More Tuesday Male Beauty

Obama Bashes Liberals and Democrat Party Base Yet Again

UPDATED: This statement by Howard Fineman at Huffington Post sums up where Obama seems to be headed in my view:

*

By staking his next two years on hundreds of billions of dollars of new or renewed tax cuts -- none of them tied directly to compensating cuts in government spending -- Obama is alienating his own Democratic base in a way that could make him what Carter was: a one-term, ineffective "outsider" president.

*

The White House and the party spin doctors it controls are putting out press releases touting all that Obama "got" in his "negotiations" with the GOP. But most of what he "got" were more unpaid-for tax cuts to go along with the $100 billion or so he waved ahead in two year's worth of tax cuts for every family making more than $250,000 a year.

*

As readers have no doubt figured out by now, I have pretty much written off the petulant Liar-in-Chief and truly hoe for a primary challenge for the Democrat ticket in the lead up to 2012. Obama lies, dissembles and fails to deliver on promises and then gets all pissy and bitchy with those who - with the benefit of hind sight - foolishly expected him to stand for something. Especially when polls show 2/3rds of Americans opposed the GOP tax break agenda. What makes it all the more aggravating is that Obama says that he "takes John Boehner at his word." Is the man a freaking idiot? Hello!! That statement makes about as much sense as Chamberlain believing Hitler's word in 1938. Many people are beyond fed up and rightfully so. Personally, I hope the Congressional Democrats find a spine and block approval of the "compromise."

*

Here's a sampling of the disgust and sense of betrayal, first John Aravosis' take via America Blog Gay in the wake of Obama's capitulation to the GOP on the extension of the Bush tax breaks:
*
Taking hostages. It's the only thing the President understands. He said so himself today. It's always been our working theory that the President only responds to those who are willing to stand up to him, while friendship gets you nothing. The President, Senator Reid, HRC and the apologists have three more weeks to get the DADT compromise passed. Because after that, it's hostage taking time.
*
And then there's Dan Rather's analysis via MSNBC and Mediate:
*
Rather, speaking on MSNBC’s Jansing & Company said an extension of those cuts will infuriate the left and lead to a Democratic primary challenge against the president in 2012: This is a political nightmare for Barack Obama as president. The more-left portion of his party hates this with a passion. And politically, within his own party, if this goes through, Barack Obama will be in a position to have his shirttail on fire, his back to the wall, and the bill collector at the door. Which is metaphorically a way of saying he’s almost guaranteed — if this goes through — to have a serious challenge in a Democratic primary for president in 2012.
*
The perception of [Obama] is that he won’t fight for anything… Many of the heavy contributors to the Democratic Party are beyond shock about this happening, and are saying to themselves, ‘This guy . . . has about four to six months to turn the perception of him and the party around or we’ve got to start thinking about somebody else in 2012.’

*
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka likewise slammed Obama's spineless sell as described in The Hill:
*
The AFL-CIO's president condemned President Obama's deal on tax cuts as an "unconscionable" giveaway to wealthy interests. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka slammed the tax deal and joined the ranks of liberals who have expressed disenchantment with the president for having agreed to the two-year extension of all expiring tax cuts.
*
"Two years ago, working Americans had high hopes that we would ultimately emerge from the deep, punishing financial debacle with a sharp focus on a fundamentally stronger, fairer and more balanced economy," the labor leader said. "Today, that vision has dimmed."
*
"It is unconscionable that the price of support for struggling middle-class families and workers who have been unable to find jobs for months and months and months is yet more giveaways for our country’s wealthiest families,"

*

As Think Progress reports, even former GOP Congressman, now newscaster, Joe Scarborough went ballistic over the "compromise":
*
SCARBOROUGH: It is stunning to me that this president has extended Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. This progressive president has tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan. This progressive president, that you say worries about deficit reduction — just like Republicans say they worry about deficit reduction — on the week the debt commission gets skewered . . . Barack Obama and the Republicans added a trillion more dollars to that debt in one weekend. [...]
*
The Republicans aren’t interested in cutting the deficit. [...]
*
I would love my political opponent to take the position we’re going to extend tax cuts for millionaires that even the CBO says is not going to create new jobs. And yet they’re going to cut off unemployment benefits for families at Christmastime. Please! Please. Seriously?! That’s like Mohamed Ali fighting against Princeton’s boxing champ Alan Merryweather– it’s an easy battle
*
The clear lessons from this capitulation on taxes are (1) don't expect Obama to fight for anything, and (2) don't believe ANYTHING this president says. I am beyond disgusted.

Reality Check to the Myth of American Exceptionalism

For the record, I am not anti-American by any means. I believe that the USA is a remarkable nation in many ways. But at the same time, I believe in objective reality and that often the best patriots are those who questions what the nation and its leaders are doing in the name of all citizens. That said, late last month I wrote about the the myth of American exceptionalism which is so popular with the Christianists, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin's followers. As noted in that post, it's a myth, it's a dangerous myth, and it blinds people from facing reality. The just released results of a test called Program for International Student Assessment, known as PISA, display unsettling results. The test is given to 15-year-old students by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based group that includes the world’s major industrial powers, and the results show just how unexceptional the USA is in terms of knowledge. The New York Times has further details.

*

The chart set out above and the USA's declining placement on educational achievement ought to be a shocking wake up call. It also indicates that rather than pushing for prayer in schools, the denigration of LGBT Americans, religious displays on public property, and teaching creationism as a science, anyone truly concerned about the nation's future - including self-anointed uber-patriotic members of the GOP base - ought to be lobbying non-stop for better schools and better curriculum. Will it happen? Not hardly because an intelligent population translates to fewer churchgoers and Kool-Aid drinking GOP members.

*

HT to Bob Felton.

Tuesday Male Beauty

Prop. 8 Has Its Day in Court—How Will the Court Rule?

The oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took place yesterday and some observers believe that the three judge panel asked questions that indicate the judges are skeptical of the standing of the Prop. 8 supporters to appeal the lower court ruling. In past posts, we've looked at this issue of standing and, based on past U. S. Supreme Court rulings, the easiest way for the Ninth Circuit to deal with the case would be to rule that the appellants have no standing to appeal. Thus, the larger issue of the constitutionality of bans on same sex marriage could be side stepped. That decision could, of course, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But again, by ruling that the appellants lacked standing to appeal - perhaps an attractive option for the Justices - the larger issue could be sidestepped until another day and a different lawsuit. Gay marriage would be legal in California, but the ruling would be limited to that state. Here are highlights from the Advocate on the oral arguments:
*
Charles J. Cooper, lead attorney for the stakeholders who funded, organized, and eventually celebrated the passage of California’s Proposition 8, tried to strike a tone of civility — if not a little victimhood for his clients — directly following the historic oral arguments Monday in Perry v. Scharzenegger before the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit.
*
[I]t highlighted a growing chorus, however disingenuous, among those who oppose marriage equality: that decent citizens who can’t accept the notion of same-sex couples marrying are increasingly harassed and portrayed as bigots by an aggressive community seeking to overturn centuries of tradition. “We believe that people of good will can disagree in good faith on this question,” Cooper said. “Our opponents don’t agree. They believe that every one on the other side of them and this debate is behaving irrationally.”
*
A three-judge panel of the ninth circuit didn’t indicate how it would rule in the multifaceted case. They did pose tough and incisive questions — about the legal standing of those who defended Prop. 8 to appeal, about how broad the appellate court may rule on the matter, about just how similar the ballot measure is to an antigay state amendment struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 14 years ago, and, perhaps most comically, about the legitimacy of an attempt by one county official — backed by attorneys from a conservative legal group — to step into the case when outgoing governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and incoming governor Jerry Brown have stayed far away.
*
The court could rule that Prop. 8 supporters simply don’t have standing to appeal in the case. It could rule that supporters do have standing but that the specific facts of the California ballot measure, which has created a “crazy quilt” of those who can marry and those who cannot, according to Olson and Boies, make it unconstitutional. The panel could even overturn U.S. district court judge Vaughn Walker's earlier decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Or, as Olson and Boies most likely hope, the court could rule more broadly and declare that marriage is a fundamental right, nationwide.

How Obama Can Finish DADT Repeal, But Will He?

Frankly, some - and I am one of them - have there doubts as to whether or not Barack Obama, a/k/a the Liar-in-Chief on this blog, has ever been truly serious about repealing DADT. Oh yes, there have been many statements that he supports repeal and some would argue that he's pushed the Joint Chiefs to sign onto repeal. But if he truly wanted repeal, why then the utterly f*cked up timing of his effort? Now, because of (deliberate?) bad timing, the clock may well run out on repeal this year - something that could doom legislative repeal for years. Salon has an article on how Obama could finish repeal despite these obstacles, The questions then become: (1) does he really want repeal or has he been cynically been playing a political game to play both sides against the middle, and (2) will he use the repeal tools at his disposal? Candidly, I do not trust the Liar-in-Chief whatsoever and have lost all respect for the man, so I'm not holding my breath that he will do the right thing. Here are highlights from Salon:
*
[I]f quick deal is reached on tax cuts, there may still be time to get to DADT. But let’s say this doesn’t happen -- that the GOP succeeds in running out the clock on 2010. Obama will still have gained some powerful tools from the past year: Republican senators publicly declaring that DADT needs to go, a Pentagon report that makes for a priceless talking point, and the good faith of military leaders, who watched him honor his commitment not to rush repeal.
*
The question is what Obama will do with these tools. Capitol Hill will be a far more conservative place in 2011, with the House filled with right-wing Republicans who don’t share Scott Brown’s fear of angering general election constituents who don’t like the DADT policy. It’s hard to imagine repeal getting through Congress under these conditions. In other words, the hope for repeal will rest with Obama himself: Would he then be willing to issue an executive order?
*
To date, he’s refused to do so, claiming that DADT took away his power to act unilaterally. Whether this is actually true is a matter of intense debate. Plenty of legal scholars believe Obama, as the commander in chief of the armed forces, is entirely within his power to decree that the military stop discriminating against gay and lesbian personnel.
*
But if it becomes clear that Republicans in Congress, even those who say they support repeal, are committed to making excuses for keeping DADT intact, then Obama will have much more political cover for issuing an executive order.
*
The knock on Obama, of course, is that he seems allergic to bold steps like this -- that if DADT repeal dies in Congress now, he’ll throw up his hands and say, “I tried my best” and leave it at that. . . . Then again, in the wake of the Pentagon report, the idea of ending DADT with an executive order may not seem nearly as radical as it did a few months ago. For Obama, it may just be the next logical step.
*
Sadly, I suspect Obama lacks the backbone to issue an executive order. I fear he'll simply say "I tried and those mean Republicans stopped me" as the bus rolls over the backs of LGBT Americans yet again on Obama's pathetic watch. I'd love to be proved wrong, but my gut tells me - with the benefit of hindsight - that the LGBT community has never had a friend in this White House. So, I'm hoping for a primary challenge in the lead up to 2012 so that Obama can be the one term president that he deserves to be.

