You are on page 1of 24

SDI 08 1

ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

POLITICS UPDATES
POLITICS UPDATES.....................................................................................................................................................1
CONGRESS DISAD UNIQUENESS UPDATES..........................................................................................................2
AFF TURN TO CONGRESS DISAD............................................................................................................................4
DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF CONGRESS STOPS MCCAIN AGENDA...............................................................5
NEW OBAMA IMPACT—TAXATION........................................................................................................................6
OBAMA WIN MEANS BUSH IRAN ATTACK...........................................................................................................8
DADT..............................................................................................................................................................................9

SDI 08 2
ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

CONGRESS DISAD UNIQUENESS UPDATES

DEMOCRATS ADMIT CHANCES OF GETTING TO 60 NOW ARE SLIM

RAW STORY 7-23-08

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Dems_have_filibusterproof_Senate_in_sights_0723.html
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) says the chances of the Democrats boosting their majority from 51 to 60
senators is slim, but he said he had similar doubts before the Democrats took a majority in the chamber in
the 2006 elections, according to Roll Call.

HUFFINGTON POST 7-25-08
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/democrats-uphill-battle-f_n_114954.html

Even if the Democrats win seats in both Alaska and Mississippi, the chances of achieving 60-vote
majority remains slim. Nevertheless experts and even Republicans themselves are of the conviction that the
GOP brand is toxic. As the Politico reported on Tuesday, "Republican Senate leaders -- terrified by the
prospect of losing five or more seats in November -- have freed their members to vote however they need to
vote to get reelected, even if that means bucking the president or the party's leadership."

60 IS POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY NOW

BLAKE 7-23-08
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-sprinkle-caution-on-tub-of-optimism-
2008-07-23.html

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) reiterated throughout their joint press
conference that they are fighting their battles largely in Republican-leaning territory and that their
colleagues shouldn’t get, in Van Hollen’s words, irrationally exuberant.
Schumer said the map he’s confronting is the reddest for Senate Democrats “in a very long time,” with
targets in the traditionally conservative Deep South, Great Plains and Mountain West.
But even as he attempted to exercise some caution, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC)
chairman talked openly about the possibility of a filibuster-proof majority in 2009, which would require a
pickup of nine seats in November.
Previously this cycle, Schumer has been squeamish even talking about such gains.
“Could things change? Sure,” Schumer said. “I don’t want people to think we are definitely going to get
to 60 votes. That’s very hard.”
But then the two-term DSCC chairman suggested that it was very much a possibility, comparing it to his
party’s six-seat gain in 2006.
“It’s about as likely at this point today as getting six seats was at this point two years ago, which means very
unlikely. But it happened. Who knows? Maybe it can happen again.”

John Kerry from neighboring Massachusetts. "Could we hold it to three seats? Yeah. concedes his party will lose additional seats in November and allow the Democrats to extend their majority in the chamber. "That doesn't mean it's going to be the six or seven seats the Democrats are predicting.nationaljournal. New Mexico and New Hampshire. Pete Domenici is leaving will end up in Democratic hands." Ensign told CongressDaily. in part because they have to defend more seats than Democrats. the NRSC is marshalling its resources to dole out later in the cycle. strategists from both parties say privately that they expect the Virginia seat being left open by the retirement of GOP Sen. given that four of the top pickup opportunities for Democrats are in swing states where Republican presidential candidates have traditionally done well -.com/congressdaily/cda_20080728_7557. but the numbers have recently tightened. Colorado. when party leaders can more accurately judge which seats might be hopeless and which might be saved by an infusion of cash. Jul 28." For now. 2008 http://www. Democratic candidates there have held leads in pre-election polls. it's possible we could hold it to three seats. Colorado and New Hampshire remain in play.SDI 08 3 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT REPUBLICANS CAN KEEP THEIR LOSSES LOW NOW Mon. a look at the dozen most-competitive Senate races around the country shows a decided advantage for Democrats. . The Senate election map is tough for Republicans this year. the GOP's chief cheerleader in Senate races. Even National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign of Nevada. President Bush won three of the four in 2004. In addition to extending the Democratic majority.Virginia. losing only New Hampshire by a single percentage point to Democratic Sen. This time around. John Warner and the New Mexico seat that Republican Sen. the Senate battles could also have a profound effect on the presidential race.php With fewer than 100 days left before the fall elections.

even in red states. As a result. Republican senators running in tough reelection races that year. found Bush's low approval ratings a drag on their candidacies. My colleagues Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta in our polling unit have plumbed through the current data and the 2006 exit poll data from House races.html We have already seen this pattern.washingtonpost. three quarters who disapproved of the way Bush was handling his job voted for Democratic and a fifth voted Republican. What they found was that among independents.com/the-trail/2008/03/07/mccains_bush_burden_1. Republicans lost the midterm elections in part because of public disapproval of the president. In 2006.SDI 08 4 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT AFF TURN TO CONGRESS DISAD DEMOCRATS WILL WIN UNLESS BUSH’S APPROVAL RATINGS GO UP Balz 3-7-08 http://blog. . The same could happen this November unless Bush's numbers dramatically improve or McCain finds a way to put more distance between himself and the president. the Senate is in Democratic hands today.

but one in which the Republicans retain enough strength to thwart major policy initiatives.salon. WITH A DIVIDED CONGRESS NEITHER MCCAIN OR OBAMA WILL BE ABLE TO PURSUE THEIR AGENDA MAISEL 08 http://usinfo.html.. A STRONGLY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WOULD BLOCK MCCAINS AGENDA COMPLETELY BERRY 7-1-08 http://letters. If a Democrat is elected. What's more likely? That a president from an opposing party would find a way to work with an opposition congress. for all the talk of "McInsane" from the freeper-left**. McCain. I know that no one has. Seems way too close to Bush and the Republicans redux for me. John McCain is not GW Bush. As a result of the upcoming congressional elections.. Now I will grant that McCain's positions in this campaign may in fact be much worse.) Where I differ from Greenwald is simple: Greenwald still supports Obama because he believes McCain is much worse.gov/journals/itdhr/1007/ijde/maisel. The Democrats hold approximately 30 more House seats than do the Republicans. Senate rules require 60 votes to take major action. The Democrats seem to have a slight advantage in these races and might add slightly to their majority. he may face a determined opposition that controls a majority of both houses of Congress. he or she is likely to govern with a Congress controlled by his or her party. I don't fear a McCain presidency as long as a Democratic congress does its job.state. And if we can't trust a Dem congress to hold a McCain in check. Even slight Democratic gains will not give that party an overwhelming Senate majority. or that a Democratic congress would put the brakes on Obama? I'll take my chances with the first scenario.SDI 08 5 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF CONGRESS STOPS MCCAIN AGENDA OUR LINK TURN SOLVES THEIR IMPACTS. was someone that John Kerry thought enough of in 2004 to offer up the vice presidency as his running mate. but I don't think McCain would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting his positions into law through the opposition of a strongly Democratic congress whereas I am fearful (and fearful is the word) that a Democratic congress would be anything but strong in dealing with a President Obama from their own party. many held by Democrats who took over Republican seats in 2006 — will be hotly contested in 2008. the Democrats are extremely unlikely to approach that number.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/01/obama/permalink/f048beae077057ec57c18a8537b6d883. but again not enough to give them a free hand in governing. we surely can't trust a Dem congress to hold an Obama in check. And more than a few Dems in 2004 were for it. While many incumbents' plans remain in flux. Quite a two weeks? That's quite a four years if you ask me (and yeah. Most of those seats — and perhaps another 25. approximately 25 representatives are likely to vacate their seats after this Congress. Where I differ from Greenwald is on the support for Obama As I posted in Salon's Table Talk.htm The Republicans currently hold 22 of the 34 Senate seats that will be contested in 2008. if a Republican is elected president in 2008. .

