Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

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

DADT trial

By Adam Bink

I’m on Capitol Hill in the hearing room, where I’ll be live-blogging the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Working Group Report and consideration of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. New updates will scroll from the top.

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.”

10:42: Sen. Ben Nelson notes how important it is for service members to be able to tell the truth, both those serving openly and their heterosexual peers who didn’t turn them in. Mullen: I can’t square that circle. Nelson: Doesn’t the current system undermine values of integrity? Mullen: Yes, it does.

10:39: Sen. Scott Brown again reiterates attack on basis of 28% response rate. General Ham: 28% is well within normal response rate for DOD surveys… I’m comfortable the response rate overall was within norms. More importantly, each category that we analyzed had a statistically significant number of responses. Brown: Do you envision starting with certain units over others? Gates: I think the key, as report makes clear, is training both leadership and the entire force. That’s more than 2 million people. Whether we’d begin with one segment or not, we haven’t addressed that yet. My personal approach to this would be that until all the training has been completed, until the service chiefs are comfortable that risks to cohesion/effectiveness have been addressed to their satisfaction and to mine, I would not sign the certification. Brown: You will not certify until you feel the process can move forward w/o damage to safety, security of men and women serving, and that effectiveness to fight will not be jeopardized? Gates: Yes.

Editor’s note: Brown certainly sounds like a potential vote for cloture with his line of questioning, something a number of sources close to the vote count have told me is possible, but less likely than others like Collins, Voinovich.

10:29: Sen. Reed noted extended debate on the topic already. Not too much else to note.

10:26: Inhofe asks if certification process matters at all anymore given this report and testimony. Gates responds that it still matters to him and he will take service chiefs’ advice into account.

10:22: Oh happy day, Sen. Sessions is now present. Sen. Inhofe begins with comments to Mullen on statistics of opposition. Mullen notes that overwhelming majorities would support repeal. Inhofe notes that he believes 28% isn’t very much. Mullen: Actually, when you talk about 28%, of the 400K sent out to those in uniform and more to family members, that’s a remarkable result with statistical significance.

10:20: Lieberman emphasizes how standards of conduct (refers to “gayness”) won’t change in question to Mullen. Mullen affirms.

10:13: While Lieberman is on an extended soliloquy about values and comity, I’ll take a second to note that I think repeal advocates’ strategy here is very smart. Levin’s questions about service chiefs, given that it’s noted opposition among them. Gates, Mullen’s strategy of putting McCain in the position of acting too slowly and putting the military at risk should judicial rulings force their hand.

10:11: McCain to Gates: Very deeply concerned about Wikileaks. Have you held any individual responsible for Wikileaks? Disciplinary action? Gates: Our ability to go down that path are limited b/c we have criminal proceedings going down. Ultimately, not yet.

10:04: McCain to Ham: Is it your personal opinion that this law should be repealed? Ham: Yes. McCain to Gates: How are concerns about repeal exaggerated? Gates: I don’t recall using that term. I believe with proper time for prep, training, before deployments or after, if we are allowed to do this on our terms, I believe those concerns can be mitigated. Reiterates Mullen’s comments on the experiences of those who have served with openly gay and lesbian service members. McCain: I couldn’t disagree more. 12.6% of the overall military force said they’ll leave earlier than planned [if DADT is repealed]. Overall numbers- he estimates 265K troops to leave. You think that’s a good idea when we’re fighting two wars? Gates: Yes, and our military allies had large numbers who said they would leave, and in the end, those numbers were far smaller than what surveys indicated. While there are concerns you’ll probably hear tomorrow about special ops forces where there are limited numbers of people, I don’t think any of us think the numbers would be anything like what the survey suggests, based on experience. Also, they can’t just up and leave. They have enlistment contracts. It isn’t like they can just say, well, I’m outta here. And I believe their concerns can be mitigated.

10:01: Levin Q to Gates- you’ve urged us to be deliberate, but also to ask this month. How can you reconcile? Gates: I think the report needed to inform the legislative process, it’s now done so. It’s clear and straightforward. The recommendations are doable within the timeframe before the Congress adjourns. I believe, based on the report, that Congress is in a position to act b/c it now has this info in hand and frankly I don’t think it’s all that complicated to absorb.

9:59: Levin Q to Gates: “Would you consider our acting this month to be hasty?” Gates: “It certainly would be expeditious. As Sen. McCain said, this is a very important matter. My sense of urgency would not be as great were it not for what we went thru in Oct, Nov (editor’s note: referring to judicial rulings) which frankly were a difficult period when we were told the law was changed and couldn’t enforce it with no training whatsoever.”