More Monday Male Beauty

Gay Teens Get Harsher Punishments Than Straights

Sadly, I cannot say that I am shocked by the findings of a new study that found that gay and lesbian teens in the United States are about 40 percent more likely than their straight peers to be punished by schools, police and the courts. Not after my personal experience in my divorce - and those of a number of friends - where the judges seemed particularly vengeful against gays for "choosing to be gay." Shockingly, in my own divorce a conservative judge nominated by former Governor George Allen described being gay as a "choice." As this study revealed, this same anti-gay, religious based discrimination is falling on LGBT teens. The full study results can be found here in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (a legitimate organization unlike the faux group cited by FRC). The Washington Post has a story on these unfortunate findings. Here are highlights:
*
The research, described as the first national look at sexual orientation and teen punishment, comes as a spate of high-profile bullying and suicide cases across the country have focused attention on the sometimes hidden cruelties of teen life.
*
The study, from Yale University, adds another layer, finding substantial disparities between gay and straight teens in school expulsions, arrests, convictions and police stops. The harsher approach is not explained by differences in misconduct, the study says.
*
"The most striking difference was for lesbian and bisexual girls, and they were two to three times as likely as girls with similar behavior to be punished," said Kathryn Himmelstein, lead author of the study, published in the journal Pediatrics.
*
Stacey Horn, an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, called the study important and compared the findings to racial disparities in criminal sentencing. "To me, it is saying there is some kind of internal bias that adults are not aware of that is impacting the punishment of this group," she said.
*
The results showed that, for similar misconduct, gay adolescents were roughly 1.25 to 3 times more likely to be sanctioned than their straight peers. The sexual-orientation disparity was greatest for girls. Girls who identified themselves as lesbian or bisexual experienced 50 percent more police stops and reported more than twice as many juvenile arrests and convictions as other teen girls in similar trouble, the study said.
*
"This is a symptom of school administrators, teachers, court officials, police officers - anyone who works with youth - not necessarily being equipped to handle the challenges" faced by the teens in their care, he said. "It's much easier to punish the youth than to work with them and figure out why they may keep getting in fights and what is leading to this behavior."
*
Jody Marksamer, a staff attorney and youth project director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, said the study brings data to what advocates have seen for years: that biases, overt and subtle, often play out in courts, in schools and with police.

The Old "Gays Caused the Fall of Rome" Canard

True to form, Rep. Ronald Stephens (at left), a far right politician in Illinois - parroting the tired and false bullshit disseminated by the Christian Right - has claimed that the adoption of same sex civil unions has placed the State of Illinois and the nation as a whole on the road to collapse. The last time I looked at this issue was over a year and half ago when local loon, Pat Robertson spewed the same batshitery. Here's the statement by Stephens who obviously is out to further prove that he's an ignorant moron (Stephens was arrested on DUI earlier this year and nearly lost his pharmacist license):
*
"If you look at the sociological history of societies that have failed," said Stephens (R-Greenville), "what are some of the commonalities- One of those is that open homosexuality becomes accepted."
*
Never mind that the statement is utterly untrue from the prospective of all legitimate historians. Usually, the main stream media itself merely parrots the lies and untruths, but this time, Neil Steinberg, in a column in the Chicago Sun-Times has called Stephens out and, indeed, made a mockery of his bigotry and ignorance. Would that more in the MSN would do the same, but unfortunately, too many "TV journalist" are hired for their looks as opposed to whether or not they have a brain in their head or not. Here are highlights from Stienberg's column:
*
Ignorance is the great engine of human misery, the fertile field where its fruit, hatred, grows in all its awful forms, from the first human, crouching on a dark savannah, screeching terrified defiance at a shape silhouetted on the horizon, to Rep. Ronald Stephens, rising to his feet in the Illinois House, blaming "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome.
*
Let us consult Edward Gibbon, whose classic The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire isn't read in high schools, at least not Downstate, apparently, the way it once was.
Gibbon puts the blame -- and this really is too delicious -- not on homosexuality, but on Christianity, which he says made the Roman population more worried about their place in heaven than about barbarians at the gate.
*
None of this, of course, will matter to Stephens, or his constituents who let him run unopposed in the past two elections. For them, the glory of Rome is not a historical event studied by the great minds of Western civilization for the past 1500 years, but another talking point, and that, in invoking the fall as a cautionary tale relevant today, he is wrong in every particular won't influence him any more than the fact that he is wrong about the supposed pernicious influence of gay unions, or gays in the military, or any of the other alleged faults pinned on gays by an ever-shrinking band of zealots desperate to project their fear onto somebody.
*
This inversion -- where gays are found culpable for something actually the fault of their oppressors -- is par for the course. Look at gay adoption, long opposed by the faithful on the premise that gays shouldn't be allowed around children, even their own.
*
That Stephens, a pharmacist, would present the culture of Virgil, Ovid and Seneca solely as less strident gay bashers than ourselves who, thus weakened, fell to the barbarians, is sad but not extraordinary.
*
For those interested in REAL HISTORY, here's a summary of some of the principal cause of Rome'sfall:
*
Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor
Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard
Fast expansion of the Empire
Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics
Failing Economy
Unemployment of the Working Classes (The Plebs)
The 'Mob' and the cost of the 'Games'
*
Note: No mention of homosexuality whatsoever. Indeed, if the USA should learn anything from Rome's fall, it ought to be the costs of military over extension, declining economy and the destruction of the middle class - all things that are principally caused by the GOP in this country. Perhaps Rep. Stephens needs to look in the mirror.

Monday Male Beauty

Clarence Thomas Needs to Disqualify Himself From Myriad Cases

As note in the prior post, the proponents of Proposition 8 attempted to disqualify Ninth Circuit judge Stephen Reinhardt from the panel because he is married to a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Southern California office. Reinhardt rejected the request. The conservatives need to be carefully what they ask for because if the standard they sought to apply against Reinhardt is applied to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Thomas would have to be disqualified for a large number of cases give the far right activities of his wife, Virginia Thomas who is raking in money from far right organizations and donors. A column in Bloomberg.com looks at the double standard that the Prop. 8 supporters are making. Here are highlights:
*
Conservative forces tried and failed to persuade Stephen Reinhardt, one of the most liberal judges on the federal bench, to remove himself from a California gay marriage case, scheduled for argument Monday before a three judge panel, including him.
*
The problem is Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, the anti- gay-marriage crowd says in a court paper filed this week. Ripston has labored for years as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Her group has no direct role in the lawsuit Reinhardt is set to consider. It is neither plaintiff nor defendant nor legal counsel.
*
Liberal judges aren’t the only ones whose wives hold visible and powerful posts. Consider Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist whose husband, Clarence, occupies a seat on the Supreme Court. She publicly embraces the Tea Party, has worked for various conservative groups, and founded Liberty Central Inc., an information clearinghouse for conservative activism.
*
[D]oes her activism mean her husband should recuse himself from those cases where she or her group has taken a stand? A memo posted on the Liberty Central Web site that included her name (mistakenly, the group said), called the health-care reform law “unconstitutional.”
*
Ethical Question. does her activism mean her husband should recuse himself from those cases where she or her group has taken a stand?
*
[I]f Liberty Central’s major funders had a matter before the court, then Thomas should step down. For that reason, the group should disclose its backers, even though the law doesn’t require it to do so.
*
The over-arching principle as to when federal judges should recuse themselves is whether the mere appearance of bias is reasonable. That’s according to the federal judiciary’s Code of Conduct and Supreme Court precedent.
*

As I have noted before, in my opinion, Virginia Thomas needs to get out of conservative politics - and stop bringing tens of thousands of dollars into her family's income, or her husband needs to resign from the Supreme Court. Neither she nor her husband should be allowed to have it both ways.