and should be opposed vigorously...6% at the end of 2010. but Obama probably would attempt to raise it more quickly. "Charlie Rangel's tax bill raises taxes on small businesses. is scheduled to revert back to the old top rate of 39.SDI 08 6 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT NEW OBAMA IMPACT—TAXATION OBAMA WILL ACT TO QUICKLY INCREASE DEMOCRATIC TAX PROPOSALS PETHOKOUKIS 7-26-08 James.. Perhaps the biggest tax issue for the financial markets involves the capital gains and dividend rates.com/cgi-bin/stories." said ATR President Grover Norquist..pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10- 252007/0004690427&EDATE=.prnewswire. Taxing "the rich" is easy game for Democrats in this election cycle—since virtually all of these "rich" households are in reliably Democratic "blue" states in the Northeast or California. He will surely seek to abolish the Bush tax cuts for "the rich. And some middle class taxpayers may get relief on the Alternative Minimum Tax. those rates are likely to wind up in the mid-20s.. he probably will have tax legislation before Congress before the end of next winter." .S. now 36%. (And does anyone think higher cap-gains rates are just what the housing market ordered?) But Stanford Group policy analyst Greg Valliere thinks income tax rates could be going up higher than expected and affect more than just the so-called rich (bold is mine): If Obama wins. Some Democrats want to add a surcharge of 1 or 2 percentage points on top of 39.6% for individuals making more than $500. everyone who has an investment will face higher taxes because Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress will raise the rate on capital gains. middle-class families.the massive tax increases contained in the bill would destroy the U. and Rangel taxes it. economy.. U.S.000. the definition of "rich" may be defined down to pay for Obama's spending priorities in areas such as health and the infrastructure. pension funds. While the bill contains two welcome tax reforms --AMT repeal and a small corporate rate cut -..you name it. with an effective date that could come as early as some time next year.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/6/26/obama-will-tax-more-than- just-the-rich. But with the budget deficit exploding.. THIS WILL DESTROY THE ECONOMY NORQUIST 07 Grover Norquist Available to Discuss Rangel's Trillion Dollar Tax Bill http://www. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) introduced "the mother of all tax bills" today on Capitol Hill. "This bill is a clear and present violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. There is also a "hidden tax" that will come from the depressing effect on stock prices.usnews. News http://www.. there's a bit of good news: there's a strong consensus that the top corporate rate of 35% is too high. and Americans doing business overseas -. If Obama wins.000 per year." loosely defined as those who make more than $250.html Let's be clear: If Barack Obama is elected. it probably will come down to 30 or 31%. The top individual rate. With the Democrats determined to raise taxes (the Social Security payroll tax cap also would rise).

Scaring Capital Away Private equity has been a key source of prosperity in recent years. but it’s hard to see how imposing punitive double-taxation of capital across the board can be considered a solution to anything except continued American prosperity. Under current law. This structure — where general partners retain a carried interest in the fund’s profits — is common not just in private equity. while every cap-gains tax cut has led to higher revenues. When a partnership is formed. The majority of the witnesses on the stacked panel said it would. If all this is not bad enough. This tax hike would. and investment. entrepreneurial companies. This bad idea will carry tax implications for every American. drying up investment in many innovative. Charlie Rangel is bent on including a carried interest capital gains tax hike in the must-pass patch to the alternative minimum tax. Everyone Loses Even worse. because the stakes are high. Yet Democrats and tax-scorers are repeating this mistake yet again in the carried interests fight at hand. which helps them meet their self-imposed pay-as-you-go rules. This goes against every rationale for having a lower capital gains tax rate. The primary rationales are to alleviate the double taxation of corporate source income.S. in exchange for them putting up all or most of the money. Treasury hard. however. in itself. What's at Stake One reason the tax hike is attractive to Democrats is that it scores as a major revenue raiser. oil and gas. All of these rationales obtain in the carried interest case. contrary to the conclusions of the static-revenue scorekeepers.philkerpen. when the partnership has income. the character of the underlying income no longer matters. They would hit the U. to avoid taxing inflationary gains. But an excellent study by University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Knoll found that the tax hike would raise negligible revenue because of legal avoidance strategies — and that’s without even considering the supply-side effects that we always see with changes in capital gains tax rates. we could be looking at a major economic disruption without any federal revenue to show for it. which would be a great impediment to stock markets. cause a significant economic disruption by sending capital offshore and discouraging the creation of new venture-backed businesses. Even if the income is from the sale of corporate stock. History is an excellent guide here: Every capital-gains tax hike in the past 30 years has led to lower federal revenues.SDI 08 7 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DEMOCRATIC TAX PLANS WOULD CRUSH THE U. the trend is toward something much worse: There is a Democratic effort underway to raise capital gains taxes for all investors. Private equity and other alternative investment vehicles like venture capital and real estate partnerships have kept capital fleeing our public markets from going overseas and providing financing for innovative companies to grow and create jobs. which many Democrats are now openly advocating. but also in venture capital. with serious economic consequences. as our public capital markets have been increasingly hampered by excessive litigation and overregulation under Sarbanes-Oxley. . They would significantly raise the cost of capital. with both Barck Obama and John Edwards calling for a return to the pre-Clinton tax cut rate of 28 percent. and hedge funds. This is about hiking the capital gains tax for a particular group of politically unpopular taxpayers. In other words. Capital gains tax hikes would dramatically reduce the after-tax return on stock investments. which require them to offset tax reductions with tax hikes or spending cuts (they never choose the spending cuts). typically 80 percent. is the precedent that would be set for raising the capital gains tax for everyone. With such a strong push behind it. real estate. Chairman Rangel asked panelist after panelist whether raising capital gains taxes across the board would solve the so-called problem of carried interest taxation. It’s really no different from the founder of a small business who has the ideas and know-how bringing in an outside investor. Under Rangel’s bill. the portion that general partners retain as a carried interest would be taxed at the full ordinary income tax rates. ECONOMY KERPEN 07 Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity http://www. it flows to the partners and they pay tax on it based on the character of the underlying income — if it’s ordinary income they pay ordinary income tax. a whopping 87 percent tax hike. entrepreneurship. Carried interest refers to the portion of the profits interests that the general partner who sets up an investment partnership retains. this is a plan that we need to take seriously.S. Higher taxes could choke off this engine of prosperity and encourage capital to flee abroad. and to encourage capital formation.com/?q=node/155. In House Ways and Means Committee hearings on carried interest. because the income really is capital income. Rep. and if it’s capital income they pay capital gains tax. All of the major Democratic presidential candidates have come out for higher capital gains taxes. The general partner is the entrepreneur who has the ideas and connections to make investments. the general partner will bring in limited partners by selling them a stake in the fund.

politicized. in pressuring Iran. if you don’t want an American attack. and let McCain decide what to do. he’ll punt. MCCLEMORE 6-22-08 Andrew McLemore http://rawstory. During an interview posted at the National Review Online. President Bush will do something. outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda. Kristol added that if Senator John McCain was going to win the presidency. Pipes said that the U.S. . Pipes also said that countries like Russia and China should aid the U. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol told FOX News Sunday morning.SDI 08 8 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT OBAMA WIN MEANS BUSH IRAN ATTACK IF OBAMA WINS BUSH WILL ATTACK IRAN GARAFALO 6-5-08 http://thinkprogress. if they want to prevent America attacking unilaterally: Look.org/2008/06/05/pipes-democrat-iran/ Daniel Pipes. Bush would “think it more appropriate” to let him deal with the issue. should the Democratic nominee win in November. and its allies should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack”: What I suspect will be the case is. And should it be Mr.” said he believes that President Bush will attack Iran if a Democrat wins the White House in November.S. a far right-wing pseudo scholar who called the NIE report on the halting of Iran’s nuclear program a “shoddy.com/news08/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-might- attack-iran-if-he-thinks-obama-will-win/ President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he thinks Senator Barack Obama may be elected. McCain that wins. then you have to join us in being very serious with the Iranians and making clear to them we will attack if they don’t stop.