9:55: Questions begin with Chairman Levin. Sens. Chambliss and Hagan have also now arrived. Levin asks Gates whether Mullen, Gates, Ham, Johnson have considered views of service chiefs before reaching their conclusion. He is smartly trying to reassure everyone that their views, while some may be hostile, have been accounted for. All affirm that they indeed have.

9:51: Sen. Levin mentions Gates must leave at 11:30, tells Senators they will have 5 minutes for questions. McCain complains. Levin assures him there will be several rounds of questions, and we need to accomodate everyone’s schedule. McCain complains, asks for more hearings. Gates agrees to stay until 12. Inhofe asks for 6 minutes instead of 5. Laughter. Levin smiles, agrees.

9:49: Johnson continues to strike fear of the courts into the hearts and minds of those listening. “From where I sit as the lawyer for DOD, the virtue of this legislation is that if passed, repeal of DADT will be done on our terms and our timetable on the advice of military leadership.” Also uses “judicial fiat” term that Gates uses.

9:47: Jeh Johnson is now speaking: “I want… to ask that the Congress not leave this in the hands of the courts. I have no doubts on the constitutionality or the outcome of the litigation but regardless of how you feel about DADT, or gays serving openly in the military, the fact that there is increased litigation in the courts on matters of gay rights is undeniable. Since 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas) the courts have become increasingly receptive to gay lights claims.”

He goes onto to discuss DOMA and DADT litigation and how he is concerned that we’ll have to repeal DADT not on the terms and timetable of the President, Congress and courts, but on the judicial branch.

9:45: General Ham (very short statement): “I was cognizant every day of this review that I would actually have to lead the changes presented in this report. If this law changes I and the leaders can do just that.”

9:43: Mulllen continues- “For more than 40 years I’ve made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women… don’t think for a moment that I haven’t considered the impact of the advice I give [on those lives].” General Ham is up next.

9:41: Brilliant Mullen quote regarding a Marine, often considered to be the most hostile to repeal: “As one Marine put it, if that’s what the President ordered, by God, we’re going to excel above and beyond the other armed services to make it happen.”

9:39: Mullen continues- “Let me be clear… nothing will change about our standards of conduct, nor the dignity, fairness and equality with which we treat our people… the military is a meritocracy with treatment based on what you do, not who you are… we may wear a different uniform but we are one… there is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect or we find another place to work.”

9:37: Mullen continues- “Some may want separate shower facilities… some may even quit the service. We’ll deal with that. But history tells us most will put aside personal proclivities for themselves and for each other… there’s a common bond against threat of the enemy… I believe the repeal of DADT will pass with less turbulence than some predict, not only because our young ones are more tolerant, but because they’ve got more important things to worry about.”

9:35: Admiral Mullen is speaking and is very short, blunt, and to the point. “What was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Unit cohesion will not suffer, families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the service. I don’t discount for a moment the results of the survey… whatever risk there is, it is thoroughly mitigated by the [recommendations] in this study. These are the things I know for a fact, these are the things the study tells us. Now let me tel you what I believe. Our troops are ready for this. Most are serving or have served alongside gays and lesbians.”

9:28: Gates continues- (c) this change imposed by judicial fiat would be the most dangerous possibility; therefore, I agree with Sen. McCain that change is for the Congress to decide; we need a process the carries the “imprimateur” of the Congress elected by the people; we cannot “roll the dice” that judicial change would go well (d) this is the second time that I have dealt with this issue, the 2nd being the CIA in 1992, and as director I ordered that openly gay applicants be treated like all over applicants. That was significantly different in circumstance and consequence than what we’re facing today. Views towards gays and lesbians are different today, and there is growing acceptance in society as a whole, and in uniformed ranks as a whole. I ask that all involved resist the lure of bringing our troops and families into the politics of this issue.

9:26: Sens. Wicker and Thune are now here.

9:24: Sec. Gates is now speaking. He is emphasizing (a) his job was only to discover how best to prepare the military for such a change, but nevertheless he thought it important to survey the military (b) A strong majority (more than 2/3) do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform; repeal of DADT, while potentially disruptive in the short term, would not be the wrenching change others had predicted.

9:22: McCain discusses how he’s concerned about the “rush to repeal” despite significant numbers of service members viewing it negatively. He continues, “As this debate continues, I hope people would put aside their political agendas.” Hah. “I’m not saying this law should never change, I am simply saying that it may be premature… without further consideration of this report and further study by Congress.” No word on which goalposts he will newly set up.

