Obama's Army Sec Pick Weak on LGBT Equality

President Obama introducing his nominee to be Army Secretary, U.S. Rep. John McHugh (R-NY).

President Obama quickly has become known for his signs and symbolism.  Today’s announcement of his pick for Army Secretary, Rep. John McHugh (R NY-23), is by no means a hint in favor of Obama’s campaign promise to seek repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  McHugh, to be blunt, is no “fierce advocate” for equality.

In the 110th Congress, McHugh was not a co-sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would have repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  In fact, McHugh only received an unimpressive 15% on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard for the 110th.  He was, however, one of 35 Republicans to vote “yes” on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

He did worse, receiving a 0%, on the HRC Scorecard from the two previous congresses.  He had received a 17% in the HRC Congressional Scorecard for the 107th Congress, receiving credit for having an office policy of not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Incidentally, in the 108th Congress, HRC added gender identity to its office policy nondiscrimination ask; McHugh did not “Support[] HRC’s Position.” (HRC did not list the office policy as a “vote” on its 109th and 110th Congressional Scorecards.)

(All recent HRC Congressional Scorecards can be downloaded here.)

[UPDATE: McHugh, the Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, is due to be nominated at 11:55 a.m.  I will be covering the announcement.

From Obama's announcement (C-SPAN video here): McHugh is "a champion of our men and women in uniform," including those at Fort Drum, which is in his district.

From serving on the House Select Intelligence Committee, McHugh knows our soldiers need "the best, most accurate intelligence."

McHugh has served on the Board of Visitors of West Point and knows that "[t]he Army’s greatest strength is its people.”

Not a word about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.]

[FURTHER UPDATE: Thanks to @anamariecox, one of our fiercest advocates for equality in the White House briefing room, for the tweet (and Think Progress for the link)! I can't wait to see the question.

Ana Marie Cox did ask the question at today's briefing.  The response, from @markknoller: "Gibbs said Obama and Army Secy Nom. John McHugh agree that DADT policy doesnt work and changing it is a priority. in answer to @anamariecox"

Is that enough?  (Not for Ms. Cox, whose response is: "More than it is now?")

Not that's it really matters, but Kerry Eleveld from The Advocate reports (and the video confirms) that it was she who asked Gibbs about whether McHugh supported the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Both Kerry and Ana have asked Gibbs about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so it's good to know that both continue to press on the issue.  Here's the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLnXiZtjBtM]

Despite McHugh’s failure to co-sponsor the MREA in the previous Congress, this news is somewhat reassuring to me, as it signals that McHugh would like to see military leaders at least engage on the issue.  I repost McHugh’s full opening statement from the hearing quoted by Eleveld after the jump.]

* * * * *

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HOLDS A HEARING ON THE MILITARY’S DON’T ASK/DON’T TELL POLICY

JULY 23, 2008

[clip]

MCHUGH: Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me echo your words of both appreciation and encouragement to everyone involved in this hearing today. Certainly, we as a subcommittee on both sides thank the witnesses for agreeing to be with us.

And we expect and look forward to perhaps lively, but nevertheless informative and — and civil discussion of, as what the chairlady described, was a very important issue.

In 1993, when this subcommittee — and I might add I was here, a member of the full committee at that time — and the full committee proposals to change the policy regarding military service by gay and lesbian personnel, that process that was undertaken was, I think, fairly described as comprehensive, and it was intense.

There were no less than five hearings involving 37 witnesses, ranging from the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to current as well as former military sociologists and legal experts, who provided a wide range of views and perspectives.

And not surprisingly, the issues that were expressed at that time were complex, and again, unsurprisingly, the debate was at times very passionate. Interestingly, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee at that time supported the change, while the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee did not, which, I think, rather illustrates the divisions that this question can — can give light to.

And in the end, the committee and the House and the Senate concluded, and I want to quote, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards and morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability,” end quote.

That is the issue that should be at question here today. The gentlelady spoke, I think, very accurately to the passions that both sides bring to this question.

I think we as a Congress owe it to both sides, and to the American people, to conduct our inquiries and whatever decision may come out of this process based on that issue defined in the ‘93 findings of the HASC and the Senate as order — good order and discipline and unit cohesion.

That statement, even today, underpins the current law, and our challenge is to examine and determine whether that conclusion in 1993 remains valid here in 2008.

Let me note I certainly recognize the chairwoman’s longstanding desire, as she stated it, to repeal the current law. And I would hope that she would commit to ensuring that no change would take place without a comprehensive and open debate on the full range of issues.

I want to state I share the chairlady’s disappointment that thus far the services as a whole have not agreed to step forward.

I don’t see, as an individual member, how I fully and fairly consider this question, and more importantly, the issue of changing this question, without the input of those in the active military who have the heavy responsibility of commanding our forces in time of war.

I would hope and encourage both the Department of Defense and the various services to reconsider the reluctance that they have displayed to this point.

While some arguing that much has changed since ‘93 and the current law is no longer relevant or needed, one thing has not changed in those 15 years. As it was in 1993, the question of whether the law is to be changed shall ultimately rest on matters of military readiness, morale, good order and discipline.

So, Madam Chair, I join you, as I said earlier, in welcoming our witnesses today, and I truly look forward to their testimony. And I yield back.

Popularity: 2% [?]