a gay publication.com/news/politics/2008/04/11/2008-04-11_obama_ill_end_dontask_donttell-1. "I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. which was instituted during Bill Clinton's administration. some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need." but he said it's "going to be tough" to get that provision through Congress. don't-tell”. Obama supports repeal of DADT. John McCain supports “don’t ask. Obama would repeal the “cruel and unpatriotic” DADT policy if elected president. don't tell" policy since it was approved by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993." Obama said during an interview with The Advocate. April 11. 7/24/2008.html WASHINGTON – Opponents of the “don’t ask. don't tell. don't tell" policy for gays in the military. http://www.SDI 08 9 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT Obama would repeal “Don’t Ask. Congress had not re-examined the "don't ask. Although legislation has been introduced to overturn the policy." he said.nydailynews. but he won't make it a criteria for serving on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. don’t tell” since its enactment 15 years ago. Associated Press and The Washington Post.ya know. "What I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer. "There's increasing recognition within the armed forces that this is a counterproductive strategy .html Barack Obama said he's confident he could end the "don't ask.com/news/chi- dont-ask-dont-telljul24. Washington Tribune. don’t tell” policy on gays in the military denounced it Wednesday as cruel and unpatriotic. and one raised the prospect of a rise of HIV infection among service members if gays are allowed to serve openly. we're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military.chicagotribune. John McCain. 7/24/2008. something supporters say can happen only if Democratic Sen. don't tell' policy: Discussion intended to look at effect of gays-in-military rule”.” . the hearing wasn’t an attempt to advance the bill.com/news/nationworld/story/422034.0. Daily News Political Correspondent. Recruiters are not allowed to ask enlistees about their sexual orientation and members of the armed forces may not engage in homosexual conduct or aggressively display homosexuality. not ideology. but Wednesday's hearing was not intended to advance the bill. Supporters insisted it was needed to maintain military morale." he said. “Obama: I'll end don't-ask. Obama said he is interested in including transgendered people as part of the legislation eliminating "don't ask. 2008. the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Legislation has been introduced to repeal the policy. “Two views on gays in military”. CNN. is something he could "reasonably" get done if elected. That doesn't make us more safe. “Hearing examines 'don't ask. Chicago Tribune. http://www. http://www. don’t tell. Amanda Erickson. Obama said ending the policy. supports retention of the policy while likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama backs its repeal.thenewstribune. Republican Sen.7652923. News Tribune news services.story Whether gay men and women should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces was considered by a House subcommittee Wednesday for the first time in 15 years. Don’t Tell” Michael Saul. Barack Obama is elected president. The heated exchanges came as Congress held its first hearing on “don’t ask.

"I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. Lexis Obama pledges support for gay rights issues Barack Obama pledges that if he wins the presidency. April 11. On Wednesday. and would end the "don't ask.com) . DADT Uniqueness McCain would keep DADT. contends that he is addressing them in a broader context. “I think the policy is working.com at the Capitol on Tuesday.com/public/content/article. including John McCain. Don’t Tell’”. and transgender-related newsmagazine. Don’t Tell” policy concerning homosexuals in the military. But Obama says he would not make opposition to that policy a "litmus test" for his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff because they have so many issues before them. "We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military. responding to criticism that he hasn't talked to the gay press or directly tackled gay issues. but it seems to be effective. Jeff Sessions (R- Ala. “GOP Wants to Keep ‘Don’t Ask. staff writer and Allison Aldrich.” Sen. and from my understanding the leadership of the military is comfortable with it. Josiah Ryan. a House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel will convene to review the controversial policy. he would pass an employment nondiscrimination law covering gay Americans. so I would be in favor of keeping the policy." he said in an interview with The Advocate.” Sessions said.cnsnews. Senate Republicans. “It’s not perfect. bisexual.Despite recent calls from Democrats. “Out of the campaign trail limelight. “Their interest is in having a strong military.SDI 08 10 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT Obama pledges to repeal DADT if elected president.) told CNSNews. That doesn't make us more safe. CNS News. say the policy seems to work and should be kept. Romney remains on political hunt”.aspx?RsrcID=32891 On the Spot (CNSNews. correspondent. The Illinois senator. to do away with the “Don’t Ask. guarantee federal benefits to gay couples in civil unions. The Boston Globe. http://www. don't tell" policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.” . 7/23/2008. lesbian. 2008." he said. including presidential candidate Barack Obama. a gay.

including expensively trained and hard-to-recruit linguists. but it is the responsibility of senior military commanders to advise our nation's leaders on how law and policy affect military readiness. retention and our ability to develop essential military skills. a rear admiral. . They should speak up about how it affects military honor and integrity. don't tell" injures our military and weakens our preparedness. Without them. writer. in order to meet its manpower quotas. Senior leaders must state plainly how "don't ask. don't tell" affects recruiting. sailors. usually because they have been made to feel unwelcome. It is our duty. 7/25/2008. “‘Don’t ask. but I don't. we would lose crucial military leadership. A hearing of a House Armed Services subcommittee this week offered a critical opportunity to break the silence surrounding how military preparedness has been hurt by the 1993 "don't ask. Without them. but it led to respect. retired in June after 32 years of military service. armed forces. The military estimates that only three in 10 high school graduates are qualified to serve. something military leaders understand well.S. expertise and skills. I raised this issue in 2003 when a task force I served on worked on the Navy's diversity strategy.tampabay. we would have a hard time meeting our military commitments worldwide.com/opinion/columns/article737486. doctors and combat-tested master sergeants.000 sailors serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those gay and lesbian soldiers. jet pilots. unappreciated or even unsafe in their units. to speak openly of how "don't ask. These patriotic gay and lesbian warriors want to serve. which has 9. "Don't ask. Jamie Barnett.SDI 08 11 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT Bad DADT crushes military effectiveness by decreasing the amount of people eligible for the military. Marines and members of the Coast Guard are essential. Sadly. ultimately. Competing with industry is hard enough already. some "out" themselves to leave the service. It is up to Congress and the president to craft policy on gay men and lesbians serving in the military. don't tell" policy further reduces the pool of eligible recruits. His last position in active duty was deputy commander of the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command. understanding and. a greater opportunity for blacks and whites alike to succeed. The military has spent more than $363-million since 1994 to throw out gay men and lesbians whose expertise we desperately need. Yes. flooding the military with unnecessary costs. though by law they cannot be open about their sexuality. cyber-warriors. the "don't ask. don’t tell’ hurts military readiness.000 gay men and lesbians serve in the U. don't tell" also damages our nation's ability to recruit the best and the brightest. don't tell" policy barring gay men and lesbians from serving openly. Those members who stay make an incredibly difficult personal sacrifice. And would you want to serve when you have to hide an essential part of yourself or would be unable to tell the chain of command about discrimination or harassment without risking your career? Some fear a backlash from heterosexual service members. I believe integration of lesbians and gay men in the military will be easier: It has already taken place. An estimated 3.000 gay service members depart each year rather than continue to serve under a policy that forces them to deceive their fellow warriors and to contradict the honor and integrity that are core values in our services. we would stretch to a dangerous point the length of time troops must spend in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without them.ece Did you know that your safety and security depend on gay men and lesbians? An estimated 65. As we fight two wars. we just don't recognize the gay service members among us for who they are. This purging of talent takes place at the same time the military. our military is stretched thin. feels compelled to increase the number of waivers it grants to people who have had problems with the law — in some instances almost twice as many as in years past. Integration was tumultuous.” The Washington Post. airmen. I grew up in Mississippi and attended segregated schools until I was a sophomore in high school. http://www. and pushing away highly qualified individuals.