9:16: Sen. McCain: “This capable force of ours could repeal DADT if asked to… what I want to know is not can our Armed Forces repeal this law but whether they should. Unfortunately, that’s not the focus of this study… this is a question that must be answered by Congress with proper consideration of the issue… the DOD has had 10 months to complete this report. Together they contain over 1,000 pages of data and analysis. We received it 36 hours ago and are still carefully analyzing it. What I can saw now is that in addition to my concerns over what questions were not asked, I’m troubled by the fact that this report represents only 28% of the military force. I find that hard to view that as a fully representative sample set… what appears clear is that the survey and anecdotal data… do not lead to a firm conclusion.”

McCain continues to highlight the statistics he views as arguments against repeal, such as Marine surveys.

9:14: Sens. Brown, Burr, and LeMieux are now here.

9:07: Sen. Levin gaveled in the hearing to announce the topic and testimony and detailing how comprehensive the overview of the policy has been. So far, present are Sens. Levin, Manchin, Collins, McCaskill, Webb, Udall, Inhofe, Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, and Reed.

9:04 AM: Senators are filing in along with Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and Working Group Co-Chairs Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham. The hearing appears set to begin in the next 10 minutes. LGBT allies have certainly filled out much of the room- to my left are GetEqual Managing Director Heather Cronk, to my right are HRC President Joe Solmonese and Legislative Counsel Ty Cobb. Code Pink is also here. The line was 25 people long when I arrived at 7:57 AM and the room is now packed.

151 Comments

  • 1. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 12:10 am

    Terrific! Live blogging!! WOOT! thank you!!

  • 2. adambink  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:48 am

    You bet!

  • 3. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Yay YOU! This is really amazing, thanks!!! I have to be at work and cannot follow the hearings, so having you there hitting us up with the key points is terrifically wonderful and all kinds of good!

    You get an entire BOX of cookies and a PITCHER of MILK.

  • 4. Kathleen  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Sorry I won't be around for live blogging today. Have fun, everyone!

    For anyone who missed the announcement – Reinhardt denied the motion to recuse himself. He's going to file a memo "in due course." If it comes in today, there will be a delay in getting it up to Scribd, but will catch up with everything early this evening.

  • 5. OldCoastie  |  December 2, 2010 at 12:15 am

    oh good! thank you for being there!

  • 6. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 12:31 am

    Thanks, Adam.

  • 7. Ronnie  |  December 2, 2010 at 12:34 am

    Sup?…..I'm going into NYC today…so I'll have to catch up later…I might check in on my phone….but this should be interesting…I see McLame….I mean McCain has already started in with his blatantly obvious arrogance…."the survey results don't show what I wanted them to show…so they are irrelevant & biased"…..blah blah blah Felicity blah….get over it McCain…<3….Ronnie

  • 8. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 12:42 am

    McCain should worry about the “rush to repeal” – if they don't repeal this it WILL get repealed in a court of law – and then the 'rush' is going to be overnight. Suddenly there will be no DADT, no preparation or planning will happen at that point.

    McCain is an idiot.

  • 9. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 12:55 am

    "McCain is an idiot" PUNCH!!!! (I just punched M. in the nose!)

  • 10. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Be careful.

    His head is full of rocks, and not the soft, punchable kind. You will hurt your fist.

  • 11. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Levin: "frankly I don’t think it’s all that complicated to absorb…." (Unless you are McCain!)

  • 12. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:02 am

    McCain is worried that a survey sample size is ONLY 28%? Most pollsters would call that rock solid conclusive! No one EVER gets that high a sample from that large a group.

    Does he simply not understand how polling works? Is he a doofus? Are my questions INCREDIBLY rhetorical?

  • 13. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:06 am

    HOLY SH$T! No doubt I spit coffee when I read that…28 Fing %(that's a HUGE sample…unprecendented) LOLOLOLOLOLOL….McCain… DOH!!!

  • 14. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:10 am

    To be fair, McCain was there when polling was invented, at which time every member of the village passed around the talking stick and shared their in-depth opinions.

  • 15. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:13 am

    Yes, and even then, a sampling of 28% was HUGE!

  • 16. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:14 am

    WE have to remember that the typical response rate to polls, especially those which are mailed out rather than telephone call-type, is about 2-3% of the total number of surveys mailed out. This is a sampling that is roughly 10 times that.

  • 17. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:17 am

    !!!!!!!

  • 18. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:11 am

    No, he does NOT understand how polling works.
    Yes, he is a doofus. And aducated one, but still a doofus.
    No, your questions are NOT rhetorical, incredibly or credibly. They are honest questions that deserve an answer. I have long said that Cindy is the brains in that family. And apparently Meghan inherited hers from her mother.

  • 19. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:12 am

    OOPS! That was supposed to read "educated," not "aducated."
    Guess I get a bit agitated when it comes to John McLame!

  • 20. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:14 am

    He could be aducated…

    Definition: An education derived from TV, Magazine, and Bill Board advertisements.

