sides at length and I remain opposed to repeal". We'll have to see. I do know that MassEquality up in his state, as well as HRC organizers on the ground, have been putting a good deal of pressure on him, and today's performance was a good sign.

• Ditto for Susan Collins, who voted for repeal itself while in committee earlier this year. She asked leading questions of Mullen regarding racial integration under Truman- a strong argument for a pro-repeal case. She asked a similar question of Jeh Johnson on whether it is fair to conclude that the report does represent the views of the military, and whether Johnson would have a professional obligation to report negative comments opposing repeal if that was important to note- all of which Johnson affirmed. She quoted anecdotal comments of service members not caring whether their comrades were gay. This, of course, is all helpful to other members, especially Republicans, considering supporting repeal and cloture on the DOD authorization bill.Of course, we know Collins is with us on this, but what we don't know is whether she will stand by her signature to the latter swearing not to support moving forward on any legislation until the Bush-era tax cuts for those making over $250,000 are extended. As I was wolfing down a bagel on the way to the hearing this morning, I did read this nugget in today's WaPo:

  Activists want Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to stand by her promise to vote with Democrats on the measure if Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) allows for the introduction of Republican amendments.

  Kevin Kelley, a Collins spokesman, said, "Preventing a tax increase and keeping the government operating are her top priorities, but passing a defense authorization bill is also a priority."

  
  So it's possible that when it comes down to it, if the conditions are right regarding the amendment process, as I detailed in an OpenLeft piece here, she may be with us. Ever more important to contact her office and let her know you support repeal. All in all, though, it was helpful to have her present today.
• Newly-sworn in Sen. Manchin, in what may have been his maiden hearing today, did not present a lot of optimism to back off his opposition to repeal with all his lines of questioning regarding military chaplains leaving the service or refusing to minister to openly gay/lesbian service members, out of their religious opposition. Johnson did his best to note that he believes as many would stay as would potentially leave. Of course, he also did say he'd carefully consider the report. We'll have to see about him.

• Watching the sparring this morning of two people diametrically opposed to each on this issue, both in position and amount of advocacy, you'd almost forget that Joe Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President in 2008. Almost. Sigh. Anyway, it really did make me stop and shake my head.

• Polling expert Mark Blumenthal, along with John Aravosis, take McCain to task over his bevy of "only 28% were surveyed" complaints this morning. Both worth reading. And if McCain raised your blood pressure this morning and you're looking to laugh it off, you'll like my piece yesterday examining the remarkable similarities between Up's Carl Fredrickson and this year's incarnation of John McCain.

• Courage's Testimony campaign has a great set of testimonials from vets and military families, which are always useful but ever more so at this stage, when emotional appeals are sometimes what wins folks over.

• On strategy and arguments, as I wrote during a break this morning, anti-repeal forces' arguments appear to rely chiefly on (a) the 28% statistic (b) that the survey never directly asks service members or family members whether they support or oppose repealing DADT (c) that there is no longer a point to certification if Mullen and Gates have already made up their mind, and if that's true, then the "safeguards" put in place by the deal cut earlier this year are no longer safeguarding anything.Each of these was strongly refuted by Gates and Mullen especially, along with Johnson and Ham- Think Progress has a quick compilation of responses- but I mention them especially to keep them in mind as you make calls this week, and ask others to do so. Some of them are cleverly worded and can resonate with wavering Senators.Which gets me to my final thought:
• Of how important it is to call 202-224-3121 and ask swing Senators to support repeal. You can find my current list, verified by multiple sources close to the lobbying process, here. Asking family/friends/colleagues to take 5 minutes and do so, too, is important. Today's hearings made a huge difference, as will personal meetings with military brass, like the one Susan Collins requested, but ultimately, Senators and their staff looking at those call sheet tallies will play perhaps an even bigger role. Let's get to it.

Live from the Senate Armed Services Committee: Don't Ask, Don't Tell hearing

by: Adam Bink

Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:03

12:50: Sen. Levin thanks witnesses, panel, and announces that the hearing stands adjourned. This will conclude updates. I'll have commentary later today.