Aaron Belkin. Santa Barbara. don’t tell” does not enhance military readiness. Many leading academic experts on unit cohesion such as David and Mady Segal.” Armed Forces & Society.36 As noted at the beginning of this paper. and it is inconsistent with the views of junior enlisted service members. a June 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 85 percent of the public held favorable or very favorable impressions of the military. The policy is inconsistent with public opinion. as Melissa Wells-Petry has argued. 2007. University of California. then perhaps it would make sense for Congress and the Pentagon to consider whether military policy should. Don’t Tell’: Does the Gay Ban Undermine the Military’s Reputation. for example. many factors contribute to public attitudes toward the military. Given the negative implications of “don’t ask.” Officials and politicians should acknowledge that contrary to the claims of some defenders of the policy. Even in the immediate aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal. That said. don’t tell. it provides a vehicle for antimilitary protesters to portray military culture as conflicting with widely accepted civilian values. integration would improve the public’s impression of the armed forces. allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would not harm the military’s reputation. “‘Don’t Ask. April 4. Quite to the contrary. Elizabeth Kier. that 56 percent of respondents to the survey conducted for this study indicated that “don’t ask.37 While these experts are scholars and not military officers. for example. don’t tell” does not impact their feelings about the military (see Table 1). don’t tell” does not promote readiness. and despite the fact that the public’s overall impression of the armed forces remains very favorable. don’t tell” has devastated the military’s reputation. even among conservatives. and it is certainly not the case that “don’t ask. Robert MacCoun. reflect national consensus. Most Americans hold very favorable views of the armed forces. the data presented in this article do suggest that “don’t ask. Google Scholar.SDI 08 12 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT Repealing DADT would improve the public’s opinion of the armed forces. and others have suggested that “don’t ask.38 . their perspectives are based on extensive research and understanding. those who care about preserving and enhancing the military’s standing with the public should be concerned about the impact of “don’t ask. don’t tell” appears to harm the military’s reputation in four ways. it prompts many journalists to criticize the armed forces while attracting almost no favorable media coverage. don’t tell” for the military’s reputation. Recall. To the extent that these scholars are correct and that “don’t ask.

“WHY WE SHOULD REPEAL `DON'T ASK.SDI 08 13 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT costs the military money and hurts military effectiveness." He added that "the remedy for bad decision-making by the political branches is to be found in the working of the political process. In the 12 years since the ban was enacted. "deciding that Congress has made a rational choice is not the same as deciding it has made a wise choice. April 27. found that while Congress made a rational decision when it adopted the "don't ask. don't tell" is wildly unpopular. But a May 2005 poll conducted for The Boston Globe found that 79 percent of people favored allowing openly gay people to serve. "Don't ask. Congress is also the most appropriate outlet for ending that ban. While public opinion polls show that "don't ask. O'Toole Jr. don't tell" in the first 10 years was more than $190 million. don't tell. This money could be better spent protecting soldiers in the line of duty. . Judge O'Toole sent a strong message to the 12 plaintiffs in the case and to Congress that it is time to seriously reconsider the military's "don't ask." A July 1993 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 40 percent of people favored allowing openly gay people to serve in the military. By: Martin Meehan. Lexis. don't tell" doesn't make sense. A year ago the Government Accountability Office released a study showing that the cost of enforcing "don't ask. don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military. 2006. It is time for Congress to catch up with the country and overturn this policy. don't tell" policy. don't tell" policy was challenged unsuccessfully in federal court and the strongest statement yet that the way to overturn this outdated and discriminatory policy is with legislative. ON MONDAY a US District Court judge in Boston ruled that while Congress has the authority to bar gays and lesbians from the military." This was the ninth time the "don't ask. it is also costly to taxpayers in terms of dollars spent to enforce it and costly to our military readiness as we discharge soldiers with skills critical to fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. DON'T TELL'”. A revised estimate by the University of California at Santa Barbara released in February of this year found the cost to be almost double the original number more than $363 million. Judge George A. not legal action. The Boston Globe. wasting taxpayer dollars by discharging competent service members under "don't ask. public opinion has shifted in favor of repealing "don't ask. don't tell" undermines the very freedom these servicemen and women have volunteered to defend. At a time when our military is already stretched to the breaking point. and there seems to be little convincing evidence for it to remain in effect. instead of discharging brave Americans who proudly serve in our military just for being gay. This policy has proven to be unpopular and costly.

could add more than 41.000 other service members have been ousted since the ''don't ask.000 soldiers -. This does not serve the military or the nation well. Consider: more than 58 Arabic linguists have been kicked out since ''don't ask. “Don't Ask.and. and I'm waiting. The New York Times. Why then won't Congress pass a bill like the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. 11. An untold number of closeted gay military members don't re-enlist because of the pressure the law puts on them. which would repeal ''don't ask. former petty officer second class in the Navy. of course. don't tell'' was instituted.all gay. I'm trained to fight. it's too high to pay. I regret I'm not there to lessen their burden and to serve my country. In response to difficult recruiting prospects. with our military so overcommitted and undermanned. medicine and counterterrorism. Don't Translate”. I speak Arabic and I'm willing to serve. June 8. don't tell''? The bipartisan bill. Lexis. Many held critical jobs in intelligence. This is the real cost of the ban -. As the friends I once served with head off to 15-month deployments. How much valuable intelligence could those men and women be providing today to troops in harm's way? In addition to those translators. I'm ready. 2007. Stephen Benjamin. don't tell'' policy was passed by Congress in 1993. don't tell'' does nothing but deprive the military of talent it needs and invade the privacy of gay service members just trying to do their jobs and live their lives. No recruiter needs to make a persuasive argument to sign me up. Political and military leaders who support the current law may believe that homosexual soldiers threaten unit cohesion and military readiness. the Army has already taken a number of steps.SDI 08 14 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT hurts military readiness by depriving the military of qualified personnel. but the real damage is caused by denying enlistment to patriotic Americans and wrenching qualified individuals out of effective military units. . lengthening soldiers' deployments to 15 months from 12. ''Don't ask. by some analysts' estimates. enlisting felons and extending the age limit to 42.