Oral Arguements Today in Perry v Schwarzenegger

A panel of the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger today as the battle to overturn the Mormon/Catholic backed Proposition 8 continues. Those attempting to read the tea leaves based on the Judges assigned to the case speculate a 2:1 vote to uphold the lower court decision striking down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional under the U. S. Constitution. If there is indeed separation of church and state in the USA and equality means what the word stands for, the unconstitutionally of Prop. 8 should be upheld. One can only hope that the anti-gay discrimination which is the sole purpose of Prop. 8 will be recognized by the panel. Here are highlights from The Advocate on the scheduled oral arguments:
*
Arguments before the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit will begin Monday at 10 a.m. pacific time. Unlike the trial in the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger,the appeal proceedings will be nationally televised (Advocate.com will carry a live feed via NBC).
*
During the arguments, a three-judge panel will consider two main questions before the court: whether a federal judge erred in ruling the anti-gay marriage initiative unconstitutional, and whether a coalition of Prop. 8 supporters who defended the ballot measure at trial have standing to appeal the case.
*
Representing two California gay couples who sued the state after they were denied marriage licenses, former U.S. solicitor general Ted Olson will argue that U.S. district judge Vaughn R. Walker was correct in striking down Prop. 8 in August.
*
"The tragic time has long passed when our government could target our gay and lesbian citizens for discriminatory, disfavored treatment — even imprisonment — because those in power deemed gay relationships deviant, immoral, or distasteful," Olson wrote in an October brief to the court, one that drew upon landmark gay rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the high court's decision in the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia,which struck down laws banning interracial marriage.
*
Last week Prop. 8 proponents attempted to disqualify ninth circuit judge Stephen Reinhardt from the panel because he is married to a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Southern California office. Reinhardt rejected the request.

The Christianist Goal: Sustaining Anti-Gay Stigma

As noted on this blog before, continuing DADT and barring same sex marriage are crucial to the real goal of Christianists, including the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, maintaining anti-gay stigma. If gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, or worse yet to Christianists, marry and heave their relationships recognized, it sends a loud message that (1) LGBT citizens are normal and (2) anti-gay religious based discrimination should be subjected to harsh scrutiny. Yet another reason, of course, is because anti-gay bigotry has been such a successful tool for the professional Christians who make the Pharisees of the Bible seem most virtuous. As a result of these truths, the viciousness of the Christianists and their prostitute like minions will likely increase before society finally turns its back on their vitriol and LGBT Americans achieve full equality. A column at The Dail Beast looks at this reality and the machinations of the far right and Christianists to keep LGBT citizens stigmatized and second class citizens. Here are some highlights:
*
Conservatives are normally out there urging people to fight [wars] and to marry. A conservative president launched two wars, and conservatives tried to impeach the adulterous Bill Clinton. When it comes to gays and lesbians wanting to defend their country or provide a stable, loving union, the right wing is suddenly on the other side. Why are they fighting?
*
The fight is hot because gays are seeking equal access to the very social institutions, marriage and the military, that confer social approval. In America, and in most of western culture, the soldier and the householder are models of social virtue. If gays can marry and serve their country, well, "Gay is Good" as the old movement button says.
*
The fight to keep gays off the standard scale of social value is just the current manifestation of the long history of categorizing them as sinners—which was (and to some extent still is) how people in the Judeo-Christian tradition talk about badness. The right knows it can't make the state punish gays as sinners, for various constitutional reasons, so it is trying to make the state deny them the closest thing it has to consecration: the sacred bonds of warriors and the sanctity of marriage.
*
Good people appear in children's books. In the fight over same sex marriage in California two years ago, the antis ran repeated scary images of children learning that gay people could marry. Don't let gay people marry, the message ran. Since marriage is good, children will think gay is good.
*
You wouldn't keep interracial couples out of children's books. Is there something wrong with us?"
*
Regardless of what they say they're doing, that's the question—not soldiering and marrying—that the Senate Committees and the judicial panel are going to be answering in the coming days.

