http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/rachel-maddows-omission-d_b_248124.html

“one of the reasons you see people so concerned about this, I think this issue is, people are uncomfortable with having for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas …”

Asked directly by King if she actually thought Obama was born in Kenya, Cheney responded, “No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that people are fundamentally uncomfortable and fundamentally I think increasingly uncomfortable with an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America, stand up for what we believe in.”

If Ms. Cheney, who reportedly has political aspirations for herself and is treated as a perfectly sane and reasonable Republican, feels that the birthers can be defended as drawing a logical conclusion from Obama’s “seem[ing] so reluctant to defend the nation overseas,” that means the standard cliche of Democrats’ being weak on the defense and hostile to the military has followed Obama into office. He therefore cannot afford a measure that can be painted by folks like Ms. Cheney (though she for family reasons might hesitate to go after Obama on DADT specifically) as showing that he is taking a backdoor measure that some claim weakens the military. If getting rid of DADT doesn’t happen straightforwardly on CSPAN with cameras rolling, then it’s going to be an albatross on Obama’s neck.

Editors’ Note: Sean Bugg is a Bilerico-DC blogger and is a founding writer and editor of Metro Weekly, Washington’s gay and lesbian newsmagazine. For a discriminatory anti-gay policy that every Democratic leader has publicly denounced and called for …

Again I am reminded of the bill requiring videotaping of police interrogations that Obama got passed in the Illinois state legislature. He could have passed it earlier in the process, there were enough Democrats to get it through, but he waited and worked — and my knowledge of Illinois ‘downstate’ Republicans is that they are a very crazily conservative group — and eventually the bill was passed unanimously. And with a vote like that, there is never going to be a likelihood of the policy being abandoned.

Now given some of the extreme loonies in Congress, he’s not going to get a unanimous vote on ending DADT, but if he works it right, he may get such a strong vote that the only opponents will be seen for what they are.

Now there have been two very important events this summer, to me. One is the Sotomayor hearings. A lot of people watched them or followed them, and the visible difference between who she is, and who Republicans claimed she was — and the stories that have come out about Jeff Sessions’ history of racism — hurt the Republicans. Not only will she be confirmed relatively easily, but (in the same way as Roberts’ ‘charm offensive’ — which fooled many of us including, sadly, myself — paved the way for the confirmation of Alito) Republican objections to whoever gets nominated next will be much less effective.

The second was the Mike Castle town meeting which has been all over the net. Castle, Delaware’s sole Representative, is one of the few ‘moderate Republicans’ left, too conservative for me, but a sane conservative. He tried to hold a meeting with constituents, and it was taken over by the ‘birthers’ and other kooks, and the resulting video is either sad, hilarious or frightening. There are going to be a lot of similar events during the upcoming recess, only with Representatives less willing to challenge the birthers,, some who agree with them.

What has this got to do with DADT? First the Castle meeting demonstrated just how far gone the birthers are. (When not only the National Review but Ann Coulter calls you looney…) A lot of semi-sane Republicans are going to move somewhat to the center to avoid being tarred with the same brush. They might even see an anti-DADT vote as a way of doing this — if they are given cover.

That’s where the Sotomayor hearings come in. Killing DADT by Hastings’ back-alley method would make it something the Republicans could use. But introducing a stand-alone bill and holding hearings, televised hearings, on it would put human faces on the servicemen kicked out by DADT, would provide a parade of those people who have changed their minds about it (led by Colin Powell) and now support the right of gays to serve, and would show the craziness and bigotry of the opponents and link them in people’s minds to the Castle crazies.

Not only would the repal pass, but with a majority that would make re-instituting the policy almost impossible.

Is this the plan? I’m just guessing, but it makes sense to me.

Who in the White House and which of his colleagues believe continued funding is needed so that the military can continue to enforce Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”

No, the question is: who thinks this has a chance of passing at present? Poll numbers don’t tell the story. It all depends how the support is distributed. Where are the Blue Dogs on this? And where are Dems who are borderline Blue Dogs? What’s the vote count in the House and Senate? I for one doubt this has any chance at present, especially in the Senate. Bringing this to a vote that we lose is not smart legislative strategy.

Otherwise, I don’t get it. And I understand Obama has a lot on his plate right now, but none of that is going away and DODT should be the easiest sell he could make: the American people are behind it’s repeal (at least as a total population, I’m sure the percentages in Alabama, and thus Alabama representatives are not overwhelmingly for it) – but this should be the easy one. If he can’t do this I don’t know what to expect from him.

“You don’t have to live next to me, just give me my equality”