John Shalikashvili and Lt. don't tell." including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Our allies did not display such acceptance back when we voted on "don't ask. These gay vets include Capt. The Army is "about broken. 2007. Let us end "don't ask. Gen. Fully three-quarters of 500 vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said in a December Zogby poll that they were comfortable interacting with gay people. Despite controversy surrounding the policy change. Simpson. Senior leaders such as retired Gen. a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. Second. more than 800 personnel have been discharged from "critical fields" -. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18. and Marine Staff Sgt. Peter Pace. My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. Gen." This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history. more than 300 language experts have been fired under "don't ask.000 more soldiers a year.to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003." but we should consider their common-sense example. Gen. don't tell. and I have come to realize that "gay" is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals.000 gays are serving and that there are 1 million gay veterans. Gen. In today's perilous global security situation.the ban on gay service in the military. . even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. The Army's chief of staff. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week. smart patriot to help us win this war. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. March 14. We need every able-bodied. Lexis. permit open service. America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. helping to save the world. Republican senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997. the real question is whether allowing homosexuals to serve openly would enhance or degrade our readiness. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. the Army is granting a record number of "moral waivers. Pace is entitled. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"? Since 1993. Alan K. It says little about the person. are calling for a second look.jobs considered essential but difficult in terms of training or retraining. chairman of the Joint Chiefs. said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed.000 will break unless the force is expanded by 7. The Washington Post. First. there are not enough troops to perform the required mission." To fill its needs. Since 2005. Also last year. The Urban Institute estimates that 65. readiness or recruitment. a former West Point superintendent. we'd better start talking sense before it is too late." allowing even felons to enlist. In World War II. who lost his right leg to an Iraqi land mine. a former U-2 pilot who logged more than 200 combat hours over Iraq. Cholene Espinoza. a Zogby poll showed that a majority of service members who knew a gay member in their unit said the person's presence had no negative impact on the unit or personal morale. to his personal opinion.and overturn -. Military attitudes have also shifted. don't tell. medical personnel and combat engineers. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation's "foreign language deficit" and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. permitting gays to serve openly would enhance the quality of the armed forces. Peter Schoomaker. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine. and his work laid the basis for modern computer science." But much has changed since 1993. “Bigotry That Hurts Our Military”.SDI 08 15 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT crushes military readiness by preventing key personnel from being able to enlist. it has had no negative impact on morale. 24 nations. Eric Alva. As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany. don't tell. told the House Armed Services Committee in December that "the active-duty Army of 507. such as linguists. Yet we turn away patriotic gay and lesbian citizens. I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans. like anyone. Aside from allowing us to recruit and retain more personnel." in the words of Colin Powell. including 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom and nine in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Daniel Christman. The best way to answer this is to reconsider the original points of opposition to open service. Is there a "straight" way to translate Arabic? Is there a "gay" Farsi? My God. Third. cohesion. I voted for "don't ask. I believe it is critical that we review -. According to the Government Accountability Office.

if this happens I'll resign. the report suggests that "there has been a marked lack of reaction" to the issue of including homosexual personnel in the British armed services. readiness. had previously said that lifting the gay ban would jeopardize morale and military performance. undress. Major General Peter Philips. 33. In Australia. or security of any unit. veterans.500 male soldiers. 2. led to difficulties in recruiting or retention. . Rear-Admiral James Burnell-Nugent. Gates. some officers said."11 In Israel. a leading academic expert on homosexuality in the Australian military."15 Overall. pg. Military. "According to military reports. spokesmen for the Returned and Services League. concurred: "Although some did not welcome the change in policy. Yet when Canada and Britain subsequently lifted their gay bans. or increased the rate of HIV infection. ministry officials. however. Canadian. has not impaired the morale. "Over my dead body.SDI 08 16 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT AT: Lifting DADT hurts military readiness Despite ominous predictions. A 1996 survey of 13. led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention. wrote. or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. ."12 Reuven Gal. There was no known increase in fights. stated that gays in the military have "not been a significant public issue. Steve Leveque. "Despite all the anxiety that existed through the late 80s into the early 90s about the change in policy."14 The assistant chief of the navy staff. 108. there probably hasn't been much of a change. Commodore R. an official in the Australian Defence Ministry. . . Santa Barbara. "There was no increase in complaints about gay people or by gay people. or cohesion.S. the director of the Israeli Institute for Military Studies."13 An internal government report that appraised the British change in policy characterized it as a "solid achievement . In a 1985 survey of 6.500 British service members reported that more than two-thirds of male respondents would not willingly serve in the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve. with Geoffrey Bateman. In fact. our review of 622 documents and articles revealed no evidence that the lifting of the gay bans undermined military performance. for example. Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California.16 These reactions were typical of the comments made during the interviews with politicians. of the new book Don't Ask. . . cohesion. reported."7 Professor Hugh Smith. academic experts."17 In addition. Smith said that there were no such departures and that the change was accepted in "true military tradition. a professor at the Center for Strategic Studies who is recognized as a leading expert on the Israel Defense Forces. [homosexuals'] presence. Stuart Cohen. or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops. the Canadian Department of National Defence found that 62 percent of male service members would refuse to share showers. with fewer problems than might have been expected. He is the author of numerous studies on sexual orientation and unit cohesion and coeditor. readiness. Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian. these dire predictions were not confirmed. homosexuals do not constitute an issue [with respect to] unit cohesion in the IDF."10 A 1995 internal report from the Canadian government on the lifting of the ban concluded. Carlisle Barracks: Summer 2003. The Defence Forces have not had a lot of difficulty in this area. observed that when the government ordered the military to lift the ban. lifting bans on gays and lesbians has been empirically proven to have no effect on military readiness. the country's largest veterans' group. "As far as I have been able to tell. Vol. and enlisted soldiers. Aaron Belkin."9 In Canada. Even the leading opponents of allowing gays into the military concluded that the lifting of the bans did not damage the armed forces. . W. On a day-to-day basis. . Lexis. Iss."8 Bronwen Grey. “Don't ask. non-profit observers. remarked. on a ship. whose rank is equivalent to a one- star admiral. whether openly or clandestinely. or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance." However. remarked that the lifting of the ban was "an absolute non-event. it has not caused any degree of difficulty. Eight years after Australia's 1992 decision to lift its ban. and that 45 percent would refuse to work with gays. the entire subject is very marginal indeed as far as this military is concerned. . or in Army units. the President of the Returned and Services League. Don't Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the U. don't tell: Is the gay ban based on military necessity?” Parameters. Israeli. The recruitment figures didn't alter. commented that including gays and lesbians in the Canadian Forces is "not that big a deal for us. In Australia. a civilian official in the Department of National Defence. here's what the indicators show-no effect. active-duty officers.

org/press/2003/01/us012303. though the policy stigmatizes patriots and injures the military's readiness. at once self-destructive and unjust. “Still No Gay Linguists”. In fact. But harassment has made life in the military so intolerable for thousands that they have “voluntarily” acknowledged their homosexuality in order to secure a discharge. Don’t Tell” Policy Panders to Prejudice: Anti-Gay Harassment Flourishes”.and knows of at least one other case.SDI 08 17 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT removes linguists which are key to MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS The Washington Post. 2003.htm By stigmatizing homosexuality. As detailed in “Uniform Discrimination. the SLDN now informs us that the discharge of gay linguists has actually accelerated. 2003. Lexis. So even as some gay men and lesbians are being tolerated temporarily while they help liberate Iraq. “U.both with al Qaeda and in Iraq -. The report also documents “lesbian-baiting. gay discharges actually declined last year -. But apparently it has been undeterred. derogatory names. 22 of the discharges are complete. But the progress has been spotty. The Washington Post. http://www. three Farsi. homophobia led to the murder of Army Private First Class Barry Winchell by a fellow soldier who beat him to death with a baseball bat. Many servicemembers endure harassment in silence for fear that reporting it will lead to disclosure of their sexual orientation and hence a discharge. DADT perpetuates violence against gay and lesbian service members. The military preferred to exacerbate a governmentwide shortage of Arabic-speakers rather than relax its gay ban. the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). disclosed that the military had discharged at least 10 linguists. You might think the Pentagon would have responded to the negative publicity. Harassment of gay and lesbian servicemembers is committed with near total impunity. . The Pentagon has done little to protect gay and lesbian servicemembers from hostile treatment or violence by other servicemembers.” anti-gay harassment remains commonplace. don't tell" policy. others are being kicked out of military language training.) Overall. In 1999. it has failed to implement it.as they typically do when the country faces war and cannot afford to spend its time on witch hunts. because of their sexual orientations. According to Steve Ralls.in the service of their country. two Chinese and two Russian -. jokes or negative remarks about gays and lesbians in the past year and 85 percent believed that military officials tolerated such behavior to some extent. (The Defense Department did not respond to calls seeking comment regarding the SLDN's claims. seven of them Arabic-speaking. Military’s “Don’t Ask.S. threats and even physical attacks. This is an enormous waste of human resources. The group has represented 24 linguists -. April 16. an advocacy group that represents gay men and lesbians trying to serve their country despite the military's irrational "don't ask. eight Korean.hrw. THE UNITED STATES may be at war -. The military cannot afford to brand as unfit for service qualified men and women who wish to put their talents -. with gay servicemembers subjected to name-calling. the group's spokesman. Human Rights News. don’t tell” policy has perpetuated prejudice against gay and lesbian servicemembers. Although the Pentagon announced in 2000 an Action Plan to combat antigay harassment. In a Department of Defense survey of service members.nine speak Arabic. January 23.but the military still knows a domestic threat when it sees one: gay linguists in training.whether those lie in combat roles or languages -. 80 percent reported hearing offensive speech.” a form of harassment in which male servicemembers label as lesbians women who rebuff their sexual advances or who do not act “feminine” enough. the “don’t ask. Last year.