12:45: McCain complains again about Wikileaks. Mullen agrees. McCain inquires about who will be held responsible and how. Mullen responds that it's out of his lane, but agrees people should be held responsible. McCain: Do you support some kind of congressional or legislative action to make sure this doesn't happen again? Mullen replies that we should do all we can as a country to make sure this doesn't happen again. Johnson criticizes Wikileaks at length. Levin chimes in to concur.

12:37: Sen. Brown discusses how he never asked whether veterans who were injured, deceased were straight or gay. Asks Johnson whether service members have ever come out to him to get out of the military. Johnson said yes- in the Air Force, there was a gay man who came out. We separated him, then asked for our money back. Brown reiterates Gates' comments about how service members can't just get out of the military should they want to leave b/c of DADT repeal. Asks what the timing is on court cases. Johnson replies that LCR appeal is on expedited track.

12:30: Sen. Lieberman asks about margin of error. Johnson responds that it is less than 1%, far lower than any normal survey. Lieberman, Levin, McCain, and Scott Brown only Senators left present.

12:23: Hearing winding down. Sen. McCain finishes up by quoting Colin Powell's comments in 1993. Says he is "taken aback" that we won't have a referendum of men and women in the military, cites 28% statistic. Talks about how leaders should consult subordinates, though that doesn't mean dictated by views of subordinates. Mullen notes what the report did ask and takes good stock of where they are. Reiterates how it would be an "incredibly bad precedent" to ask them to vote. McCain argues it's asking their views, not voting. Mullen argues we've gotten their views in great part of this survey.

12:21: Sen. Levin rebukes Sessions' comment that we're here because of a campaign promise Obama made. Levin says I'm here because of a law passed in 1993 that needs to be changed and because there are gays and lesbians serving and dying for our country and we should honor the service and patriotism of them. That's what I'm here, not because of some campaign promise of President Obama. Very well put.

12:20: Bayh goes onto ask, isn't it likely that there were gay Americans buried at Normandy, serving at Valley Forge, etc. Ham replies that would be a reasonable assumption.

12:16: Sen. Bayh asks if we can implement this change without imperiling our national security. Gates reassures him regarding such. Bayh notes that integration of armed forces enhanced our national security. Gates exits due to time constraints.

12:06: Sen. Graham asks Mullen what led to the change in his thinking. Mullen responds that the mismatch of values/integrity with thousands of men and women willing to die for their country and asking them to lie. Worries that it is corrosive over time and a disrespect to our institution. Graham asks why the Marines "think the way they do." Notes the Marines Commandant is in a different place. Mullen: I've been around Marines. I think people at that age in the Marines are trying to figure themselves out. Asks Johnson et al to prepare a contingency plan should the gov't lose in the Witt, LCR cases. Notes that he's been in the military a long time and never hears people lamenting the policy. Asks what kind of response the witnesses would get if the only question was whether the policy was wrong and do they think it should be changed. Mullen says we don't know and that question would never be asked. Graham chastises Democrats for moving forward on repealing statute before report.

12:02: Sen. Hagan: Reiterates support for moving ahead with repeal. Asks about re-enlistment process. Johnson responds that they'd need to meet usual requirements regarding age, weight, physical requirements, etc. Hagan asks if he believes they would. Johnson notes they've spoken to many who said they would. Hagan asks what steps will be taken to see that gay/lesbian service members would be treated equally and not as a special class receiving special treatment. Mullen: No plan at all to create special class. Our standards would be enforced exactly as they are today.

11:55: Udall makes extended comments on breadth and width of the study, how comprehensive the research into the law has been. Notes how this is not a "done deal" given certification. Asks about service chiefs' involvement. Mullen agrees how critical they are, and notes that he incorporated their advice and input into his recommendations. Notes that all 6 of us, including the coast guard, agree that implementation plan is a very, very solid way ahead specifically, and they will also say that if the law changes, they will lead the way.