  • 21. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Yes, and it sounds like the ads he pays attention to come from Focus on the Family, the AFA, Eugene DelGuadio, and so forth. Which means he only has a FAUX-aducation.

  • 22. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:37 am

    LOL @ FAUXaducation

  • 23. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:47 am

    LOL! We really need to be keeping a dictionary of these things… aducate, comust, udpate…

  • 24. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:56 am

    that would be fun : )

  • 25. adambink  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:48 am

    On one other note, I'm betting when he reads a poll in the paper about anything, or about his own re-election race, he never asks for cross-tabs. It's all politics.

  • 26. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:38 am

    Some info on sampling, for those interested.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_sampling

  • 27. Ronnie  |  December 2, 2010 at 9:48 am

    "Does he simply not understand how polling works? Is he a doofus? Are my questions INCREDIBLY rhetorical?"

    anonygrl….I love it…yes he does not understand, totally yes, & extremely perfect questions to ask..<3…Ronnie

  • 28. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:08 am

    Omigod… Omigod… Omigod… McCain complaining about the time to ask questions by taking up the time to ask questions by complaining… want to punch… must resist…

  • 29. Lee  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:13 am

    McCain is worried that 12% will not re-enlist if DADT is repealed? Someone should remind him of the numbers of lesbians and gays who will now be able to enlist and re-enlist when DADT *IS* repealed.

  • 30. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:16 am

    And that number would probably dwarf the number of those who would refuse to re-enlist.
    McLame also needs to look at what was threatened in the UK when they lifted the ban and compare that to what really happened. In the UK 10,000 troops said they would not re-enlist, and in the end only three troops left the service.

  • 31. Lee  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Eeeexactly.

  • 32. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:22 am

    !!

  • 33. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:17 am

    If they are willing to quit their jobs in this economy, then some stupidity will be weeded from the service.

  • 34. Lee  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:19 am

    Wouldn't be bad for judgmental discriminators to get out, either.

  • 35. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:20 am

    Especially the ones who are supposed to be chaplains.

  • 36. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:23 am

    Yes, especially those. Chaplains are supposed to serve ALL servicemembers, are they not? If they can't or won't, it sounds like dereliction of duty to me.

  • 37. James Sweet  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Bingo.

    From a strictly pragmatic perspective, if there were to be mass defections of soldiers as a result of this repeal (which there won't be, but this is a hypothetical), then that would be a problem. Presumably being a homophobic bigot does not prevent you from killing people. (I'm being glib, but in all seriousness, though I would question the effect on unit cohesion of the types of people who would resign over this, soldiers' views on LGBT issues are not directly related to their job performance)

    But chaplains? Even if every single chaplain were to quit in protest to the repeal of DADT, we would be forced to deduce from that that not a single chaplain was doing her job properly. Any chaplain who would quit over this is unqualified to serve in the role which chaplains are supposed to serve in the military.

    You can be a discriminatory asshole and still (in theory) be a good soldier, but you can't be a discriminatory asshole and be a good chaplain. Period.

  • 38. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Excellent point!

  • 39. James Sweet  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:18 am

    12% say it would change their mind about re-enlisting. Empty bluster. I'd guess the number would be more like 1-2%, tops.

    It's big talk. "If my employer does X, I'll quit!" Yeah, um… how many times have you heard that, and how many times has the big-talker followed through?

  • 40. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Same with "If X gets elected President, I'm moving to _____!"

    My Mom actually told me a couple of weeks ago that if Palin gets elected, she's moving to Canada. I suggested the whole family could go either there or to Australia. =)

  • 41. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:30 am

    If Palin ever gets elected, I'm sticking around just so that I can vote for legislators who will oppose her crazypants agenda and can vote against her if she runs for a second term. That is, if she finishes one term.

  • 42. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Yes, it remains to be seen what will make her resign if she is elected POTUS. Or maybe, someone will bring it up that she didn't even have the guts to finish out her first term as Alaska's governor.

  • 43. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Richard, everyone will bring up that little fact. I'll be first in line.

  • 44. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:46 am

    And I will be right there with you. Especially if she pick John McLame as her running mate!

  • 45. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:47 am

    I don't think there's any love lost between those two, if there's any credence to the leaks from their campaign staff.

  • 46. JonT  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:36 am

    Someone should also remind him that in the UK, there were doom and gloom predictions about how many people would resign, or not enlist if open service was permitted.

    And not a one came to pass.

    McCain is just an old school bigot, like many his age.

  • 47. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:40 am

    And those who DO enlist will likely be of a higher calliber, as there'll be a reduced need for moral waivers, fitness/education exceptions, etc.

    They might be able to end stop-loss orders as well.

  • 48. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:32 am

    They denied the motion for the Judge to recuse himself!!!!!

