Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner: Starting dominoes or playing chicken? (Photo c/o The Plain Dealer.)

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner just sent out her thank-you message to her email list from her unsuccessful U.S. Senate primary against Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, now Ohio Democrats’ nominee to face Rob Portman in the fall.

She’s not happy. And, progressive as ever.

With no mention of Lee.

In her words:

Dear [name],

Thank you for your amazing support of my race for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Ohio.

Our campaign broadened the progressive base in Ohio. We fought to make people matter more than money. We were outflanked in money, endorsements and establishment pushback.

With the support of a broad and diverse group of activists and supporters like you who helped us get our message to other Ohioans, we pulled off a campaign that has amazed many.

We were outspent 4 to 1 overall and on broadcast media 100% to 0. We can take what we learned and help new candidates of all races, nationalities, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and age become part of our government, so that our government looks and thinks more like us. Please keep up the fight. You can be certain I will.

Thank you again for all you have done.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Jennifer Brunner

Sens. Lieberman, Levin and McCain look at the witnesses - Jenny Kopfstein, Michael Almy and Gen. John Sheehan (Ret.) -- at the 9:45 a.m. start of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. Almy and Kopfstein were discharged from the Armed Forces because of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

My piece about the hearing, “Sheehan’s Stand,” covers the former general’s somewhat extraordinary comments:

Since Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) first began hearings last month on the military’s ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy,” he’s had many witnesses voice disagreement with him. Never, though, has the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee been as plainly frustrated as he was on Thursday morning, March 18, during the testimony of retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan.

At one point during the hearing, Levin looked directly at Sheehan and ended a line of questioning by telling the former Supreme Allied Commander of the Atlantic, ”I think the burden to maintain a discriminatory policy is on the people who maintain the policy – not on the people who want to end it.”

Lt. Dan Choi chained himself to the fence on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House at a little past 1 p.m. Thursday. James Pietrangelo, who previously challenged the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in court, also was chained to the fence, to Choi's left. Both men were later arrested and are being held overnight Thursday. Robin McGehee also was arrested, but later released, in front of the White House.

My article on the Human Rights Campaign’s rally and Choi’s protest and arrest, “Hearing, Rally and Arrests,” covers the breadth of the walk along Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Capitol to Freedom Plaza to the White House. Yusef Najafi covered the men’s arraignment on Friday.

Janine Carmona is escorted from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office by Capitol Police a little past 7 p.m. Thursday evening. She was among five people arrested as the result of a protest organized by Get Equal; they were there calling for the Speaker to commit to a floor vote this month on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

Finally, my first look at Get Equal and the Pelosi office protest, “Not the ENDA the Road“:

Eight activists went into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office in the Cannon House Office Building at 4 p.m. Thursday for what was described as a scheduled meeting in her office. As Samantha Ames later told the Capitol Police, however, ”We’re not leaving until we get confirmation from Nancy Pelosi that she’s going to have this bill up for a vote before the end of the month.”

”So, absent that, we’re not leaving,” Ames said. ”We’re not making any trouble, we’re not causing any damage or anything, but we’re also not going to leave.”

After an official with Pelosi’s office informed the activists that the office would be closing at 7 p.m., four of the eight remained in the office. Capitol Police informed the activists that they would be arrested if they did not leave. About 7:30 p.m. a group of nearly 10 officers entered the office and restrained Ames, Janine Carmona, Chastity Kirven and Michelle Wright. The officers led them out of the office building and into a police van.

The Senate Armed Services Committee prepares to hear testimony from the military and civilian Army chiefs on Tuesday.

At Metro Weekly, I report on today’s Senate testimony regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in “The Army Speaks”:

In a blow to those seeking a moratorium on enforcement of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy, both Secretary of the Army John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey, Jr., testified on Tuesday that they oppose such a moratorium during the nearly year-long planned repeal implementation review.

Neither McHugh nor Casey even offered the full-throated support to a repeal of the policy that was given to senators earlier this month by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The testimony came as part of Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on the Army’s budget request and, specifically, in response to a question by Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and follow-up questioning by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who announced on Monday that he would be taking the lead on the Senate bill to repeal the policy.

