If the answer is "Nothing," what is the question?

The question is: what is slimier than a Senate Republican?

(h/t: TechniPol)

Compare and Contrast

Regarding the repeal of DADT:

Honorable™ John McCain:

I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage.

Bryan Fischer (yeah, that guy):

Rarely can you point to a moment in time when a nation consigned itself to the scrap heap of history.

You'll note if you follow the links that, admittedly, Fischer goes on at greater length. But not to worry. I'm sure Angry Johnny will have his choice of talk shows to go on tomorrow, to explain how horrible he thinks civil rights are.

__________

[Added] Also, from the first link above (and following up on an item mentioned earlier), you tell 'em, Harry:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader and a crucial proponent of the repeal, noted that some Republicans had indicated they might try to block Senate approval of a nuclear arms treaty with Russia because of their pique over the Senate action on the ban.

“How’s that’s for statesmanship?” Mr. Reid said.

Tweet of the Day

@chrislhayes:

Being on the left means perpetual dissatisfaction, as it should be. But important for the soul to savor victories when they come.

(h/t: @digby56)

(related)

[Added] Via @OpheliaBenson, NYT story on the repeal of DADT. Also, full roll call and interactive map here.

[Added2] Runner-up for tweet of the day here.

[Added3] Also in contention:

daveweigel Party right now on John McCain's lawn! #DADT

DADT Progress (added: despite Republican threats)

Not quite there yet, according to this article just posted to the NYT:

Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Advances

By a vote of 63 to 33, with six Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate acted to cut off debate on a measure that would let President Obama declare an end to the Clinton-era policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which allows gay members of the armed forces to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. The vote indicated that there was easily enough support to push the measure to final passage.

[...]

The Senate must take a second vote to approve the repeal and send it to President Obama for his signature.

I don't yet understand why that is. I'll add updates if it becomes clearer to me.

[Added] In a move low even by their standards, some Republicans in the Senate said yesterday that "the future of an arms treaty with Russia was endangered by Democratic efforts to repeal 'don’t ask don’t tell' at the end of the lame-duck session." Shameless scumbags.

[Added2] TPM is reporting that the second vote is scheduled for 3 pm and this time, it will only take a simple majority to finish the process. I really don't understand the Senate sometimes.

[Added3] CNN says, "Republicans can seek 30 hours of post-cloture debate, but it was not immediately clear whether they would pursue that."

[Added4] C-SPAN's live stream is here, and they're saying on that page that the vote is scheduled for 3 pm (EST). Right now, however, Angry Johnny is yelling about the new START treaty.

[Update 3:30 pm] Okay, they finally did it! DADT IS REPEALED.

"Scott Brown And Lisa Murkowski Back Standalone DADT Repeal Bill"

The latest bit of hopeful news, from TPM, via Jack Stuef.

Of course, given earlier threats by Jim DeMint (R-SC) to demand full reading of other bills on the Senate floor, it's still not clear that the DADT repeal bill will get a chance to be voted on. The Party of Hell No could well be looking to run out the clock, and Brown and Murkowski might know that, and might just be trying to buy themselves some cred as "reasonable," knowing that they won't actually have to cast the vote they've said they will.

Cynical about Republicans? Moi?

I look forward to being proven wrong.

[Added] More from Greg Sargent on the time issue.

(previously)

House votes to repeal DADT

Probably you heard about this already, but on Wednesday evening, the House of Representatives "voted 250 to 175 to repeal the 17-year Defense Department law that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in uniform."

Of course the hard part is the Senate, but Ed O'Keefe's post makes things sound hopeful; e.g.:

Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the new bill last week, believing it will earn broader Republican support after the Senate completes consideration of the New START Treaty and government spending. Forty-seven senators, including Reid, are cosponsoring the bill.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Wednesday she would join Republican colleagues Scott Brown (Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) in voting to end the ban if the Senate votes again on the bill.

The NYT has a complete roll call of the House vote, along with an interactive map, if you like. A quick summary: the 250 votes in favor of repeal came from 235 Democrats and 15 Republicans. The No votes came from 160 Republicans and 15 Democrats. Five Democrats and four Republicans did not vote.

The GOP has figured out yet another way to be the Party of No

Alex Pareene:

GOP will just delay "don't ask, don't tell" repeal to death

Co-blogger Steve Kornacki is a bit more hopeful, but it looks like our last hopes for this year come down to, as Pareene puts it, "whether or not Susan Collins falls in line with her party or actually votes her supposed 'conscience,' and we all know how that joke turns out."