  • 49. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:36 am

    WWWWWWOOOOOOTTTTTTTT! tx 4 update!

  • 50. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:36 am

    WOOT! ….and a loud CLAP!

  • 51. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Wait, what? Is this in reference to NOM and Reinhardt? If so WOOT! (and also OBVIOUSLY…)

    🙂

  • 52. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Yes anonygrl! It's a bit Whooot day!

  • 53. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Woot!!!

    I am not going to be able to get any work done today, you all realize this, right? Because if WOOTy things keep happening, I have to stay here and find out about them.

    To that end, I am going to have to start taking a collection to help support me when I lose my job because I spent my entire day here WOOTing WOOTily.

    WOOT!

    🙂

    (For those keeping score, that is four points for using WOOT as an adjective, a verb, an adverb and an exclamation all in the same post. And technically, that last sentence used it as a noun, so five points for me.)

  • 54. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Woot! ; )

  • 55. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:51 am

    come work with me, in S.L.C !

  • 56. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Woot, woot!!

  • 57. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Here is a link to the SCRIBD motion
    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/12/rein

  • 58. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:04 am

    So when do we find out that they've appealed the denial (becuase we know they will)?

  • 59. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:14 am

    Do they have to repeal that the the SC?

  • 60. Ed  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Can we get a website confirming this please?

  • 61. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:16 am

    @ Ed – up above is a link to the actual filed document

  • 62. James Sweet  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Woot indeed, but utterly predictable. It was a silly motion. Yes on 8 are grasping at straws, because they know they've got nothing.

    Unfortunately for the good guys, even with nothing, they'll probably win 5-4 at SCOTUS.

  • 63. Bob Barnes  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Hey McCain, as for all of those who didn't respond to the survey, that's their way of saying THEY DON'T CARE!

    Grow up, old man.

  • 64. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:13 am

    And do we know WHICH of the mass of intervenors filed the motion? I am just curious about that.

  • 65. James Sweet  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:21 am

    Actually, that would be a problem. I am hoping the committee took steps to correct for selection bias. The hope is that the 28% is representative of the whole.

    With a sample that frakkin' huge, it is not difficult to correct for selection bias, though, so I'm assuming this was done.

  • 66. Shelly  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Good luck every1!!!!! We know God is on our side now lets show this world!!!

  • 67. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Thanks Shelly : )

  • 68. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:44 am

    I give credit to Sen Collins for addressing the fact that the service members don't vote on what they do day to day

  • 69. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Exactly true! They FOLLOW ORDERS.

  • 70. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:48 am

    I get the feeling that Sen Collins would be willing to cross party lines and vote for cloture.

  • 71. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:56 am

    For those who can watch, here is the link to the live webcast of the hearings.
    http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts.htm

  • 72. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:15 am

    goody!

  • 73. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:18 am

    good fast stream…thanks!

  • 74. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Now McCain bringing 2001 quote from Powell….. its 2010 McCain!!!

  • 75. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:21 am

    "we need to go around and talk to the enlisted…." McCain go to HELL! (grrrrrrrrrrr)

  • 76. James Sweet  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:57 am

    I’m troubled by the fact that this report represents only 28% of the military force. I find that hard to view that as a fully representative sample set…

    So… McCain rejects every single cancer study that has ever been done, I suppose? Since they all represent far far FAR less than 28% of those who have cancer…

    Statistics FAIL. Sampling 28% of your population is freakin' phenomenal, assuming there is no selection bias (note I am just assuming that the committee took steps to avoid selection bias; I haven't read the report and so I don't actually know.. but it would be really silly to take such a huge sample and then not try and guard against systemic biases!) That's going to give you sick-tight error bars.

    I mean, holy crap… that would be like if you released a car that got 90 miles to the gallon, and McCain was all like, "I'm concerned that this car doesn't get 100 miles per gallon…" WTF?!

  • 77. James Sweet  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Heh. Well no surprise Inhofe has a problem with the phenomenal 28% sample, AGW denier that he is.
    http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/DADT.html

  • 78. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:58 am

    OK, so who told them they could take a break from the hearings, I surely didn't authorize it!

  • 79. Alan E  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Subscribing for later.

  • 80. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:42 am

    I am a little concerned about the benefits issue.

    If they get bogged down in the issue of who will get what benefits, this may be a problem. Ultimately, that is a fight for another day.

    But I think that the repeal of DADT will go a LONG way in the fight to overturn DOMA, as we will now have service members who can be married in some states and not receiving spousal benefits, which will not sit well with quite a few people who might not be as concerned about it if it did not involve members of the armed services.

    I am getting rather tingley about how much is riding on all this, and about how quickly (OK, maybe only quickly in geological terms, but that is the speed at which Congress works) our world is changing.