A week that already was shaping up to be a busy one for the efforts to repeal the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy took an unexpected veer on Monday morning when the New York Daily News reported that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) will be ”taking the lead on repeal” of the policy. . . . At the same time, The New York Times reported on an advance copy it had received of a new report from the Palm Center, previously mentioned at Metro Weekly, investigating ”Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer.”

In a copy obtained by Metro Weekly, the study’s lead author, Nathaniel Frank, lays out the purpose of the report.

”This study brings together the results of all the major research on gays in foreign militaries and updates that research to the present,” Frank writes, ”focusing on the experiences of Britain, Canada, and other English-speaking nations with relatively similar cultures to that of the U.S.”

In the two significant parts of the statement, Obama said:

[O]n Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments.  This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken. Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate.

While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess.  If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future.

The impact of this move has been interesting.  Many liberals and progressives were excited that nearly half of the nominees Obama called “stalled” were confirmed en masse, while others — most notably labor folks looking for a recess appointment of NLRB nominee Craig Becker — were immediately disappointed that Obama would not be issuing recess appointments before Congress returns from the Presidents’ Day recess.

One of the strongest arguments against the happenings came from Ezra Klein, who views this as a situation in which “the White House promptly shot itself in the foot.”

He wrote:

In describing recess appointments as “a rare but not unprecedented step,” Obama made it harder to actually make any, because he’s defined the procedure — which, unlike the hold, is a defined constitutional power of the president rather than a courtesy observed in the Senate — as an extraordinary last-resort. . . .

. . . As I’ve argued many times before, the relevant differences between the parties aren’t substantive, and so they cannot be solved with substantive concessions. Instead, they’re political, and that means a deal in which Obama gets something he wants but does something to damage his administration’s future effectiveness (and thus its poll numbers) is the sort of deal Republicans are likely to take.

As to the first part of Ezra’s argument, I am in complete agreement. The rhetoric of Obama’s statement balances strong language with language that is far too diplomatic. He says that some holds were intended solely to “frustrate progress,” and that those are “tactics that enrage the American people.” This is strong language. But then, as Ezra writes, he — in an attempt to be diplomatic — incorrectly defines up the recess appointment as a “rare” action that’s not “unprecedented.”  This is damaging and was unneeded — particularly since Obama is choosing to forgo recess appointments at this time.

President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010. (Photo from White House Web site.)

But, Ezra’s secondary point is a bit off, in my view. I don’t view this as a “deal.” I view this more as a necessary good-faith restraint by Obama after getting significant — though, as even Obama notes, not sufficient — movement on the nominees whose votes he was seeking. Had Obama made his threat to McConnell, received the 27 nominees into his Administration and followed up today or Monday with recess appointments, this dynamics of the situation would change considerably. Contrary to Ezra, I think it is the recess appointments following this Senate action that would allow for Obama to be more easily framed as “a bare-knuckle partisan.”

At this point, the Senate Republicans have made clear that they are concerned about the Administration — as Ezra puts it — “finding ways to avoid being filibustered.” Obama has made it clear that he views recess appointments as one such option. The set-up is made, and the Administration only needs to point to Senate inaction through the next recess to make its justification to the public for its eventual recess appointments. Or, in the alternative, the Senate Republicans will not hold up Obama’s nominees and the Senate will be able to vote on them.

As much as Ezra wants to pretend that Obama’s Administration is the same as the Bush or Clinton Administrations, the fact remains that it is not. Whether that be a function of Obama’s method of leadership, congressional leadership, the makeup of the Democratic caucus or Republican abuse of the cloture rule, this is the reality in 2010. Moreover, so long as Obama is losing a handful of Democrats — due to illness or actual opposition — on votes like Becker’s (where seven Democrats did not vote for cloture), I think he understandably wants to make sure that he has set up his use of recess appointments as unassailable (though, of course, assailed they will be).