Sunday Male Beauty

Obama Decided Flawed Schedule for DADT Repeal

I am frankly over those who continue to make excuses for the Liar-in-Chief's mishandling of DADT repeal and attack anyone who demands that Obama be held accountable for the ongoing fiasco which could well see DADT repeal fail inasmuch as it was left to the winding down days of the Lame Duck Congress. I've even been accused in comments on The Bilerico Project of slamming for fundraising purposes. I'm not involved in any kind of political fundraising and the charge is utterly ludicrous, but it's symptomatic of the apologists who continue to kiss Obama's ass and endeavor to give the man political cover. Now, a Washington Post story throws the hair brained timing of the repeal effort squarely at Obama's feet and it will be interesting to see who the apologist try to spin these facts. I remain convinced that Obama has NEVER been serious about DADT repeal other than as a tool to shake money and votes out of the LGBT community. Here are highlights from the Post story:
*
[W]hen Gates and Mullen met with Obama after his inauguration, a senior administration official said the president told them: "I don't believe in 'don't ask, don't tell' and I want it repealed. . . . We're going to do it together."
*
The three men decided 2010 would be the year, partly because they knew building a winning case would take time. Polling shows about six in 10 Americans support overturning the ban, but to sway skeptical lawmakers, proponents would need statistically sound evidence to alleviate concerns that allowing gays to serve openly would interfere with combat readiness
*
Gates and Mullen testified in support, and in March, they ordered a comprehensive study of the impact to the armed services. Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, who did not know each other but would soon bond over sweet potato pie, led the review. They held so many town hall gatherings and meetings that they came face-to-face with more than 23,000 troops and their families. The study cost about $9 million and resulted in a 362-page report, released Nov. 30 - 17 years to the day after President Clinton signed "don't ask, don't tell" into law.
*
Some lawmakers were critical of the administration's timetable, saying the White House was too cautious in tackling an issue that had roiled the Clinton White House.
"This is one of those times where you sit and say, wait a moment, can't you even see the nation has moved forward?" said retiring Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a former vice admiral of the Navy. "When you have leaders lagging those they are supposed to be leading, you lose credibility."
*
December arrived with momentum on their side. On Thursday, after the report's release, Gates and Mullen faced the Senate Armed Services Committee again. Mullen, in his dress uniform, delivered a personal appeal to the panel's doubters, including the most celebrated veteran in American politics, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
*
While gay advocacy organizations and a broad network of policy groups have united behind repeal, conservative efforts to oppose lifting the ban have largely centered on a single activist, Elaine Donnelly. . . . Donnelly and a veteran Republican operative she hired, Tommy Sears, orchestrated the right's opposition. She distributed exhaustive memos to Pentagon officials, lawmakers and reporters detailing her legal arguments against repeal, chiefly that there is no constitutional right to serve in the military and thus gays should adhere to the existing policy.
*
The question now is whether there's enough time left to do anything about it. "The one problem we've got here is the schedule," Levin said. "We have very little time left."
*
As with health care reform, Obama has been a case study of too little, too late and lack of leadership. If DADT repeal fails because "time runs out" - something I pray doesn't happen - I for one will hold Obama personally responsible because of the utterly stupid timing that HE chose. Yes, other sycophants will rally and kiss his ass yet again, but the fault lies with the White House and nay sayers like Rahm Emanuel who, thank God, is no longer part of the White House staff.

Morally Challenged Catholic Bishops Condemn Illinois Civil Unions

Some things never change and one of those things is the Roman Catholic Church's never ending efforts to make the lives of LGBT Americans miserable and to conform the nation's civil laws with the Church's religious based bigotry against gays. The concept of a separation between Church law and the secular civil laws is lost on the U.S. Catholic Bishops, some of whom ought to be under criminal indictment for their roles in the enabling and/or protection of pedophile priests (a new story out of New Jesey is reporting that Newark Archbishop John J. Myers shielded 4 predatory priests in the 1980's). The arrogance of these bitter old men knows no limits and Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, is accusing the vote to extend civil unions to Illinois same sex couples as being part of the "gay agenda." As if the Church doesn't have its own bigoted and discriminatory agenda. As the Chicago Tribune reports, the bishops have their panties in a wad and are using the tired "slippery slope" rant against this positive step towards equality under the CIVIL laws. Here are some highlights:
*
Both before and after Illinois lawmakers voted in favor of a civil unions bill, opponents argued that such a law would create a "slippery slope," sending the state sliding unhindered toward the legalization of same-sex marriages.
*
"There's absolutely a long-term strategy here," said Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois. "I'm sure they are assessing every state in the country for possible opportunities. They are well-funded, they are well-organized, they are very aggressive and they don't take no for an answer."
*

Firedog Lake has additional analysis of the anti-gay Catholic Church in a post that looks at the Illinois situation and where the Catholic Church is headed nationally in its efforts to bar LGBT equality. Personally, given the Church's efforts to effect legislation and indirectly elections, I can't help but wonder where is the IRS. These anti-gay efforts fly in the face of the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and ought to result in a lose of tax-exempt status. Here are some highlights from Firedog Lake:
*
In 2008, the Roman Catholic church was instrumental in two major battles against marriage equality — Maine’s Prop 1 and California’s Prop 8. Leading the fight nationally for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was Louisville’s Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz. Last month, Kurtz was elected Vice President of the USCCB, after giving a powerful address reporting on the USCCB ad-hoc committee’s work to defend marriage (a committee he chairs). About halfway through his remarks came this: . . . in a sense, today is like 1970 for marriage. If, in 1970, you knew that Roe v. Wade were coming in two or three years, what would you have done differently?
*
Equating marriage equality with abortion tells you how Kurtz views same-sex relationships. . . . Fast forward one month to Illinois. Governor Pat Quinn worked hard to get a civil unions bill passed in the Illinois Legislature, with help from Speaker of the House Michael Madigan — and both Quinn and Madigan are Roman Catholics.
*
This did not sit well with Springfield Illinois Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, who released this statement to the media: After the Illinois House of Representatives approved legislation that would require the state to recognize same-sex unions, Governor Pat Quinn was quoted as saying, “My religious faith animates me to support this bill.” He did not say what religious faith that would be, but it certainly is not the Catholic faith.
*
[T]he USCCB is bent on pushing some of its in-house concerns into the public debates — something they have a clear right to do, but which ought to concern people who do not subscribe to Catholic doctrine.
*
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin pushed back on all this quite nicely: Nothing prevents prelates who believe homosexuality is a sin or that civil unions violate natural law from preaching or teaching it. But the state doesn’t serve a church or a religious doctrine. It serves its citizens who deserve equal justice under the law.And that’s what Illinois just did.
*
Under the leadership of Archbishop Kurtz, the USCCB seems determined not simply to stand against marriage equality, but to work just as hard against anything that might lead to it. . . . 2008′s marriage battles were a preview of this, and 2010′s battles over abortion in the health reform discussions were the warm-up act. The Illinois civil unions bill, on the other hand, is the opening shot of the main event: the 2012 culture wars. It’s not going to be pretty.