And we also have to count on the stalwart leadership of … Joe Lieberman, acting against John McCain's wishes {!), plus a belief that now that the tax-cuts deal has been made, the Republicans might this time keep a promise made. And we all know how that joke turns out, too.

Prediction: Holy Joe knuckles under in the Senate cloakroom, makes a public statement about "needing more study," which will be a lie no one will call him on, and then, Merry Christmas, gotta go!

I would really like to be wrong about this prediction.

(x-posted)

Subtlety, Hateway Pundit Style

Jim Hoft begins a post on news related to the push to repeal DADT thus:

Note: This post neither endorses nor opposes gays serving in the US military. It is intended to offer you more information on the topic because once again the corrupt media has decided to campaign for and not report on the subject.

He continues:

Shocker-
Once again a timely report was released today just as Congress is scheduled to debate the topic today in Congressional hearings. The state run media wants you to know that gays can serve in the military openly without hurting the military’s ability to fight.

After a blockquote from an AP story, Hoft concludes:

Of course, what the corrupt media will not tell you is that occasionally a rogue gay soldier may wig out and leak over 250,000 documents to Wikileaks after a relationship falls apart. The media does not believe that this is something you should know. The information does not help them with their cause. Granted, straight soldiers could do this too- They just haven’t yet.

Hard to imagine what it would sound like if he were to write a post in which he opposed gays serving in the military, isn't it?

By the way, don't know if you heard, but Hateway recently moved his blog from FirstThings to RightNetwork. Which will make watching Frasier re-runs considerably less enjoyable. Not that this was ever a big part of my life, but you know.

(h/t: Sadly, No!)

John McCain in his own words ...

... collected by Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Fear Is the Path to the Dark Side."

Hurrah for Mike Mullen

From (gasp) FoxNews:

Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work

Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.

Mullen told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the military is based on meritocracy, "what you do, not who you are." He said if Congress changes the don't ask, don't tell policy then the U.S. military will comply.

And if some people have a problem with that, they may not want to join the service.

"Should repeal occur, some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some may even quit the service," Mullen said. "We'll deal with that."

Mullen added that "there is no gray area" in the debate when it comes to standards of conduct in the military.

"We treat each other with respect or we find another place to work. Period," he said.

Shoutout also to Gen. Cater F. Ham, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe:

"If the law changes, the United States military can do this, even in a time of war," said Ham, who helped lead the working group that conducted the 10-month long study on the impact of openly gay members serving alongside straight troops.

"I do not underestimate the challenges in changing the law, but neither do I underestimate the willingness and capability" of U.S. forces to adapt to change, Ham said.

More from the chairman:

Mullen, who claimed he worked alongside gay service members through his entire career, said combat units who are most opposed to having gays serve openly in the military could lead the way in a smooth transition to a policy switch.

Saying he expects less turbulence, "even in the combat arms world," than some would predict, Mullen added, "In fact, it may be the combat arms community that proves the most effective at managing this change, disciplined as they are. It's not only because our young ones are more tolerant. It's because they've got far more important things to worry about."

Mullen said that U.S. military members are already working on the battlefield with NATO forces from countries where being gay is not a disqualification from service.

"I don't recall a single instance where the fact that one of them might be openly gay ever led to poor performance on the field," he said. "Gay or straight, their troops patrolled with ours and bled with ours."

This being something posted on FoxNews, the comments are an absolute sewer. It's quite possible to read FoxNews's headline and posting of this article as designed to draw just that, but we'll take the good news at face value.

(h/t: JonIrenicus)

[Added] Joan McCarter at DailyKos has posted his full testimony.

"The Dickishness Of The GOP"

When Sullivan is on, he is on.

(h/t: Twin)

Must be because we're a Center-Right Nation™

Missed this in all the Thanksgiving excitement last week:

Fox News Refuses To Run Ad In Favor Of Ending DADT, Despite Public Support For Repeal

And by public support, we mean a lopsided majority the likes of which you almost never see in this country, where a 60-40 vote is called a landslide. The overwhelming majority -- 70-plus percent at least -- of the country, and the same overwhelming majority of the armed forces personnel, either favor letting gays and lesbians serve or think it makes no difference. The brass is down with it: that study that got leaked two weeks ago is officially out no pun intended, and even a maximally hedging headline from the MSM puts it this way:

Pentagon study finds few drawbacks to dropping 'don't ask, don't tell'

Flying H. Spaghetti Monster, just repeal this stupid policy and be done with it, right? Isn't that what we're all thinking? But no. The Republicans don't want to be Handing Obama A Victory, and so of course FoxNews will keep marching in lockstep, committed to the same petty end, and civil rights, military readiness, and taking care of the rest of the problems facing the country? Blow it all to hell, as far as Fox and the GOP care. They got an election to win, and there's still that base to stroke. Gotta raise those campaign funds, and nothing sells to the mouth-breathers like fear and hate, amirite?

