For those who think ignorance is bliss "don't ask, don't tell" looks like a convincing concept.

Dubya simply would have used his powers as Commander-in-Chief and put a freeze on the enforcement of a law for the military that he didn't like, and claim he was doing it under the powers granted by the Iraq war authorization.

I'm sure that buried somewhere in the Patriot Act is a provision that would make a freeze of DADT legal. Instead of searching for excuses for not doing anything, I wish Obama would spend at least as much energy looking for ways to justify doing what almost every sensible person knows is the right thing to do.

As Paul Krugman said yesterday, nobody cares about process.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/nobody-cares-about-process/
Americans only care strong, resolute leaders and their results.

I'd like to be optimistic, especially since information leaked about the report suggests it is very favorable towards the repeal, but one seems doomed to disappointment when the outcome requires the GOP senators to use "common sense".

thanks to voters in Illinois, Mark Kirk (R) will join the Senate when it reconvenes on Nov. 15, and he's against DADT repeal.

Aren't GOP closet cases always?

And in all likelihood, it'll be up to Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine to decide whether the repeal effort lives or dies.

Terrific.

But what about outgoing Republican Senators who were primaried by tea party lunatics? What incentive do they have to vote lockstep on this issue? Breaking ranks shouldn't affect juicy business lobbying contracts...

"If we can get some agreement from the Republicans that we can move the bill without a lot of extraneous amendments, I think it's something we could work out.

Good luck with that.

Shortstop, don't thank the voters of IL (of which I am one), for we are as stupid as the rest of the country. Blame the Chamber of Commerce for their $1.2 million investment in this schmuck. Blame the SwiftBoat type ads by the other GOP outlets, to the tune of almost a million bucks. You couldn't watch local television for more than 10 minutes without seeing attack ads against Alexi (and I only spent a few weeks there at the end of the election cycle, and I mostly watch cable. I couldn't imagine watching local stations and being inundated with relentless attacks on the guy.)

Yes, on a whole, we are an uninformed populace, and for that you can blame our entire country, including my home state. But it's impossible to counter the lies, no matter how much you try.

cue: fundies vs baggers (except where void and prohibited)

(cable vs local broadcast: cable ads are 'customized' for locale.)

An increasing din surrounding the efforts to silence critics of the failure of execution from right wing zealots to pacify American's into obeisant cyphers , has been duly noted with the extreme low pressure emanating from such worthies as they see themselves . Self identified walking contradictions from "Family Values Hypocrites" to "Fiscal Conservative Hypocrites" have kindly lent the fog of war to circumlocutions which could only have been created to mask the triumphalism of the billionaire tribes obvious anti Americanism . Such were the neglect of policy matters that these worthies never felt the need to make sense of any material or verifiable kind .
Remember if it makes sense , and not performing in kind irritates a revolving set of dehumanised targets which are personalised as demons defined as the enemy , it is not spite .

yeah, i wonder how many chamber of commerce members would like to be able to vote on how their fees are (mis|ab)used by the coc elites?

", it is not spite ."
so, it's just "war will be war" against "enemy combatants"?

Blame the Chamber of Commerce for their $1.2 million investment in this schmuck. Blame the SwiftBoat type ads by the other GOP outlets, to the tune of almost a million bucks.

And for that, blame a partisan Supreme Court for opening the doors to unlimited spending by their party's corporate sponsors.

Gregory, the sooner we accept living under the whip of our soulless corporate overlords, the better.

Don't forget that the DREAM Act has the same fate as DADT, since it is also an amendment to the Defense Bill.

I picked up the local Spanish language newspaper last week, and half of it was coverage of the DREAM Act - for the Hispanic community, this is a BFD. This should put some extra pressure on Reid, since the Hispanic vote was crucial in getting him re-elected.

So, while I see passage as a longshot in the Senate, I wouldn't bet against it happening.

The two other big items for the lame duck session will be dealing with the end of the Bush tax cuts, and extending unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. It should be an eventful few weeks.

Shortstop, don't thank the voters of IL

Um, I didn't. The italics mean I'm quoting someone else, in this case Steve Benen.

It gives me zero pleasure to have been right about Kirk's electability in Illinois. I'd fervently hoped that you and doubtful would be right and I would be wrong. But Illinois still does elect Republican senators (Pete Fitzgerald wasn't that long ago), Giannoulias was always a horrible candidate -- a bankster running this year? Really? On top of the bad taste toward Dems Blago left in Illinois and the general nationwide discontent? -- and Kirk was, as he always is, successful at convincing many voters of his fake "moderate" status.