57 in combat engineering. In total. Lexis. higher stress levels and lower morale. the Pentagon issued stop-loss orders to maintain troop strength as the nation went to war. lesbian or bisexual since 1998. We now depend heavily on reservists and National Guard troops. because they have not been training with a unit while out of the service. What is particularly troubling about the results is that the "don't ask.SDI 08 18 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT exacerbates troop shortages. transportation. 49 nuclear. Our report. It also booted 88 language specialists (many of them Arabic-language translators and interrogators). And Congress recently approved increasing the size of the Army by 20. The discharges continue. July 12. at the rate of two to three per day. medicine. despite alarming reports that the military is stretched dangerously thin and is overtaxing its current forces. security. in short. is ousting troops in the very same occupational specialties as service members who are being involuntarily recalled from civilian life. don't tell.000 recruits. and other key support and logistical areas. 292 in transportation.focused on winning the battles at hand -. 52 missile guidance and control operators.have clearly turned a blind eye to the policy. 2004. allowing their expulsions to continue. Early in the current conflict. which analyzed data obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center through a Freedom of Information Act request. In certain badly needed specialties. and 420 in supply and logistics since 1998. they should consider the results of a data analysis just released by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. The "don't ask. The use of these soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve is the latest step military leaders are taking to maintain adequate troop strength for our continuing battles in the Middle East. as they have in every war since World War II. which have skyrocketed under "don't ask. Thousands of service members have had their tours of duty extended beyond the terms of their contracts. "Stop-loss" orders were issued to delay scheduled discharges. The forced extension of military service comes at great cost to America's troops and its mission. Yet actual gay discharge figures. The Washington Post. engineering. administration. 331 in medical treatment. The Pentagon's recalls are targeting specialists with needed skills in intelligence. don't tell" policy. “Revolving Door for Troops”. missile and other artillery specialists. 232 in military police and security. Why? Because commanders in the field -. . sexual orientation is the furthest thing from anyone's mind. 33 in operational intelligence but expelled 50 gays. the military has expelled thousands of just such troops: 268 in intelligence. Under the gay ban. 6. Nathanial Frank. revealed that the military is losing mission-critical combat and support specialists because of the ban on openly gay soldiers.273 troops have been discharged for being gay." have sagged during the war itself. In a move some are calling a "backdoor draft. of the University of California at Santa Barbara. which requires the discharge of known gays and lesbians.600 Army troops for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are even less prepared and less cohesive. who have less training. biological and chemical warfare experts. the military could have avoided involuntary recalls altogether if it had not expelled competent gay troops in those fields: It is recalling 72 soldiers in communication and navigation but expelled 115 gay troops in that category.674 troops from the Individual Ready Reserve. 33 in combat operations control but expelled 106. and 150 rocket. They know what nearly every expert now admits: that when unit cohesion matters most. But so determined was the military to spare its ranks the mark of homosexuality that the order explicitly excepted gay discharges from the stop-loss. while the Army is set to recall 5. senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California at Santa Barbara. 255 in administration. don't tell" policy. puts discrimination against competent soldiers above the combat readiness of the entire force." the Pentagon has announced it will issue mandatory recalls to more than 5. As military and political leaders struggle to address critical troop shortages in the Middle East.

Military. don’t tell’ panders to prejudice. Most members of NATO and many U. “U.SDI 08 19 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT prevents many potentially qualified personnel from joining the armed forces Human Rights News.htm (New York.” said Fellner.” In a letter sent to President Bush with the report. “America prides itself on being a nation of liberty and tolerance.S.” According to the Human Rights Watch report: · Between October 2001 and September 2002. Don’t Tell” policy of discharging gay and lesbian servicemembers who reveal their sexual orientation violates human rights and deprives the military of skilled personnel. Don’t Tell” Policy Panders to Prejudice: Anti-Gay Harassment Flourishes”. Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. director of the U.” said Fellner. Germany. January 23. have changed exclusionary policies and accepted openly gay and lesbian servicemembers in their armed forces without impairing military effectiveness. military’s “Don’t Ask. including the United Kingdom. a number of U. don’t tell.800 servicemembers were forced out of the military because of the policy. “‘Don’t ask. “Uniform Discrimination: The ‘Don’t Ask.” any servicemember who acknowledges his or her homosexuality by word or deed is discharged.” Human Rights Watch asked him to seek an end to discharges on the basis of sexual orientation and to work with Congress to repeal the 1993 law codifying the policy. don’t tell” argue that permitting acknowledged gays or lesbians to serve in the military would impair unit cohesiveness and hence military effectiveness. The integration of gays and lesbians occurs most smoothly when the highest levels of military leadership support policies of non-discrimination. Indeed.hrw. insist that servicemembers abide by rules of conduct applicable to all. Between 1994 and the end of 2001. 2003) The U. there is no evidence to support that argument. Don’t Tell’ Policy of the U. a record 1.S. http://www. Under “don’t ask.S. “At one time. · The policy has cost the military an estimated $218 million to recruit and train replacements for servicemembers discharged because they acknowledged their sexual orientation. As detailed in the report. January 23.org/press/2003/01/us012303. · In 2001 alone. allies participating in Operation Enduring Freedom permit open homosexuals to serve under the same rules as heterosexuals. Program of Human Rights Watch. “Gay and lesbian servicemembers are discharged without regard to their skills. the year prior to the policy’s enactment.S. 2003. The same equally indefensible arguments are made about accepting openly gay and lesbian servicemembers. “Former President Truman recognized that military policy should not be shaped by racial prejudice. more than 7. and provide appropriate training. training. President Bush should display the same courage and secure the full acceptance of gays and lesbians into today’s military. the Army discharged ten trained linguists – seven of them proficient in Arabic – because they are gay. supporters of racially segregated military units insisted that racial integration would destroy the military.S.” said Jamie Fellner. allies. Military’s “Don’t Ask.S. commitment or courage — victims of the irrational fears and stereotypes some heterosexuals have about them. “Yet it permits its military to remain a bastion of discrimination against gays and lesbians. .” Supporters of “don’t ask.256 servicemembers were discharged because of their sexual orientation – almost double the number discharged in 1992. Canada and Israel. over the last decade.