  • 81. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:52 am

    anongrl, I as a service member in the reserves with a partner on active duty, I have to agree with the current plan that limits benefits to the "significant others" of service members, the armed forces has regulations that say if you have a legal dependent, then they are entitled to the benefits. As a partner of an active duty service member I am not a legal dependent, however, DOMA is overturned, and we can once again get married legally in CA, I want my benefits like any other spouse.

  • 82. Ed  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:53 am

    I was thinking that as well. What if this *is* the way Obama is trying to fight DOMA? Repeal DADT with DOMA in place would be a huge shit-storm of red tape for spousal benefits. Just an opinion….

  • 83. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:15 am

    I like the thought. And I hope that it works in that direction, that is "We now HAVE to repeal DOMA because of issues caused by the repeal of DADT", not "We can't repeal DADT because of DOMA issues…"

    In fact, let's just pretend I never even posted this thought in the first place, and go back to WOOTing, ok?

  • 84. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:25 am

    anongrl, that is the process that I am patiently waiting for, DADT falls then Prop 8 then DOMA, I don't care about the order but when all these fall, I will have all those that are entitled to, I know it is similar to the rest of those that live in CA and other states but right now, I could not even go to another state to get married without being discharged because I signed a contract that stated I would be discharged if I "married or attempted to marry a person of the same sex" When Prop 8 goes down, the people of CA will have that freedom to marry and others like LLB could travel across the state line and marry but I will still not be able to.

  • 85. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:11 am

    woot woot

  • 86. Kathleen  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    I think the feds see the writing on the wall wrt DOMA, as well. Though it hasn't come up as a legislative item, I think it's pretty clear to them that it's just a matter of time before the courts strike it down.

  • 87. Alan E  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:42 am

    m troubled by the fact that this report represents only 28% of the military force. I find that hard to view that as a fully representative sample set

    This right here shows that McCain is an idiot and doesn't understand how stats and polling works. 28% is HUGE for any study!

  • 88. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Yep! Senator Lieberman doing a good job addressing this : )

  • 89. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:45 am

    OK, Sen. Sessions is speaking and I am becoming sick to my stomach.

  • 90. celdd  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Me too.

    I have been thinking that the elephant in the room that no one has mentioned is why this is controversial at all. No one has said they don't like gay people because of what is preached in church. That being gay is evil.

    People like Sessions don't consider LGBT to be equal people. He outright said that it's a behavior, not a characteristic of who they are. Thus, it is not discrimination.

  • 91. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:55 am

    So does someone need to bring Adam a new battery?

  • 92. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:56 am

    I think they are on a break

  • 93. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:00 am

    The web cast is still up and running and Adam hasn't posted in the last 18 min, and 3 hrs is a long time for one battery.

  • 94. adambink  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:00 am

    I'm at 43%, thanks, just a lull.

  • 95. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:17 am

    LOL!

    We demand INSTANT results! (Feel free to bop us on the noggin if we are pestering you while you are doing all the work for our intant gratification!)

    Love and kisses to you Adam!!!

  • 96. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:29 am

    amazing Adam to keep track of all!! Impressive! thank you!

  • 97. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:01 am

    There you are, was getting worried, thanks for your service Adam

  • 98. Carol  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:08 am

    So it seems the senators and generals assume DADT WILL be ended by the courts, and the question is whether the other two branches of govt trust the courts to let the military do this in an orderly way or whether the Senate should man/woman up and make their own plan in consultation with the generals before the courts can do it first.

    But they all (possibly excepting McCain and Sessions and a few other fossils) assume it will happen, with or without them.

  • 99. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Has anyone else noticed how this tide is turning?

    The Senate realizes that DADT is on the way out, one way or another, and are talking like it is inevitable.

    NOM realizes that Prop 8 is going to be conclusively overturned and is making all sorts of noise AHEAD of the ruling about why things are going to go badly for them.

    DOMA is being dismantled by the courts and the government seems to be mounting only the minimum token protest that they absolutely have to do.

    Illinois just slid the civil unions bill through with minimal protest from the usual suspects, and little effect from the ones who did try to stop it.

    The growing concensus seems to be that if the Republicans who won during the midterms make any kind of big pushes against LGBT rights, they are destined to be ousted again in two years.

    We discussed this over the summer, that things were galloping apace and we were headed towards equality at a rate surprising to those who have been fighting the fight for years. Right now, I think that if we win on DADT, that we have not only reached the tipping point, we are firmly on the other side of it. Yes, some things will still take time, and of course there will always be setbacks, but… we are in the home stretch.

    What a nice Hannukah/ Christmas/ Solstice/ Kwanzaa/ Ramadan/ Festivus … HOLIDAY present this is.