Finally, I’d like to point out another set-up that I see in this discussion of recess appointments. A discussion of the presidential prerogative to make recess appointments involves a rather detailed discussion about the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches. The recess appointment is a balance on the Senate’s “advice and consent” check on presidential appointments. It, most obviously, has been used by presidents as a way to get past the need to overcome a potential filibuster (or, more rarely, a negative vote on the nominee).

I see this as a great set-up, should it become necessary, for a discussion of the problem with the filibuster in the legislative realm. Unlike in the nominations realm, there is no balance to offset the filibuster. The House can’t do anything to stop it, nor can the president or the Supreme Court. It is a standalone power that has no offsetting balance. More importantly, it is based only in Senate tradition and not in the constitutional text. If an argument is ever to be made successfully against the filibuster, it seems to me that this framing is the way to do it.

So, as we await movement on Becker, Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen and many other eminently qualified nominees, and as health-care and climate-change legislation face filibuster-related hurdles, I don’t see Obama’s actions on Thursday as either a “deal” with Senate Republicans or as a necessarily bad move in the course of the Administration.

Me, Maddow and Maddow's assistant at the hearing. (Photo from Manuel Balce Ceneta via AP.)

This week’s Metro Weekly will be featuring a cover package about the future of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  “The Final Push” is my main story in the package, looking at Tuesday’s Senate hearing (attended by, among others, Rachel Maddow):

The decision of whether gays and lesbians should serve openly in the military strikes at the core of the integrity of the military itself. The top military advisor to President Barack Obama told senators on Tuesday, Feb. 2, that the integrity of the institution is harmed when soldiers are forced ”to lie about who they are” — a dramatic change from the comments of military leaders when the matter was last considered by Congress in 1993.

It was a striking moment as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, evenly and forcefully explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee what steps the Pentagon would take to bring an end to the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that came from the 1993 hearings.

Still, despite the statement from Mullen — supported by a similar statement from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates — many advocates pushing for repeal of the policy left Tuesday’s hearing with more questions than answers.

Read more, and be sure to check out the excellent cover illustration done by Scott Brooks over at Metro Weekly.

Also, the sidebar on the views of the local senators, “Webb Noncommittal on DADT Repeal,” is up as well.

And, for some background on the two men selected to lead the Pentagon working group looking into how to implement a repeal — Jeh Johnson, the general counsel for the Department of Defense, and Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. Army Europe — see my “Just the Facts” sidebar.

[UDPATE: Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell said today that he "fully supports" the process advanced by Adm. Mullen and Secretary Gates on Tuesday.  A lot more is happening here than chipping away at the wall.  This is bulldozing.]

Brown

On the eve of the election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, I (belatedly) wanted to let folks here know about my article from Saturday at Metro Weekly, “Massachusetts Robocalls“:

The National Organization for Marriage appears to be making automated telephone calls today in support of U.S. Senate candidate and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R) and attacking his opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), for her strong pro-marriage equality position. Coakley is running an unexpectedly close race for the seat held by the late Senator Edward Kennedy (D), the election for which will be held Tuesday.

Longtime LGBT activist Mary Breslauer, a volunteer member of Coakley for Senate cabinet, this afternoon relayed a report received by the campaign:

“Our household just got an automated call from the ‘National Organization for Marriage,’ with a 202 area code. The auto call features a male voice, which is clearly a recording, asking if you support marriage as being only between a man and a woman. If you say ‘yes,’ then the voice urges you to vote for Scott Brown as the only candidate with a proven record of supporting marriage as between a man and a woman. The call says that his opponent is a ‘radical’ supporter of same-sex marriage who has opposed letting the people decide and has used taxpayer dollars to support the agenda of same-sex marriage. The call ends by asking if ‘we can count on you to vote for Scott Brown.’ The quality of the recording is mediocre at best.”

[UPDATE: NOM also apparently sent out a mass-e-mail on Monday urging support for Brown, per the DC Agenda.]