showering. and informed as I possibly could. morale. Homosexuals cannot be given private rooms without infuriating heterosexuals. It meant being fair and impartial to every Soldier. As a US Army Ranger. Military service necessarily takes a heavy toll on personal freedoms and privacy.or four- man rooms are still fairly common and squad bays are often used by deployed units or in training commands. I performed long range patrols in severe cold weather conditions. the result of Neanderthal attitudes. Mark E. Allowing open homosexuals in the military would hurt morale." Current Controversies: Gay Rights. equipped. fighting. The cost of private rooms would be staggering. Roleff. Adventure Training Corps. Tamara L. refitting. The presence of openly gay men in these situations would elevate tensions and disrupt unit cohesion and morale. in the close quarters that a team lives. On several occasions. It also meant keeping the Soldiers under my charge as safe. Privacy is even more restricted on shipboard or in the field. SGM (Ret. Three. Gale. 1997. and esprit decor is a matter of life and death. The point is that the heterosexual would be completely uncomfortable undressing. or sleeping under those conditions. or holding the hand of a team mate who is fighting for his or her life. Billeting homosexuals together would complicate billeting assignments and draw protests from heterosexuals who are not allowed to room . At best. No comfort items. Cantrell. decisions frequently are based on bonuses and job security. Chief Executive Officer. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. “Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military”. team cohesion.org/fileuploads/HASC072308JonesTestimony.pdf In the civilian business world. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. I sought. Communal heads and showers are typical. It meant taking care of each Soldier I had the honor of leading. I would respectfully like to say that in this time of war. In my 21 years of service in the US Army. Most Marines would also be terrified of the rumors and assumptions that would inevitably start among their peers. In the military environment. I find it surprising that we are here today to talk about this issue of repealing the 1993 law. These brave men and women have achieved what many Americans thought impossible. in teams of 10. July 23. 2008. Owner. As a leader. it is difficult to understand why a minority faction is demanding that their concerns be given priority over more important issues. With all of the important issues that require attention. House Armed Services Committee. homosexuals would thoroughly demoralize servicemembers who seldom get to choose their roommates. Bonus and job security come second to the reality of writing the hard letter to a loved one.) Brian Jones. On their behalf. Commanders will have no workable solutions for dealing with this privacy problem. my first obligation was to the Nation. It would be no more reasonable to force heterosexuals to room with homosexuals than it would be to force women Marines to room with male Marines. "Allowing Gays and Lesbians in the Military Will Adversely Affect Morale. Ed. there is no such thing as personal space in a two-man fighting hole or tent. any attraction to same sex teammates. would be known and would be a problem. and performed in as many leadership positions that I could. real or perceived. a junior unmarried or unaccompanied Marine can expect to live in a small single BEQ room with at least one other Marine. trained. Our Soldiers are over‐ tasked with deploying. with only mission essential items on our backs. The only way to keep from freezing at night was to get as close as possible for body heat–which means skin to skin. Under these circumstances. But few parents would be ready to let the military train or regulate modesty out of their sons and daughters. retention. redeploying. and unit cohesiveness. http://cmrlink. It is irrelevant whether the homosexual is actually attracted to the heterosexual. Privacy on ships or in the field is simply unachievable at any price.SDI 08 20 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT DADT Good Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military would devastate unit cohesion and morale. and deploying again. secure. even if it could be done. It meant keeping our soldiers ready for any situation for which our country called upon them. Gay rights activists will no doubt argue that the heterosexual's discomfort is his problem. regardless of room type.

Roleff. Ed. 1997. But the military demands far more from servicemembers than any civilian employer. Gale. will now find their living and working conditions radically altered. More important. Most important. once again. and unit cohesiveness. In short. If we authorize quarters allowance for homosexuals to live off-base. Allowing open homosexuals in the military would decrease the public’s opinion of the military. Servicemembers make these sacrifices and continue to serve for a variety of reasons. Mark E. we are required to entrust our lives to our appointed leaders. the costs could be measured in lost lives and failed missions. In a corporation. is certainly not the most important motivator. openly homosexual behavior will destroy morale and esprit de corps like no enemy ever could. Instead. Pay. Tamara L. who had no part or representation in the decisionmaking. But thousands of servicemembers. such a leadership blunder could cause lost productivity and high employee turnover. Open homosexuals in the military would increase resentment among service members. are a large part of the volunteer military's success. We have given up many of what most people consider God-given rights. Morale and esprit de corps. Gale. and long hours without overtime. They will be forced to choose between continued service under conditions they find intolerable. What will it do to morale and public opinion of the military to have servicemen kissing their boyfriends goodbye on CNN? What will happen to esprit de corps when males in dress blues start dancing cheek to cheek at the Marine Corps Birthday Ball? Before answering these questions. In the military. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Ed. draw protests from heterosexuals who are forced to live on base. Yet how can we prohibit public displays of affection among homosexuals while permitting them among heterosexuals? Gay rights activists apparently hope the military will lead society into acceptance of homosexuality. "Allowing Gays and Lesbians in the Military Will Adversely Affect Morale. others have had children set back in school or upset at the loss of friends due to midyear moves. It has become increasingly popular since the end of the draft to look upon military service as just another job. . homosexuals will present unsolvable problems that are certain to hurt morale. We are asked to endure long separations from family." Current Controversies: Gay Rights. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Tamara L. 1997. which we are told lags well behind pay for "comparable" civilian jobs. San Diego: Greenhaven Press." Current Controversies: Gay Rights. Cantrell. consider the fact that society is by no means unanimous in tolerating homosexual behavior. Openly homosexual behavior by uniformed servicemembers would be completely intolerable. the majority of servicemembers are conservative and traditional in their views. We take pride in our uniform and most of us are infuriated at the sight of a Marine with his hands in his pockets. "Allowing Gays and Lesbians in the Military Will Adversely Affect Morale. Many have missed the birth of a child. or resignation after faithfully investing years of their lives in a military career. Roleff. frequent moves to places we do not choose. Widespread resentment and anger are inevitable. Cantrell. retention. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. We think nothing of seeing uniformed servicemembers kissing their spouses goodbye in an airport. we will. Mark E. on the other hand.SDI 08 21 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT with their girlfriends or boyfriends.