The Family Foundation Continues to Ally Itself With Hate Groups

The Family Foundation based in Richmond, Virginia, has a long history of promoting an over the top anti-gay agenda. Thus, it is surprising that TFF has been silent on the designation of its allies - e.g., Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, etc. - as either anti-gay groups or anti-gay hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC"). The Family Foundation website continues to proudly state "The Family Foundation is proud to be associated with Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and its network of nearly forty independent state policy councils." But now missing are all former references to any direct affiliation between TFF and the Family Research Council ("FRC") which have been apparently scrubbed from the main TFF website in the wake of the SPLC hate group designation of FRC. One can only suspect this sanitizing of the TFF website was done since ties to a known hate group might undercut TFF's the effectiveness of TFF's anti-gay efforts in lobbying the Virginia General Assembly.

*
But the disappearance of these references on the main TFF website doesn't mean that TFF isn't still working hand in glove with FRC and other hate groups. A perusal of TFF's blog reveals the following and confirms TFF's unholy alliance with FRC:
*
ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS
Alliance Defense Fund
Citizen Link
Citizen Link Take Action
Citizen Magazine
Family Research Council
Focus Action
Focus On The Family
FRC Action
FRC Blog
The Cloakroom/FRC Action Blog
Virginia Values Voter PAC Blog
*
And then there's TFF's ongoing promotion of FRC propaganda: A December 1, 2010 entry on its blog is actively promoting FRC's "Mission Compromised: How the Military is Being Used to Advance a Radical Agenda." The truth is that TFF supports the same agenda as FRC, promotes FRC's activities, and engages in same denigration of gays and use of falsified research and faux experts that lead to FRC's hate group designation by SPLC. This quote from a New York Times article still sums up TFF's attitude towards gay parenting:
*
Walter E. Barbee, president of the Family Foundation, based in Springfield, Va., said children raised in same-sex households were often stigmatized by other children and thus more prone to suicide or drug abuse than those who grew up in traditional families. "This decision defies centuries of law and natural history," Mr. Barbee said. "We are witnessing another step in the gradual degradation and deconstruction of American society."
*

Barbee made the statement when the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in the infamous Sharon Bottoms case that a person's homosexuality does not necessarily make that individual an unfit parent. More recently, TFF's current president, Victoria Cobb sided with the now fugitive Lisa Miller in the custody battle between Miller and her former partner, Janet Jenkins.

*

One can only wonder what is the SPLC waiting for in adding TFF to its list of registered hate groups?

More Saturday Male Beauty

NOM's Misplaced Efforts to "Protect Marriage"

I don't know about you, but I almost vomit when I hear self-enriching, money whoring Maggie Gallagher and Tony Perkins and others like them whine about "protecting the sanctity" of marriage. Right behind that in my book is the bullshit mantra that children need a mother and a father. Well right out of bigot extraordinaire Sally Kern's own back yard we have an example of what NOM is so busy allegedly protecting. The headline of the article is "Bethany Couple Arrested on Bestiality, Drug Complaints." Oh, and yes, these stellar examples of marriage are legally married and have three children - or at least they did until the children were taken at least temporarily into state custody. Yep, these two get to marry and are deemed worthy by Christianists to be parents, but same sex couples do not. It's beyond f*cked up. Here are some highlights from the Oklahoman:
*
Edward James Double, 35, and his wife, Brandy Teresa Double, 35, were jailed on complaints of bestiality, exhibition of obscene materials to minor children, maintaining a disorderly house, possession of illegal drugs and soliciting sexual conduct with a minor.
*
Three dogs and four children were removed from a home and a Bethany couple arrested after police officers found bestiality videos and evidence a girl staying with the family was solicited for sex, police said.
*
Three boys and a girl, all younger than 15, were taken from the home at 6710 NW 26 and are in state custody, Bethany Police Chief Phil Cole said. He said in his 20 years as a police officer in Bethany he has heard of only one other bestiality case, and that was more than a decade ago and involved a mentally ill man.
*
“We've recovered videotape of people having sex with animals,” Cole said. “It's disgusting. And we pray that none of the kids have been molested.” . . . .

Cole said video recordings were found of a couple having sexual relations with a dog. He said the recordings were made in the master bedroom of the home.

Funny How The Hate Groups Fail to Counter SPLC Label with Specitics

As noted in several posts, the hate merchants at Family Research Council and American Family Association have been shrieking and wailing over the fact that they have been - justly in my view - labeled as registered hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. We've seen various disingenuous statements that Christianis are being labeled as haters and other broad brush efforts to malign SPLC who these folks would have people believe has become a tool of the "gay agenda." God forbid that theses veracity challenged groups try to counter the specific charges laid by SPLC. The reasons, of course, is because they cannot and their only defense is to throw up smoke and mirrors and hope the main stream media is too lazy to look at specifics (sadly, something that is typically a safe assumption). Blogger friend Alvin McEwen has a good post at Pam's House Blend that looks at specific instances of why SPLC was right on target. In his post, Alvin looks at some of the "Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality" that has been disseminated by AFA and its kindred purveyors of hate and how Robert Stienbeck at SPLC laid out the untruthfulness of the allegations. Many readers have no doubt seen similar refutations before, but it is worthwhile to look at them again so that one is prepared to counter statements by the ignorant which may use such lies as justification for positions hostile to full LGBT equality. Here are highlights from Alvin's post:
*
Myth: Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.
*
Steinbeck - Fischer is referring to a 1989 Journal of Sex Research article by the late researcher Kurt Freund, who concluded that homosexuals were not any more disposed to pedophilia than heterosexuals — a finding exactly opposite to what Fischer suggests. Fischer constructs the 33% figure from Freund’s research by assuming that every case of men molesting boys is committed by a “homosexual” man — a conclusion rejected by virtually all legitimate sex researchers. As Freund said, since most pedophiles have no sexual interest in adults of either gender, terms like “homosexual” and “heterosexual” don’t apply at all. It is the child’s prepubescent nature, not his or her gender, that attracts this type of “fixated” pedophile
*
Myth: Same-sex parents harm children [who engage in more promiscuity].
*
Steinbeck: A study Fischer cites was conducted in 2001 by professors Timothy J. Biblarz of the University of Southern California and Judith Stacey of New York University. . . . In an E-mail to Hatewatch this week, Stacey blasted Fischer’s misuse of her research. “They are misrepresenting our 2001 article … by cherry-picking out of context one finding we mentioned that came from one very small British study,” she wrote. “Even so, their claim that children raised by lesbians are more sexually adventurous is also inaccurate. In the small study we mentioned … it was only the daughters who were sexually active a bit earlier than daughters of straight moms. Boys raised by lesbians were less sexually active than sons of straight moms!
*
Myth: Homosexuals don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals [we supposedly die 20 years early].
*
Steinbeck: Again, Fischer ignores that the authors of that 1997 study updated it in 2001, pointing out that advances in treatment of HIV-AIDS even at that point had significantly improved the expected longevity of those infected, which would inevitably narrow any gap between gay and straight life spans caused by the disease. Moreover, the authors explicitly rejected the attempts of anti-gay organizations to construe the 1997 observations to justify denigration of gays. “These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being,” the authors wrote in their 2001 update.
*
Myth: Homosexuals are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.
*
Response: Fischer omitted the fact that the GLMA clearly say that these behaviors are not indicative of the lgbt orientation but reactions to homophobia of society: GMLA: Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns.
*
You get the drift: outright lies and deliberate distortions of research and then blaming the victims of bigotry for their ensuing reactions to the unrelenting denigration and discrimination. And these bastards wonder why they were labeled as hate groups? Again I ask, WWJD?