Coakley

As President Obama and former President Clinton lent their support to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley’s race for U.S. Senate, so did a lesser, liberal voice from the other side of the country: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

In a message sent today to his entire e-mail list, Newsom forwarded a letter from the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s widow, Vicki Kennedy, strongly calling for support for Coakley. In his message, Newsom said:

This Tuesday, there is a special election to fill Senator Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. Following Senator Kennedy is no easy task, but I know that Martha Coakley will do everything she can to protect his legacy, starting with passage of the health care bill.

As Republicans across the nation pour money into this election, there is a good chance that Martha’s opponent can win in an upset. Without Martha Coakley in the Senate, health care for millions of Americans is in peril.

The full e-mail, with Vicki Kennedy’s attached e-mail, can be found below the jump.

[UPDATE: Ohio Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, running for U.S. Senate, did the same thing at 6:39 p.m. on a Friday evening, writing, in part:

As you may already know, Massachusetts is holding a special election next Tuesday to fill Senator Kennedy's Senate seat. Democrat Martha Coakley is committed to helping jump-start job creation and tackle the major problems facing our country, while her Republican opponent has pledged to do everything he can to block progress in Washington — starting with the health care reform bill.

Unfortunately, this message of obstruction has galvanized Republicans across the country, giving him an outside shot to win the race in an upset.

So, there you go.]

* * * * *

Newsom E-mail

Friends:

I wanted to pass on this message I received from Senator Ted Kennedy’s widow Vicki.

This Tuesday, there is a special election to fill Senator Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. Following Senator Kennedy is no easy task, but I know that Martha Coakley will do everything she can to protect his legacy, starting with passage of the health care bill.

As Republicans across the nation pour money into this election, there is a good chance that Martha’s opponent can win in an upset. Without Martha Coakley in the Senate, health care for millions of Americans is in peril.

Now is the time to help Martha Coakley!

Please Click Here To Make A Contribution To Help In These Final Critical Days.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom

——————————————————————————————————————————————

From: Vicki Kennedy <office@marthacoakley.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Subject: A Message from Victoria Reggie Kennedy
To: gavin@gavinnewsom.com

Dear Gavin,

Throughout my husband Ted’s life, you were always there for him, for me and for the entire Kennedy family.  We are tremendously grateful for your friendship and support in the past, and we ask you to stand with us now to support Martha Coakley in the crucial race to fill Ted’s remaining term.

This Tuesday, January 19 everything is on the line.  The people of Massachusetts will decide who will be their next Senator, and we need  Martha Coakley.

The importance of having a voice and a vote that you can count on in Washington has never been more evident than during this ongoing health care debate. And we’re going to need every vote again.

Ted fought for national health care reform for 40 years.  He believed that every American deserved their chance at the American dream, but that as long as an illness or preexisting condition could bankrupt an American family, that great goal could never become a reality. We need Martha Coakley to continue our shared fight for national health reform, to reduce costs for businesses and families and increase coverage in Massachusetts and throughout this country.  This race will be very close and we need you to get us to victory.

We have just 5 days to do the hard work of electing Martha Coakley so that we can continue the agenda that Ted made the fight of his life  –  reforming health care, ensuring equality and justice for all, protecting our seniors, and rebuilding our economy to allow everyone to prosper.  That fight for working families cannot stop – not now, not when so much is at stake for Massachusetts and America.  And that’s why I’m asking you to ensure that we are victorious this Tuesday.

Stand with me and support Martha Coakley by making a contribution of $35, $50, or whatever you can do today.  My husband fought all his life to keep moving this nation forward — now we must make it the fight of ours.

We need to do everything it takes to ensure our shared fight continues.  I am asking you personally to do one more thing for Martha Coakley.

We cannot do this without you.

With gratitude,
Vicki Kennedy
P.S.  I know together we can keep fighting for our shared vision of the future.  Please go online today to www.marthacoakley.com to make a difference.

McCain, caring about the "comity of the Senate."