11:46: Sessions, in fine form, uses his time to make an extended speech: We're here because the President made a political commitment during a campaign. Goes onto complain about Elena Kagan's testimony on Harvard issue. Complains about "legal cloud" hanging over this issue. Argues that Johnson is biased as he was in favor of repeal before the report. Johnson: Discusses his recommendation of appeal in Witt (DADT) case in argument to defend his record. Sessions and Johnson debate over his bias and judicial record.

11:41: McCaskill goes onto discuss Truman's integration in 1948 and how only a decade later did Congress begin to seriously look at the Civil Rights Act. Asks Johnson to compare the two time periods, then and today. Johnson: I was surprised, Senator, to find there were surveys of the military back then- 3 or 4 thousand surveyed. But the opposition to racial integration was much higher. By the time the military was mostly integrated, Montgomery buses were still not. Opposition was much higher to racial integration then than gay/lesbian integration today. McCaskill: Asks whether there will be a quota. Gates: No, people will be promoted by the same standards by which they are today.

11:38: McCaskill begins by criticizing rhetoric around this issue. Reminds Gates he was selected by GWB to lead DOD. Notes her own partisan tendencies, and assumed he wouldn't be calling the balls and strikes. "I've watched you under President Bush, and I think you've called the balls and strikes." Goes onto note he served two parties, two Presidents, and always stays focused. Very classy of her.

11:34: Sen. Wicker quotes Mullen quoting Obama regarding how he's made his position clear. Discusses how he feels the President et al have "painted Congress into a corner on this." Gates: The action is in the courts, and Congress. Not the President's decision. I can't think of a single example in history of doing a referendum of the armed forces on policy. Yet here we did. Wicker: If the service members are so accepting of this, what would have been the harm of giving that info to Congress? Gates: "I think doing a referendum of service members on a policy matter is a very dangerous path." [Editor's note: Funny, given that was mine and others' same concern when it was announced in the first place.] Wicker: Do you intend to do your job to fully and zealously defend the gov't in DADT litigation while this is going on? Johnson: I will defend the law, which is why I recommended we appeal the LCR and other cases. It is our obligation to defend the law as given to us by Congress. There is a trend taking place after the 2003 Lawrence decision that we all need to be mindful of.

11:26: Sen. Coons alley-oops, to use a basketball term, a question about the harm a court-imposed lifting of the DADT law would impose. Mullen and Gates emphasizes extreme damage by, to use their term, judicial fiat.

11:22: Sen. Chambliss acknowledges courage/valor of gay/lesbian service members. Asks Mullen when gay/lesbians served under command. Mullen: 1973, and also ten years later, then in mid and late 90s, early 2000's, up thru 2004-05. Chambliss: What was the law in the early days? Mullen: In those times, when commands were all men, [gays] were not allowed to serve. If it was exposed, they were discharged. Chambliss: Did you discharge them personally? Mullen: Yes. Chambliss: Did you discharge everyone you know was gay/lesbian? Mullen: Every single one known to be gay/lesbian was discharged. Chambliss: Did that have an impact on morale of sailors serving under you? Mullen: Not noticeably. Chambliss: I want to quote from page 49, paragraph 2, part 6 [goes onto describe part of the report describing how a majority of those interviewed was oppose to repealed. Knowing that, does that change your view? Gates: When coming to all the responses by those motivated to express an opinion, because they were self-motivated by those who wanted to show up an offer an opinion, I was told that was anecdotally important, but not statistically significant. Chambliss: I am bothered by that, and by your [dismissive] response regarding 265K resigning from military. Gates: 1st, I didn't say it wasn't important. 2nd, very few people can leave immediately. 3rd, experience based on the surveys in other countries shows those numbers aren't accurate. Chambliss: Do you believe the rest of the survey is correct? Gates: Well, I outlined the difference between statistical significance of responses, and anecdotal responses from those who submitted them.