Saturday Male Beauty

Obama and the Democrats: A Deficit of Purpose

I frequently get beat up by defenders of the Liar-in-Chief and the feckless Democrats because I expect accountability and want things done. The common excuse - and I got this again just yesterday on a piece I wrote on Bilerico - is that the Democrats never had 60 votes in the Senate. Actually, they did briefly, but even that ignores the fact that the Republicans got things done (albeit often bad things) under Chimperator Bush without 60 votes and have done a brilliant although short sighted job of blocking Democrat efforts. The question is how have they done it. I believe it comes down to two things: party discipline - something unknown to the Democrats - and a clear purpose and willingness to play nasty to further it. It drives me to distraction that the Democrats have been so spineless and allow themselves to be screwed by the GOP over and over again. And the problem starts at the top in the White House. The New York Times looks at this ongoing problem in an editorial today. Here are some highlights:
*
A sense of resolve and a clear purpose should not be partisan commodities, yet, in Washington, only the Republicans seem to have them. They know exactly what they want and pursue it with ruthless efficiency: preserve all the Bush-era tax cuts, no matter the cost, and make sure President Obama gets nothing done.
*
In the last few weeks, Republicans have blocked or vowed to kill: an extension of jobless benefits; the first real arms reduction treaty with the Russians in nearly a decade; the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”; and, most significantly for the nation’s financial future, the expiration of unnecessary and expensive tax cuts for the rich.

Where has the president been through all this, as the sand runs out on a Congress with two Democratic majorities?
*
[I]magine if he had taken to the airwaves, raised his voice and said he would not allow tax cuts for the top 2 percent of households when the money could better be spent on creating jobs? There are limits to this kind of jawboning, of course, and he might still have lost the battle. But at least the public would know the president has core positions.
*
A new CBS News poll shows that only 26 percent of Americans support continuing the high-end tax break, which in the 2008 campaign Mr. Obama unambiguously vowed to end. In the absence of presidential leadership, the Republicans have a much stronger hand. The dismal November jobs report, which showed that average wages grew by a Scrooge-like penny an hour and unemployment rose to 9.8 percent from 9.6 percent, made unemployment benefits a more valuable hostage.
*
This need not have happened if Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats had forcefully asserted their agenda before the midterm election and held a vote on the tax cuts.
*
It may be that Mr. Obama still believes that bipartisan gestures can overcome extreme policy differences. But the rest of Washington woke up from that dream long ago. It has become a snare.

The Missing Element in the DADT: That Gays Are Human Too

Opponents of LGBT equality go to great lengths to dehumanize LGBT individuals - it's a tactic long used by the Christian Right that bears a striking resemblance to the game plan used by NAZI propagandists against the Jews. Naturally, it's easier to justify mistreatment of those who are some how "other" or less than fully human. In the debate over whether or not DADT should be repealed, there's be huge focus on the sensibility of bigots and chaplains (a position that perhaps ought to be dropped from the military ranks completely, in my opinion even though my "father in law is a former Army chaplain), but almost no commentary on the lives and emotional/psychological costs DADT inflicts on LGBT service members. Are the opponents of repeal just grand standing to the toxic Republican Party base or does their opposition suggest something far more disturbing: they don't see gays as human beings. The Plum Line in the Washington Post looks briefly at this phenomenon and here are some highlights:
*
One thing that's been oddly missing from the debate in the Senate over repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is any discussion of the moral and human dimensions of this story, at least as it concerns the gay service-members themselves. The discussion has mostly focused on how straight troops will be impacted.
*
Indeed, when Senator James Webb today asked the Service Chiefs a simple question about the gay human beings impacted by this discriminatory policy, everyone at the hearing acted a bit startled. Webb asked: What should we do with gay patriotic Americans who have already served our country for years, and want to lead free and open lives? Everyone looked uncomfortable, as if Webb had gone way off topic.
*
Matthew Yglesias today wonders what on earth opponents of DADT repeal are thinking. As he says, at bottom this debate is really about whether we are going to treat gays as "free and equal citizens of the country," or whether they're "some kind of subordinate class."
*
So here's my question: Is it possible that one of the things holding up repeal is that many people simply haven't had an up-close view of the ugliness of anti-gay bigotry, and aren't willing to believe the push for equality for gays is on a moral par with other major civil rights battles?
*
[I]t seems to me that the broader discussion has been largely antiseptic and lacking in moral urgency and historical depth. I wonder whether it's because people have mostly been insulated from the ugliness of anti-gay bigotry. I'd be very interested to hear from others on this.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Closet