Shalikashvili notes that: "The concern among many in the military was that . Roleff. Cantrell. We have a right as citizens. The American military is traditionally. can change the facts that anti-gay sentiment remains very strong within the military. Presumably. harm recruitment. while it would be inappropriate to coerce or lobby your subordinates. their friends. But the press and gay right proponents have portrayed this as a case of a few stodgy old generals and admirals standing in the way of social progress. Barber warns. Don't Tell policy) be defeated. Other liberals are weighing in as well. J. there is nothing wrong with encouraging them to participate in the democratic process by writing as well. don't tell" has outlived its usefulness and that it was only "a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve. what is the flimsy basis of retired Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili's opinion that gays are now well tolerated in the military ranks? How will the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (repealing the Don't Ask. and rightfully. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.S. whatever their views. "The Military Should Not Accept Open Homosexuals. In the piece. Moreover. don't tell" policy and permitting openly homosexual men and women to sign up. whether we agree with them or not. But it's the new Speaker of the House. letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale. According to the Washington Blade. the problems will not disappear until it becomes as socially acceptable for men to prefer men as it is for men to prefer brunettes or blondes. reluctant to become involved in politics.) The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. and homosexuality remains immoral. the Human Rights Campaign. are lobbying to allow gays in the military and boost troop enlistment at the same time they oppose troop surges and escalated deployment to Iraq. Gale "It's no secret that our current military leadership . It is customary to voice our concerns in private. Nothing the pro- homosexual lobby says. don't tell"—is a top priority. the papers seem to contain more interviews with discharged homosexuals than with ordinary servicemen. that's still the concern "among many in the military" today—most in fact—and those concerns are just as well founded now. harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion. Needless to say... Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. to reinforce the warnings of our senior military leaders. On January 2nd. Matt Barber is policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. Under the circumstances. (Move over National Guard and Green Berets—make way for the avant-garde and Lavender Berets. and to editors of hometown newspapers and favorite magazines.. 2008." Of those ten bills. . "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military" was penned by blast from the past. and a host of other powerful and extremely well-funded pro-homosexual activist groups are leading the charge. consider the following questions: What organizations does the author claim are behind the campaign to lift the ban on openly gay people serving in the U. follow orders. John Shalikashvili. In the following viewpoint. and undermine unit cohesion. Ed. But no amount of sensitivity training will allow openly homosexual people to serve harmoniously in the military." Shalikashvili not so gingerly implies that those of us in the majority—those of us who still believe that it's ill-advised to engage in radical social experimentation within the ranks of a military immersed in the War on Terror—are a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals stuck in the primordial sludge of the "homophobic" 1990s. a top "gay" publication. Matt Barber." Well sir. but in the culture war on the home front. as they were during the military's Paleolithic Clintonian era. Those in favor of lifting the ban obviously expect that the most visceral of objections can be magically swept away with a simple executive order. Few have taken the time to interview more than a handful of junior officers and enlisted servicemen. Viqi Wagner. and then do our best to execute our orders. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Clinton administration. and thereby prove to ourselves and society that homosexuals and heterosexuals can work side by side. while admonishing us that "the debate must be conducted with sensitivity." Current Controversies: Gay Rights. those same liberals are prepared to enthusiastically push for an "escalation" in troop enlistment by repealing the military's "don't ask. Repealing DADT now would lower morale. As you read. the innocuously titled "Military Readiness Enhancement Act"— which would repeal "don't ask. we cannot afford to be spectators in the debate. continues to overwhelmingly oppose allowing openly homosexual men and women to enlist. In fact. their family. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. he says. Barber portrays the movement to drop the ban on open homosexuals in the military as liberal hypocrisy: Politicians pushing a liberal social agenda. who's sounding the shrill bugle call.). Shalikashvili's column sorely missed its target. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Tamara L. Those who acknowledge that there will be considerable resistance in the ranks are inclined to blame it on homophobia.. such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. and a responsibility as officers and noncommissioned officers." J. we would find that fighting hole romances can gut combat effectiveness. Mark E. Pelosi has signed on to the homosexual lobby's top-ten "gay" wish-list as a "co-sponsor for all 10 gay- and AIDS-related bills that are languishing in Congress. the New York Times fired off a real opinion piece dud. D. in Barber's opinion? Liberals in Washington are very vocal in opposition to the president's planned deployment of additional troops to the Iraqi theatre. Additionally.SDI 08 22 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT Allowing open homosexuals in the military would decrease effectiveness. Specifically. we in the military will keep our mouths shut. a conservative Christian political-action organization based in Washington. anyone concerned with the outcome of this debate should make known their concerns to their elected representatives. Gale.C. Nancy Pelosi (D-California." So. "Allowing Gays and Lesbians in the Military Will Adversely Affect Morale. armed forces? According to Barber. Even in such an enlightened age. Shalikashvili opines that "don't ask. 1997. Ed." Opposing Viewpoints: Military Draft.

“The panel used for this survey is composed of over 1 million members and correlates closely with the U. which inflates the claim that. Palm Center.pdf A closer look at the Zogby poll reveals more interesting details that should have been recognized by news media people reporting on it. 26.pdf Advocates of homosexuals in the military frequently contend that the discharges of approximately 10.000 homosexuals since 1994 have done grievous harm to military readiness. population on all key profiles. President of the Center for Military Readiness. the voters of several states have approved twenty-six of twenty-seven such referenda. Military Personnel. all referenda banning same-sex marriage would have been soundly defeated. Duke University Journal of Gender Law & Policy.103 Third.178 for “serious offenses. the U.S. On the contrary. personal details and even general information about the location of individual personnel is highly restricted.101 Second. May.37% of discharges for all reasons (about 5% of unplanned separations) between the years 1994 and 2003.99 First.org/cmrnotes/HomosexualDischarges100107. discharges due to homosexuality amounted to only 0. compared to discharges for other reasons.org/fileuploads/DukeLawJournalSectGaysinMilitary. however.098 discharges for “drug offenses/use. Elaine Donnelly. http://cmrlink. October 2007. Due to security rules that were tightened in the aftermath of 9/11.”104 Fourth. if that were the case. often with comfortable majorities. 38.446 for pregnancy. 2007. 36. military does not sell or provide access to personnel lists.105 . 20. and 9. Director of the Michael D. formerly the Center for Sexual Minorities in the Military.100 This is an activist group promoting homosexuals in the military. actually are quite small.”102 However. the Zogby poll news release clearly states that it was designed in conjunction with Aaron Belkin.SDI 08 23 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT AT: DADT hurts military readiness Discharges for homosexuality are not significant enough to have an impact on readiness.501 for homosexuality. http://cmrlink. “Invalid National Security Arguments for Homosexuals in the Military”.527 for parenthood. During that ten year period there were 59. the apparent absence of random access undermines the credibility of the poll.S. an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. Center for Military Readiness. The truth is that annual numbers of discharges due to homosexuality. “Constructing the Co-ed Military”.513 for violations of weight standards. from a purchased list of U. activists frequently claim that the greater comfort of younger people with homosexuals is evidence enough to justify changing the law.S. According to figures provided to the General Accountability Office (GAO) by the Department of Defense. The Zogby poll they mention is biased and inaccurate. the poll claims to be of 545 people “who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations).

Repealing the 1993 law will not help us win this war on terrorism or any conflict that our military is called upon to fight and win in the future. Tallil. My point is that the culture of the Polish military force was very different from the high standards in ours. July 23. and I hope you do not mind my saying this. I personally had to take charge of a Logistical Transfer point inside Poland when I stopped there (as a SGM) and was horrified at what was going on at this Polish Infantry base. This did not stop further incidents. heckled and harassed constantly. training. he placed the females in the Polish infantry barracks. discipline. Similar to the Polish Army. I can’t imagine comparing our Military to that of a foreign nation to justify a change in policy. and sexual misconduct reported. In every case. Too much time is being spent on how we can hinder our great men and women in the Military. and readiness of our troops. the Itallian Army occupied a compound at Tallil. We should be very proud of the fact that they would rather be like us. and core values are quite different.org/fileuploads/HASC072308JonesTestimony. They were surrounded by Polish Infantry in the shower. As an American Soldier.SDI 08 24 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT AT: Other countries allow homosexuals Other countries’ militaries don’t compare to the United States military in readiness. they would give anything to be like ours. 1999. The discipline. • 2004. I had to control my outrage while giving this Captain a lecture on “common Sense”. SGM (Ret. give them more resolve. The Italians would lay in wait at the PX. Iraq. 1st deployment exercise into Poland. Italy. House Armed Services Committee. England. Iraq. “Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military”. 2008. Owner. drinking during deployment is the norm for them. inviting them to their “bunker” on the Itallian compound. and values top the list of reasons why. My concern is our military—the men and women who courageously volunteer to serve. http://cmrlink. Again. Between 1997 and 2001 I worked with Armies from Poland. Here are two specific examples: • Operation Deep Strike. Again. the culture. and motivate them to continue the absolutely great job that they are doing. Let’s keep it that way. There were so many incidents of rape.) Brian Jones. Lack of discipline. that the Itallian compound had to be placed “OFF LIMITS”.pdf I have served along side many foreign militaries. I hope that this Congress will not make their jobs more difficult and dangerous than they already are by repealing a solid law that continues to support the morale. discipline. harassment. and France. morale. Adventure Training Corps. The females were absolutely traumatized. I am not a diplomat. None of them compares to the US Military. and target females. the Italians always seemed to be one step ahead. . The Captain (US) in charge displayed incompetence and poor judgment when. let’s do what we can to lift their morale. Chief Executive Officer. and leadership of the Italian military is different from ours.