Things have already started. Saxby Chambliss is getting ready to speak. He's from Georgia, so three guesses on what he'll say.

Evidently if we change DADT, then what about the other rules in the military, do we have to change those to?

Evidently gays threaten order and moral and unit cohesion.

Senator "Sticky Fingers" Burris is up now, comparing the integration of blacks into the military with gays. This desire to have every able bodied person who wants to serve to actually serve is rather radical, isn't it?

Sen Susan "I don't want to sticking health care" Collins is questioning the military head honchos about foreign armies that allow gays to serve and whether it's a problem. Admiral Mullin replies "Nah, it's cool, no problem" So why are we having hearings again?

Adm. Mullins doesn't think homos are threat to unit cohesion either, but notes that their haven't been any studies about it since 1993 either. Sen. Jeff Sessions jumps on that and seems to push the idea of more studies. Color me surprise.

Hey, it's Joe Leiberman, saying he's consistent about opposing DADT before and he's opposing it now. Good ol'Joe, he really sticks up for the people.

Joe also thinks we need to be careful in when and how we do the repeal. Don't want to rush things of course!

Sec of Defense Robert Gates agrees with going carefully, as gay soldiers would need to be protected.

Joe gets Gates to agree that changing DADT has to be an act of Congress and not Executive Order. He brings up that 60 votes are needed. Oh boy, this sounds familiar.

Another female Sen, who's name I didn't catch, is making the point that gays are currently serving and aren't causing problems with their heathen ways, so what's the problem? Also, how are you going to talk to gay soliders if the current policy is Don't Ask and Don't Tell? Are you even going to talk to them. Adm. Mullins (I think it's him) admits it'll have to be a careful dance.

Gates suggests talking to those gays that have left the service. Female Sen. agrees, says it's helpful, but that doesn't address talking to currently serving gay military members. D'oh!

Male Sen. who's name I didn't catch (Older, white guy) notes that Britian has gay soliders serving and some of those soldiers are serving with US troops in Afghanistan. Sec. Gates agrees, but notes that every society had different levels of comfort with it. Adm. Mullins chimes in that the military officers are all over the map about this, for and against, so it'll be tricky.

Same unknown Senator is asking about how the military would implement the repeal. Sec Gates and Adm. Mullins agree they'd have to prepare and look at the issues and make changes as needed. Mullins says it's important that effective leadership set the tone for the change.

Evidently Canada allows gay troops too, WTF? They're on the same continent!

Another unknown Senator is thanking Adm. Mullins for his earlier testimony that DADT should be repealed. Yay for a bit of sanity!

And the committee has adjourned.

Crap, think I got the times wrong, the hearings were from 12 to 1, not 1 to 2. Woo hoo for scheduling!

Umm, this is going to be a dumb question and all, but instead of repealing all of the anti-gay rules and regs that apply to the armed forces, can't you just pass a general law saying that those other rules simply aren't going to be enforced, and then take your time weeding out the other stuff? I mean, there's plenty of law still on the books that are dormant, can't you just do the same thing here?

Put in a new umbrella law effective such-and-such a date, and let the courts handle the messy business of retroactive application, and it's done and out of your hands. And if the army is as professional as they say they are, they should be able to take the order and just deal with it, no?

Enh.

You 'causin' trouble son, you some kinda wise ass?

I'm beginning to suspect this is all just political theatre for that very reason.

Obama needs to deliver on some of his campaign promises in an obvious, concrete way. Gitmo may or may not happen by then. Health care isn't what it was going to be. His pledges on the war turned out to be a bit off. A promise like getting rid of DADT is easily verifiable by 2012 -- either he will have or he won't have.

With the rest of his promises all muddied up in their delivery, something like his pledge DADT becomes that much more important, particularly as it (for the most part) is independent of economics and the defense of 'this place was such a mess when I got here'. When it comes to reelection, there has to be something on his record without an asterisk beside it.

At some point, Obama has to be able to say "I said it, I did it." That makes it all the more important for his opponents to deny and stall.

There's also the part where dedicated and skilled servicepeople get kicked out of the military all the time for something that has nothing to do with their performance or their ability to carry out their job. At its height in 2001 it was more than 3 dismissed a day. In 2008 it was between 1 and 2 a day. That's a pretty significant drain considering our military was (and is) strained fighting two wars with an all volunteer force.

But yes I agree with the political reasons too. They're just at the bottom of on the list in order of priority. If Obama can't accomplish even this in the current political climate, then frankly the asskicking the Democratic party will experience in the fallout from this and a dozen other unfulfilled promises is the minimum they deserve. It's immoral, unjust, and in terms of national security, deeply irresponsible. He should end it and when he campaigns for re-election he should call the Republican candidate out on the mat for letting bigotry interfere with defense.

he should call the Republican candidate out on the mat for letting bigotry interfere with defense.

I'm highly skeptical that he would do that, even though he has the mental chops to do so. And that's a damn shame, 'cause this sort of bullshit needs to called for what it is and a lot of this craziness needs to come to a full stop.

He seems to have this need for reconciliation, which is admirable and all, but -- the GOP seems to have zero interest in being conciliatory. Why continue the search for bipartisanship if the other guy is simply not going to go along under any circumstances whatsoever?

As well, in going for the bipartisan effort, he's weakening the Dem's brand identity. In going it alone, he can say 'this is where WE stand, this is where WE want to go', rather than muddling it in a compromise position that is no more effective.

I don't mind if he wants to be bipartisan on live tv so everyone can be reminded of where the parties stand. But I get what you're saying, it would be nice if he, and the Democrats, actually threw down some sort of gauntlet and said "No, we're doing that stupid thing you suggested, because it's stupid and this is why it's stupid"

Either that or a steel cage match.

Oh I never thought he would, Brandon. My dream Obama is highly divergent from reality. He didn't mock us for freaking out at snow last winter either because that would be callous and dumb.