Jack Drescher, M.D., is a member of the LGBT Committee of the Group for Advancement of Psychiatry and has long been an advocate for ending homophobia and life in the closet. He has a good piece at Huffington Post that looks at the toll DADT takes on closeted members of the military. His analysis likewise describes the phenomenon that many in the LGBT community have taken for varying periods of time in their lives: denial of who they are and strenuous efforts to adopt a life/persona that will be deemed acceptable by family members, church and the larger society. I for one am guilty of this inasmuch as I went through mental gymnastics for years trying to convince myself that I really wasn't attracted to other males that fit the parameters of "my type," got married and had children, and continued in this illusion of authentic life until I simply could no longer do it. The irony, of course, is that many of the opponents of DADT repeal both in the military and in Congress are likely doing the same thing I did for decades by deluding themselves as to their true self. The hostility is a mere transference of their own self-hate. Unlike these people, however, I never allowed my efforts of denial to lead me to actively harm members of the LGBT community or to opposed equality under the civil laws. Here are some highlights from Dresher's piece:
*
While repeal would cause little harm, numerous critics have detailed both the financial and security costs of continuing DADT. There are psychological costs as well. . . . To avoid discharge under DADT, these young people engage in a series of mental and behavioral gymnastics. One cadet admits he learned "how to be a good actor." Another, tired of "hiding" her sexual identity, publicly resigned after two years at the Academy.
*
"Acting" and "hiding," common ways of describing life in the closet, and are surface manifestations of the underlying psychology of maintaining secret identities for long periods of time. While gay people are not the only ones who hide secrets, the gay closet has unique features.
*
Gay people often spend long periods of their lives unable to acknowledge their own homosexuality to themselves or to others. Beginning in childhood and throughout adolescence, being "tagged" as gay can lead to teasing, ridicule, family rejection and even violence. For aspiring young cadets, being gay means giving up dreams of a life of service to one's country. So they, like many gay people, treat their same-sex feelings as an unpleasant fact they would rather not know about themselves or admit to others. They keep those feelings out of awareness and separated from their public personas.
*
The solution to one problem, however, creates others. Constant hiding takes its toll. It is painful to continuously hide important parts of the self or to always keep parts of the self separated from each other. As a way of hiding, they may choose to adopt public, heterosexual identities. This leads some closeted gay people to heterosexually marry yet lead secret homosexual lives.
*
However, the mental effort needed to maintain a double life sometimes leads to errors in judgment and engaging in compromising situations, which may explain the parade of married, anti-gay public figures who have been arrested for public lewdness or outed by indiscreet male prostitutes.
*
When hiding becomes too painful, some people come out. They do so even though the benefit of being a whole person risks exposure to the social stigma attached to homosexuality.
*
Why come out? One ex-cadet who did said, "I have lied to my classmates and compromised my integrity and my identity by adhering to existing military policy. I am unwilling to suppress an entire portion of my identity any longer." The case for repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and choosing psychological unity could not be expressed any better.

Friday Male Beauty

Catholic Test Question - Truth from the Mouths of Children

This photo from Joe By God needs little commentary. The answer truly looks like something my children might have written, especially the younger two.

Admiral Mullen Shows Honor and Integrity - Obama remains Missing in Action

While I never trusted the Pentagon to not try to skew the DADT report, I have been overall pleased with it. Moreover, I have been impressed with some of the military leadership who understand - without directly stating it - that DADT is an assault on the U.S. S. Constitution and the supposed guarantee of equality and religious freedom for all citizens. If DADT is not repealed, the U. S. Senate will be confirming to the world that America and it's Constitution are a fraud. Via America Blog here are remarks made by Admiral Mullen when challenged by John McSenile:

*
"With all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Sen. McCain, it is true that, as chairman, I am not in charge of troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets. And I was most recently a service chief myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women.
*
"You do not have to agree with me on this issue. But don't think for one moment that I haven't carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor."
*
And meanwhile what's the Liar-in-Chief doing? According to the Washington Blade, NOTHING! The man is proving again and again that his honesty and truthfulness is ZERO. All those campaign promises meant NOTHING. Here are highlights from the Blade:
*
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he’s unaware of any attempt by President Obama to convince fence-sitting senators to support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal following the release of the Pentagon report on the military’s gay ban — but said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made calls to influence lawmakers.
*
Asked by the Washington Blade on Wednesday whether the president has been reaching out to senators following publication of the study, Gibbs replied, “Not that I’m aware of.”
*

I stand ready to work on the campaign of any Democrat that will challenge Obama for the 2012 nomination. If that challenger is credible, I know MANY folks who are ready and waiting to drop Obama like a putrid hot potato.

McCain Exudes Bigotry At DADT Hearing

John McSenile apparently wants to be the poster boy for why there need to be mandatory retirement ages for members of Congress. The man is clearly losing his grasp on reality and action the exact opposite of how he once promised to act if the military brass found that it was time for DADT to be thrown on the trash heap of history. McCain is - in my view - a tad too hysterical on the issue and it does make me wonder once again if there might not be something to a friend's conjecture that McCain was sodomized while a POW in North Vietnam. Indeed, McCain's shrillness reminds one of self-loathing closet cases like Robert Knight and Peter LaBarbera. McSenile seems virtually obsessed with finding any flimsy reason to ignore the Pentagon report that blows his concerns out of the water. Here are highlights from Think Progress on McCain's shameless behavior as well as a video clip of McSenile's refusal to accept findings that run counter to his own bigotry:
*
From the very first DADT hearing in February 2010 to today’s session, the Senator refused to consider the views of the witnesses before him. This morning — after reviewing the overwhelming positive DADT report and listening to the pleas of the leaders to end the policy in the lame duck session — McCain went further, openly implying that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen was not living up to the expectations of leadership because he did not ask the troops if they favored repealing the policy.
*
Significantly, all of the leaders in front of the commission — Mullen, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Working Group chairmen Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham — disagreed with McCain’s approach of polling the troops about the policy. “I can’t think of a single precedent in American history of doing a referendum of the american armed forces on a policy issue,” Gates said, asking, “are you going to ask them if they want 15 month tours, are you going to ask them if they want to be part of the surge in Iraq?” McCain didn’t name a single “great leader” who favored a referendum.
*