U.S. Senator John McCain, worried about the “comity of the Senate” so much that he reprimanded Sen. Al Franken this afternoon in his defense of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, just sent out a “survey” that shows exactly how much McCain really cares.  He tells folks:

I sincerely value your opinion and want to hear from you. I know we are entering a busy time for many – as you prepare to spend the holidays with your family- and that’s why we’ve shortened the survey to only nine questions. Please take the survey and submit your responses today.

The distinguished Senator then asks several questions, including two particularly egregious examples, showing what he really thinks about high-minded, honest debate that would help most with the “comity of the Senate”:

• As it stands, the Democrats’ health care bill includes nearly half-a-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare for our seniors. Do you think that senior citizens, who have worked hard and paid into Medicare, should have their benefits dramatically cut and choices curtailed by Senate Democrats?
• In the same speech in which he announced additional troops for Afghanistan, President Obama announced the United States military would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011. Do you support the President’s decision to set an arbitrary date for withdrawal?

Yeah.

The full survey, including the BCS Game “Bonus Question,” is below the jump.

* * * * *

McCain Campaign Survey

1. The U.S. Senate recently defeated an amendment introduced by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) that would prohibit federal tax dollars from paying for abortions under the current Senate Democrats’ health care bill. Do you agree with the bipartisan group of 45 Senators, including Senator McCain, who do not support the use of federal tax dollars for abortions?

2. As it stands, the Democrats’ health care bill includes nearly half-a-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare for our seniors. Do you think that senior citizens, who have worked hard and paid into Medicare, should have their benefits dramatically cut and choices curtailed by Senate Democrats?

3. While campaigning for president, Barack Obama pledged to hold open meetings with C-SPAN cameras in the room and representatives from all concerned parties to discuss how to reform our health care system. To date, only Democrats have been invited to participate in the closed-door meetings with President Obama and Democratic Leader Reid. Do you think Barack Obama has broken his pledge to promote a non-partisan health care reform bill?

4. John McCain joined a bipartisan group of Senators to sponsor an amendment to the Democrats’ health care bill aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs. If passed, this amendment would save the federal government and consumers $100 million over the next ten years. Do you agree with Senator McCain that with millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet, the need to buy cheaper, safe, imported prescription drugs exists now more than ever?

5. Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain released an oversight report on the economic stimulus examining how $7 billion of stimulus funds have been wasted, mismanaged and or directed toward needless “pork” projects. Examples of projects your tax dollars are funding under the stimulus bill are $350 million for a broadband map that may never be used, $50,000 for anti-capitalist puppet shows and $1.57 million for fossil research in Argentina. Do you think the Obama Administration is spending stimulus funds wisely?

6. Nine months after signing a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, unemployment has risen to 10% and the jobs the Obama Administration promised the stimulus would create have yet to materialize. However, some in Washington are calling for an additional stimulus package. Based on what you know of the previous stimulus bill, would you be inclined to support another?

7. On December 2nd, President Obama announced a new counterinsurgency strategy for the war in Afghanistan. As part of this strategy, 30,000 additional troops will deploy to the region. Do you support the decision to commit these additional resources to Afghanistan?

8. In the same speech in which he announced additional troops for Afghanistan, President Obama announced the United States military would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011. Do you support the President’s decision to set an arbitrary date for withdrawal?

9. Senators Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman and Jim Webb have introduced an amendment to prohibit Department of Justice funds from prosecuting terror suspects accused of masterminding the 9/11 terror attacks in civil court with the same rights as U.S. citizens. Do you agree that the attacks on 9/11/01 were acts of war and we should try war criminals in special military courts?

Bonus Questions

1. Who do you think will win the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl?

2. Who do you think will win the 2010 BCS National Championship game?

On Wednesday morning, Dec. 16, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee favorably reported the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act out of committee on an 8-1 vote. The mark-up, which took less than a half hour, stood in stark contrast to the several hours of debate that the bill faced before being reported out of the relevant House committee in November.

The bill, spearheaded by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) in the House, would make the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees eligible for health care and other benefits. It also would make those partners subject to nepotism rules and other similar government regulations.