Line of the Day: 2010-11-17

It's the maverick way -- spend a year studying whether soldiers deserve full civil rights, and a half an hour deciding who will be your presidential running mate.
    -- Jon Stewart

Okay, so I stepped on one of the punchlines. But only one! So here is a five-minute clip that you will still enjoy, courtesy of TPM and Mr. Snaps.

(alt. video link)

(x-posted)

Line of the Day: 2010-09-23

My problem with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not limited to the fact that he's wrong. The more glaring issue is his habit of saying things that are blatantly untrue while pretending to know what he's talking about.
    -- Steve Benen, via Atrios

Maverick!

Line of the Day: 2010-09-20

Reflecting on my own service and experience, I’m quite confident that sexual orientation does not impact a person’s ability to defuse IEDs, provide medical care for someone wounded the line of duty, or translate intercepted enemy intelligence into English.
    -- former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Shalikashvili

Chickenhawks and Christianists, you will be shocked to learn, do not agree. Be afraid! they howl.

"Here's How The GOP Picks Up Gay Voters"

I retweeted this a while ago, but just in case you missed it, it deserves another mention. That Dan Savage is a pretty smart guy. Short post, packed with insights. Go.

(h/t: Evan Hurst)

A Poignant Moment From Netroots Nation 2010

About two minutes long:

Lt Dan Choi gives Harry Reid his West Point ring & discharge papers

(alt. video link)

(h/t: @maddow via @kewuh, RT by @siouxeeq)

Wingnut Hate Machine Firing On All Cylinders

As we chafe at the excruciatingly slow progress being made toward the repeal of the US military's anti-gay policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," we can take a moment to marvel at the connections made by Bryan Fischer: YOU KNOW WHO ELSE USED GAY SOLDIERS??? HITLER, THAT'S WHO!!!1!

Seriously:

But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals.

Evidently, this has been a fetish for Fischer for some time now. From the archives of watchdog Jody May-Chang, here is a picture of him next to his favorite book, part of a post describing Fischer's support for the death penalty for gays. (Oh, but only in Uganda. For now, at least.)

Who is this guy Bryan Fischer and what else does he spend his time obsessing about? Well, this won't exactly floor you, but he is "the director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at American Family Association," an outfit that believes in "promoting the centrality of God in American life" and "promoting the Christian ethic of decency." So, naturally, in addition to calling gay soldiers Nazis, Fischer thinks all Muslims should be deported.

From the annals of How The Irish Saved Civilization

And a member of Congress, no less!

Representative Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania) is the chief House whip working to round up votes to repeal the military's anti-gay "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. According to Wikipedia,* he is the first Iraq War veteran to serve in Congress. He retired with the rank of Captain, and won a Bronze Star.

Read this short NYT profile about him, for a nice shot of encouragement. For more info, see his official Congressional site's page on repealing DADT.

__________

* Which also tells me that he was the only member of Congress to vote against a resolution honoring the New York Giants. Eh, he's from Pennsylvania, ergo an Eagles fan. No one's perfect.

Yeah, it takes a long time to turn an aircraft carrier in another direction ...

... but maybe, just maybe, we're finally overcoming some inertia:

The nation’s top two Defense officials called on Tuesday for an end to the 16-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, a major step toward allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the United States military for the first time in its history.

That would be Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and SecDef Robert Gates. Of course they still claim to need "more time to review how to carry out the change in policy," but that's probably just codeword for "we need the weekend to shop for window treatments."

Or so it is to be hoped.

Another good sign:

In the interim, Mr. Gates announced that the military was moving toward enforcing the existing policy “in a fairer manner” — a reference to the possibility that the Pentagon would no longer take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law.

Shoutout to Carl Levin, who "[a]s the hearing opened, … welcomed the abolition of the policy, saying it had never made sense to him." And another to Susan Collins, for asking a question she probably knew the answer to:

[She] asked the admiral on Tuesday if he was aware of whether the policies of many NATO allies in Afghanistan, allowing open service, had had any deleterious effect.

The admiral said that he had spoken to many of the NATO partners and that they had reported seeing “no impact” on military performance.

#shockedshocked: Angry Old Walnuts is against any changes in policy. MAVERICKY!