Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is proposing an amendment to the budget to withhold funding for discharges based on DADT.  Some oppose this, arguing that it’s unlikely to pass and the first push shouldn’t be one that fails.  I’m kind of torn on this one.  AMERICAblog makes a good case to why this isn’t good, several of which I think make perfect sense.  I get the political obstacles of one loss and the loss of momentum/urgency from a win.  I think the critical take on Sen. Gillibrand is a bit too much, though.  We have a real ally on our side in Sen. Gillibrand, despite her lack of seniority or position on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Neither of these have stopped her from being invited to participate in the Committee’s hearings, or from taking a strong stand on this issue.  A strong ally in the Senate is not something to scoff at, and saying we should take steps that begin to protect soldiers from being discharged because we think we’ll get action before the midterm elections makes me nervous.

While a defeat would give opponents a talking point in their argument, this would be one way to flesh out where certain Senators stand.  If this could be included in the defense budget before it goes to the full Armed Services Committees, it would seemingly be an entirely different story.  If this were introduced as part of the bill, the burden is on those who oppose this.  In real world (political) terms, this means Republicans would have to fillibuster the defense budget–or as they would put it, they’d have to “vote against supporting the troops.”  That’s a much tough pill to swallow to score points with the minority of Americans who support DADT.  I could be wrong on the political viability of including this in the defense budget, so please correct me if you disagree.  It just seems that with the people drafting the budget supporting the repeal, and the chairmen on the Senate Armed Forces Committee both on the side of repeal, it wouldn’t be nearly as tough to include.

Other highlights:

• A phenomenal op-ed from the Sunday Washington Post.  It highlights the fact that straight soldiers don’t mind serving with gay soldiers, and by discharging them, soldiers are STILL serving with these men and women through private contractors which also happen to cost the US government at least twice as much.
• The Palm Center is convening a spring summit with leaders from NATO and the Israeli military, both of which allow openly gay soldiers to serve, to discuss implementation strategies and experiences.
• Frank Rich points out the lack of vocal opponents from the right. Even Sarah Palin punted this down the road rather than objecting on a “moral” basis (below the jump).
• And a great supporter and member of Congress who deserves our support–Representative Chellie Pingree.  Again, the faults of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s thinking are that he ignores the fact that there ARE gays and lesbians in the military and he argues that soldiers are dying while he supports discharging soldiers with mission critical skills.  You know what saves the lives of soldiers?  Having troops who can speak Arabic–a service that was provided by gay soldiers like Dan Choi who were discharged:

Never mind that Palin herself had endorsed some of the same end-of-life counseling she now depicts as putting Grandma down.

As the Democratic National Committee pointed out, Palin put out a 2008 proclamation for Healthcare Decisions Day “to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care … and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions.”

More than ever on the campaign trail, the candidates are dropping their G’s. Hardworkin’ families are strainin’ and tryin’a get ahead. It’s not only Sarah Palin but Mr. McCain, too, occasionally Mr. Obama, and, of course, George W. Bush when he darts out like the bird in a cuckoo clock to tell us we are in crisis. All of the candidates say “mom and dad”: “our moms and dads who are struggling.” This is Mr. Bush’s former communications adviser Karen Hughes’s contribution to our democratic life, that you cannot speak like an adult in politics now, that’s too austere and detached, snobby. No one can say mothers and fathers, it’s all now the faux down-home, patronizing—and infantilizing—moms and dads. Do politicians ever remember that in a nation obsessed with politics, our children—sorry, our kids—look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound? (Emphasis added)

Interesting to see the perspective of a Reagan speechwriter (who, despite often being a blowhard, is FAR from dumb) commenting on the tactics that made George W. successful and hurt the nature of political dialoge in this country (not that it was doing so great…)

“He said that right here in Johnstown – ‘punished with a baby’ – and it’s about time we called him on it.”

A) OLD news…dredging it up when the economy is imploding is pathetic.

B) Do you really want to draw attention to your extreme (no exception for rape or incest) position when fighting for the swing middle of the road voters?

C) She looks like Vannah White in this picture…

From the Associated Press

I think this is interesting for two reasons.  I’m sure the McCain camp was not happy with the stories depicting his supporters and the crowds who come out for him as angry, crazy, xenophobes, and all around terrible human beings (which the Obama camp is smartly pushing).  I’d also bet that there was some discussion within the campaign as to whether you ignore this and hope that the press talk about something else (just not the economy), or if McCain pushes back.  The obvious upside to the defending Obama approach is it recalls the days when McCain was honorable.  The downside is that this becomes another story that highlights how hateful some of his supporters are.  Clearly they risked the downside and ultimately I think it will pay off as long as the next story isn’t about McCain being honorable while sending out Palin to rally the ignorant neo-nazi portion of the base.  Though, following up on my previous post on this, McCain may have just done the right thing.

Either way, I think videos like this do not play well for McCain.