As you say, the mountains of post-Citizens United cash played a major part. But Giannoulias gave them plenty of tasty material to run with.

I'm not happy about losing this Senate seat for six years, but I really worry that Kirk is the kind of faux reasonable asshole we'll never be able to get out of that seat.

The START treaty, DADT and the DREAM act should all be non-controversial, but the republicans are nihilists, and concerned more with political capital than helping the country.

The START treaty, which have never in any way been controversial, should be getting a lot of play in the media. That actually affects our foreign policy, and ability to push non-proliferation. But the media and their false balance just facilitates the right's craziness.

I should add that Giannoulias could have squeezed through with a massive Chicago turnout. He didn't get it, for reasons that go beyond advertising and reflect really crappy morale that was only partly influenced by the barrage of negative ads. This is only anecdotal (although the turnout stats will back me up), but I did GOTV work in some of the city's most diehard Democratic neighborhoods and the mood was distinctly unenthusiastic.

When the oar is dipped into the chaotic sea
Bent to tasks bereft of light
In darkness fruits of labour dwindle
With kindness marked as poison
Finding friends both hard and loud
That never lent more than a borrowed thought
The wind caresses a timeless polish
Fed by the rich sound of triumph
Offering the sacred perpetual arrogance
Of those in whose ears sound conformed
To the vacuum found in purity
No hand could hold the purity
Certainty offered embracing Chaos

I have a very simple question to Steven and the other PA readers:
Why the Republican seem always to enjoy and relish a good political fight while the Democrats instinctively dread them?

Yoni, I think the answer lies in the reasons people run for office in the first place.

By definition, progressives run for office in hopes of being able to accomplish something once they are there. For conservatives it's the opposite. So, Republicans run for office primarily to keep Democrats out of them. Therefore, it's the fight they're after. And the authority. Not the responsibility.

Also, authoritarians have no hangups about distortions and lying. And they can count on authoritarian followers to believe them, pretty much no matter what. In the election cycle this gives them a lot of positive reinforcement and makes the process "fun" for them. Look at how easily Sarah Palin can get a crowd to cheer by mentioning "death panels." And the obvious delight this cheering brings her.

Keep in mind, I'm not a political scientist. Just a not so casual observer.

That this discriminatory policy is still in effect is proof that neither party has the interest of equal rights in mind, much less their constituencies. Oh sure, you can talk all day long about our great freedoms in America but you can't really say much with any full modicum of truth. America makes no secret that it hates this, that and the other thing and that civil liberties and equality are exclusive to straight white people.

Yoni asked:
Why the Republican seem always to enjoy and relish a good political fight while the Democrats instinctively dread them?

Because the Republicans are thugs who enjoy hurting people outside of their group who won't fight back.

And on the rare occasions when a Democrats does fight back, they act like my 4 year old neighbor. When she falls down she takes a quick look around and if she doesn't see anyone she dusts herself off and continues with what she was doing. If she sees someone looking, she bursts into tears as if her leg is broken. If people are there but aren't looking she cries louder to get someone's attention and sympathy.

chrenson, your explanation makes sense. But at which point you start to fight back if it is crystal clear that you can't achieve anything because you keep losing the fights? What a conviction worth if there is no courage and fighting spirit to support it?

In response to Vokoban

The authority of the Commander-in-Chief to suspend 10 U.S. C. sec. 654 (DADT) and its its implementing regulations is set forth at 10 U.S.C. sec. 12305(a) (Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation), which grants the president "stop-loss" authority, "not withstanding any other provisio of law," to suspend "any provision of law relating to the separation of any member of the armed forces whom the president determines is essential to the national security of the United States, during any period of national emergency." Sec. 12305 goes on to define, explicitly, the meaning of "period of national emergency." Currently, we are in such a period, which means that Obama does have unilateral authority to suspend enforcement of DADT. BTW, exercising this authority would not, as some commenters have claimed, amount to repeal of the statute by executive order. It would simply be a suspension of the statute pursuant to an express grant of authority from Congress.

There are only 56 LGBT-supportive votes (after Special Election Senators are sworn in) during the lame duck session - that 6 short of 60. DADT is dead.

The new Senate will only 53 LGBT-supportive votes.

It's 1994 all over again.