  • 100. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Yes, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is always a wonderful gift. You never have to worry about whether it is the right size, shape or color for the recipient, because it always fits.

  • 101. Ronnie  |  December 2, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Yes…Equality is Inevitable…..

    Happy Hannuchristmaticezaadantivus!!!!!…. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 102. Carol  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Adam, I forgot to thank you for an amazing morning's work.

    Thank you!

  • 103. adambink  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Thank you's are always appreciated 🙂 You're welcome. I'm glad it could be helpful for people without time/ability to follow.

  • 104. Carol  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:48 am

    I'd like to rephrase my remark.

    My general impression is the generals and senators are scared of what the courts will do. Yet they seem to agree with the findings in the LCR case that DADT damages military morale and readiness because it is inconsistent with the military duty of honesty. (Not to mention that it presumes soldiers' impulse control is so weak they can't obey orders.) This may leave the Senate in the position of trying to keep control of the issue by ending DADT on its terms before the 9th Circuit can do it on its own.

  • 105. James Sweet  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Manchin asks about chaplain community. Johnson says we may lose some of them

    And since in theory the chaplains are supposed to be there to improve morale (not in order to be evangelizing, even though a lot of those assholes do these days, I hear) any chaplain who would leave due to the repeal of DADT was clearly unqualified to be doing her/his job.

  • 106. Nick  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:27 am

    I'm listening to the live broadcast of the proceedings – McCain is speaking- OMG-I can't find reasonable words to describe this man. I swear what comes out of his mouth smells as bad as what comes out of the other end!!!!!!!!! So sorry folks – but I just can't hold it in any more!!!

  • 107. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:31 am

    !!!!!!!!

  • 108. James Sweet  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:31 am

    I dunno, I would not be surprised if McCain's farts had a better understanding of statistics than he does.

  • 109. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:48 am

    ROFL!

  • 110. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:32 am

    McCain is just a cardboard cutout with a mouth!

  • 111. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Is there anybody here who is willing to look for the off switch for that mouth, and then activate the off switch?

  • 112. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Nick, I don't think that there is anyone here that would disagree with you, I am also listening/watching the webcast and some of the comments from McLame, Session and Chambliss are absolutely vile and sickening.

  • 113. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Is there any difference between what come out of McLames mouth and what sits in the tank of a Porta-John?

  • 114. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Yes. It is easier to clean out the Porta-John than it is to get rid of McLame!

  • 115. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:05 am

    We in Arizona know that fact!

  • 116. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:13 am

    And it's probably cheaper to clean out the Porta-John, too!

  • 117. JonT  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Heh, no argument from me. I can't stand listening to anything that asshole says anymore.

    Before 2000, I actually used to like him. Then he got in bed with the religious right when he decided he wanted to become pres, and has become more and more of a douchebag ever since.

  • 118. rick Jacobs  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Adam Bink is terrific. Thank you, Adam, for this work. I can attest to the difficulty of doing this (from my weeks of live blogging the Prop 8 trial). Adam puts me to shame!

  • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:46 am

    I don't agree with the shame part – you did a fantastic job Rick.

    I do agree that Adam is terrific! Thanks Adam.

  • 120. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Thank you Adam AND Rick : )

  • 121. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Yay again Adam!!!! Thank you!

  • 122. Jonathan H  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:11 am

    How did I miss that? Yes, big huge major thank you to Adam and Rick and everyone else involved!

  • 123. adambink  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Aw, shucks.

  • 124. Jonathan H  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:47 am

    I have nothing useful to say, just subbin'.

  • 125. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Thanks Adam, you did a awesome job, I look forward to your commentary on Friday.

  • 126. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:54 am

    And HOW exactly does Wikileaks impact DADT? Or is McCain just fishing blindly?

  • 127. Freddy  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:00 am

    As usual, McCain is just grasping at straws and anything else that is controversial, this is the second time he addressed it, almost like he is running out of negative things to say about the repeal.

  • 128. Jonathan H  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:09 am

    No no, I've worked it out!

    See, as everyone knows, gays are notorious gossips (it must be true, 'cause I just typed it), so if we repeal DADT, they won't have to keep quiet to pass, and will return to their gossipy ways.

    Once Wikileaks gets ahold of a few out gays in sensitive positions, they'll have access to everything the military knows, allowing them to inform terrorists and journalists, and even worse, voters!

    This will not only endanger American Values™ and some cushy defense contracts, but it might seriously embarrass some politicians! Clearly, it's a threat to security, national or possibly just emotional.

  • 129. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:33 am

    When they were discussing the whole Wikileaks thing on CNN (or HLN – don't remember which) the other day, they said that the guy who's currently imprisoned for leaking all of these documents happens to be gay.