11:15: Manchin asks about chaplain community. Johnson says we may lose some of them, but believes we have just as many who feels strongly that this is the right thing to do.

11:11: Sen. Manchin (in what may be his maiden committee hearing) asks about readiness and whether there will mandatory implementation, all-at-one-time. Gates: Review offers a good guideline for leadership training and so forth, but in terms of how those things are carried out, I would give great weight to the views of the service chiefs. Manchin: Asks about costs of implementation given debt/deficit. Gates: Minimal. "One part of the report that I disagree with, and that's the idea of a new benefit for single members of the services who have a sig. other or a gay/lesbian partner, and it would be for both hetero/homosexual partners and for access to family planning and benefits. I think you would hear from the service chiefs from the service chiefs about this partly b/c of the cost and open-endedness of it, but also b/c we're trying to deliver those services to married members, and concerns about diluting the quality of those services if we're delivering to all single people with special people in their lives."

11:06: Following a 5-minute recess, Sen. Thune asks Gates about the importance of views of service chiefs, and whether he would consider adding their signature to certification. Gates affirms their importance but says he would not. Goes on to mention, if not now, when? Notes how we will always be in a situation of being extremely busy around the world and, possibly, combat/war. My view on when I think I can certify certainly will depend heavily on the advice of the service chiefs and whether we have mitigated the concerns they have noted.

10:55: Webb asks Mullen re individual unit "integration". Mullen responds that he would not sign certification until everything was to his satisfaction regarding, for example, all-male unit integration. Webb concludes by praising report again.

10:52: Sen. Webb begins by praising report for usefulness. Asks Gen. Ham whether we have any idea what % of U.S. military is gay/lesbian. Ham: We do, and it's imprecise. Estimate is about the same as general population- somewhere in 2-3%. RAND's assessment that gay men are lower, and lesbians higher, than in general population.

10:48: Collins continues by asking Mullen about opponents' arguments about doing this in the middle of wartime. Notes Truman's 1948 order to integrate was fully implemented during the Korean War. Mullen affirms. Collins: In fact, on page 83, it says that when personnel shortages of the Korean War necessitated integration, it was done. Mullen: We understand what it takes in combat better than we did back then by virtue of experience. We have changed dramatically as a military since 2001. I think it puts us in a capacity to do this now. We are better led than we have ever been. Making a change like this makes us better, it doesn't make us worse.

10:46: Collins continues, Mr. Johnson, is it fair to conclude that the report does represent the views of the military? Mullen: It does. Collins: If there had been lots of people reporting negative reviews, you would have reported that, yes? Johnson: I would have had a professional obligation to report that.

10:44: Susan Collins, a potential cloture vote who voted aye in committee, begins by Ham, Johnson for report, and Mullen/Gates' statements. Wants to go through some of the objection we've been hearing from anti-repeal advocates. Critics state our troops were not asked whether DADT should be repealed. I would point out our troops were not asked whether they should be deployed to Afghanistan/Iraq; they generally aren't asked about policy decisions. However, given extensive feedback the authors did and that they received from tens/thousands of service members in town halls, e-mails, etc., the report, in fact, does convey a sense of what service members think about repealing the law even if a direct question was not included in the survey. I was struck by a special ops operator who said "we have a gay guy in the unit. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. And no one cared that he was gay."

[start of the hearing to now is below the fold]

"Bah! Pentagon Shmentagon!"-President McCain

by: Adam Bink

Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 16:30

Photo courtesy of Pixar

In that he keeps setting requirements to meet his own personal agenda for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and then says "Bah!" when they are met but not to his liking.

McCain dismissed Gates' claim that repealing the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian service members would have little or no effect on military readiness in an interview with NBC News yesterday by suggesting that Gates doesn't really know what ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell will mean for fighters on the ground. McCain, who continues to be opposed to repealing DADT, stated that Gates was not an objective expert on the matter because he's "a political appointee who's never been in the military."