    I think McCain is processing this as "a gay man leaked all this info to Wikileaks — so clearly we can't let more gays in or we'll have more leaks."

  • 130. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:38 am

    If he were heterosexual would they want to remove all straight men from the military? Think not!

    But I think you are spot on as to why McCain brought it up.

  • 131. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:57 am

    I'm sure they wouldn't want to remove all straight men — but they might try to make things uncomfortable for whatever subset minority the person belonged to. Red hair? Left-handed? Muslim? Atheist? Progressive Christian? Balding? Too hairy? Tone deaf?

  • 132. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:35 am

    OK, when I got to tone deaf, I spit coffee at my monitor. The gal in the next cubicle is now wondering if she should call someone to take me to a nice, soft room for a while.

  • 133. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Don't ruin the equipment at work yet…you might still have a job on monday.

  • 134. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Hmmmmm…..and I wonder what they will do next.

    Reinhardt Unmoved by Prop. 8 Recusal Request

    A spokesman for the defendants told the LB Thursday afternoon that they were still mulling their next stop. Stay tuned.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/12/02/reinhardt-unm

  • 135. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Lieberman, Levin, McCain, and Scott Brown only Senators left present.

    Seriously? What are we paying the rest of them for? I'm at least happy to see Sen. Brown taking this seriously. He has a reputation as a very hard worker, so against my better judgement I may allow myself to hope that he'll respect the study and break ranks with his GOP colleagues.

  • 136. Chris From CO  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:17 am

    I hope Collins, Snow, and Brown will listen to McCain carefully and hear the only reason he doesn't want to move forward on this issue is because Obama wants it done. I want them to draw the line and say we can't stop this just becuase this is what the president wants. We will see who has the balls to break away or don't. My guess is it will be a grid-lock session. They want the newbeis to take on these issues.

  • 137. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:20 am

    Do they really want not to have a defense budget? How does that really tell our service men what we think of them.

  • 138. Sagesse  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Been travelling all morning. Looking forward to catching up. Visiting family in Vancouver for the weekend.

  • 139. Kathleen  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Welcome to the west coast!

  • 140. Juli  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:41 am

    maybe I'm just way too cynical, but I wonder if McCain and the republicans in general are dragging feet on DADT just to force the democrats to pass the tax cut for billionaires.

  • 141. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:46 am

    If you're way too cynical, then so are a lot of us.

  • 142. Chris From CO  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Don't know Juli many of us never had seven houses to deal with when tax time came. McCain would be the millionair+ to ask on that issue. I do feel that these tax cuts will be the baromoter for the rest of the session. It was after all made clear yesterday with 42 signatures. DADT is screwed. And so is the defense authorization bill. If all tax cuts arnt extended. Just an opinion. I dont have solid proof.

  • 143. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 7:06 am

    McCain has no money, his wife does!

  • 144. Chris From CO  |  December 2, 2010 at 8:02 am

    LOL. Great point.

  • 145. Jacob  |  December 2, 2010 at 8:12 am

    This is great. THANK YOU.

    The Q&A at 11:22 has me flummoxed and slightly concerned about the history being created.

    "Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II" seems like it would have been a resource to these folks.

    The book isn't entirely friendly to the military – not a huge surprise – but it does present what I understand to be a more accurate timeline of queer military service than the one given in this hearing.

    Granted, in the big scheme of things, there are certainly larger issues to dig into first.

  • 146. Rhie  |  December 2, 2010 at 10:43 am

    tickin the box

  • 147. Thoughts & reactions &hellip  |  December 2, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    […] If you missed the coverage, I was in the Senate today live-blogging the hearings on the Comprehensive Working Group report. You can find an edited transcript, some thoughts, and other coverage on this thread. […]

  • 148. Mullen makes strong case &hellip  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    […] Bink is also liveblogging it at Courage Campaign. One of the highlight thus far has been Admiral Mike Mullen’s opening statement, including […]

  • 149. Kathleen  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    UPDATE: Reallocation of time for second hour of oral arguments http://www.scribd.com/doc/44575119

    This is a minor adjustment and per the joint request of Plaintiffs and P-Is City and County of SF

  • 150. Live from the Senate Arme&hellip  |  December 3, 2010 at 6:13 am

    […] This morning, we’ll commence the 2nd day of hearings on the Pentagon Comprehensive Working Group Report and Senate consideration of legislation to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell statute. Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Cartwright will testify, along with the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard chiefs. Updates will scroll from the top. If you missed yesterday’s coverage, you can find it here. […]

  • 151. Security comes before pol&hellip  |  December 3, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    […] amid the two days’ worth of hearings, which if you missed it, you can find coverage of day 1 here and day 2 here at […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!