Actually, I'm pretty sure that someone who's never been in the military and therefore is immune from potential biases would be an objective observer, but that's neither here nor there with Johnny Mac. But even so, wait, it turns out that:

A spokesperson for Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says the preeminent veteran in the U.S. Senate "misspoke" yesterday when he said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates never served in the U.S. military.

[...]

In truth, Gates served in the Air Force as a second lieutenant for two years starting in 1967. (That was the same year McCain, a Navy pilot, was injured in a fire aboard the aircraft carrier Forrestal in the coastal waters off Vietnam.)

Carl Fredrickson John McCain just didn't get his nap that day, or something. Whoopsie.

So what are Johnny Mac's requirements, anyway?

"I'm paying attention to the commandant of the Marine Corps," McCain told NBC. "I'm paying attention to the other three service chiefs who have serious concerns. They are the four guys who are directly in charge. In all due respect, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not directly in charge of the troops. The Secretary of Defense is a political appointee who's never been in the military. And the president, obviously, has had no background or experience in the military whatsoever. It was a campaign pledge to the gay and lesbian community."

This, of course, makes us recall his earlier statement:

"I listen to people like Gen. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and literally every military leader that I know. And they testified before Congress that they felt the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was the most appropriate way to conduct ourselves in the military. A policy that has been effective. It has worked. ... But the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

And then once Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates made it clear they support repeal, McCain moved the goalposts to:

"I want to make one thing very clear: I do not oppose or support the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' at this time, but I do oppose taking legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough review of the law. A complete survey to evaluate the impact of repeal on the men and women serving in our military should be concluded before moving forward."

And then once that was completed, McCain again moved the goalposts. Fortunately, Gates is having none of it.

So no doubt Johnny Mac will continue to pay attention to the service chiefs who have concerns, until they don't have concerns, at which point he'll angrily criticize them for not getting off his lawn, playing loud music, and flash dancing snapping to attention for his misbegotten agenda.

In the meantime, because there are a lot of fools who do listen to Johnny Mac, there are a lot of Senators who are still swing votes on this issue who could use an earful from you, your friends, family and colleagues. 202-224-3121.

Update: And I see Johnny Mac and his 41 buddies have now threatened to take their ball and go home if they don't get their tax cuts for the rich.

   [W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to 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...

   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.

Excellent.

Breaking: Illinois set to enact civil unions for same-sex couples

by: Adam Bink

Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 15:16

Often during these events, conversations begin about whether to settle for "halfbaked" respect in the form of civil unions or domestic partnerships rather than push for full marriage equality. For more on this, I've written about this here and here. First, I defer to Illinois couples who face social oppression, higher costs, lack of crucial family protections and so forth, want. It's not my partner whom I can't visit in the hospital, or make funeral arrangements for. That's up to them, and many couples would rather have civil unions and the rights that come with them today then marriage equality in an undetermined period of time from now.

Second, I think my colleague Evan Wolfson with Freedom to Marry, via press release, has it right:

While a welcome step, civil union is no substitute for the full measure of respect, clarity, security, responsibilities, and protection of marriage itself.  States that have created civil union as a means of both giving and withholding - providing legal protections while withholding the freedom to marry and all its meaning - have found that civil union falls far short of marriage with all its tangible and intangible significance in our lives.  Many of those states - Connecticut, New Hampshire, and even Vermont, which first created civil union - have since pushed past civil union to marriage, recognizing the inadequacy and unfairness of a separate and unequal status.

Civil unions are no substitute for the real thing, and we'll all keep pushing for that full recognition and respect.

Third, as commenter texas dem noted in the past, this helps move the ball down the field.

Civil unions are frequently a route to moving the ball down the field.  They provide some relief to some people now, they get people comfortable with the idea of legal recognition for gay relationships, and they create the real-world proof that less than full equality is just not good enough.  A few years of civil unions, and a few horror stories of their failures, can help prepare people for and convince people of the need for full marriage equality.

So good on Illinois legislators and advocates, and now onto the freedom to marry.