Bhr Politics Updates Pre-tournament

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

1

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 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

2

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-optimism2008-07-23.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.”

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

REPUBLICANS CAN KEEP THEIR LOSSES LOW NOW Mon. Jul 28, 2008

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080728_7557.php With fewer than 100 days left before the fall elections, a look at the dozen most-competitive Senate races around the country shows a decided advantage for Democrats. In addition to extending the Democratic majority, the Senate battles could also have a profound effect on the presidential race, given that four of the top pickup opportunities for Democrats are in swing states where Republican presidential candidates have traditionally done well -- Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and New Hampshire. President Bush won three of the four in 2004, losing only New Hampshire by a single percentage point to Democratic Sen. John Kerry from neighboring Massachusetts. This time around, strategists from both parties say privately that they expect the Virginia seat being left open by the retirement of GOP Sen. John Warner and the New Mexico seat that Republican Sen. Pete Domenici is leaving will end up in Democratic hands. Colorado and New Hampshire remain in play. Democratic candidates there have held leads in pre-election polls, but the numbers have recently tightened.

The Senate election map is tough for Republicans this year, in part because they have to defend more seats than Democrats. Even National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign of Nevada, the GOP's chief cheerleader in Senate races, 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," Ensign told CongressDaily. "Could we hold it to three seats? Yeah, it's possible we could hold it to three seats." For now, the NRSC is marshalling its resources to dole out later in the cycle, when party leaders can more accurately judge which seats might be hopeless and which might be saved by an infusion of cash.

3

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

4

AFF TURN TO CONGRESS DISAD

DEMOCRATS WILL WIN UNLESS BUSH’S APPROVAL RATINGS GO UP Balz 3-7-08 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/07/mccains_bush_burden_1.html We have already seen this pattern. In 2006, Republicans lost the midterm elections in part because of public disapproval of the president. 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. What they found was that among independents, three quarters who disapproved of the way Bush was handling his job voted for Democratic and a fifth voted Republican. Republican senators running in tough reelection races that year, even in red states, found Bush's low approval ratings a drag on their candidacies. As a result, the Senate is in Democratic hands today. 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.

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF CONGRESS STOPS MCCAIN AGENDA OUR LINK TURN SOLVES THEIR IMPACTS. A STRONGLY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WOULD BLOCK MCCAINS AGENDA COMPLETELY BERRY 7-1-08 http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/01/obama/permalink/f048beae077057ec57c18a8537b6d883.html.

Where I differ from Greenwald is on the support for Obama As I posted in Salon's Table Talk... Quite a two weeks? That's quite a four years if you ask me (and yeah, I know that no one has.) Where I differ from Greenwald is simple: Greenwald still supports Obama because he believes McCain is much worse. Now I will grant that McCain's positions in this campaign may in fact be much worse, 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. Seems way too close to Bush and the Republicans redux for me. What's more likely? That a president from an opposing party would find a way to work with an opposition congress, or that a Democratic congress would put the brakes on Obama? I'll take my chances with the first scenario. McCain, for all the talk of "McInsane" from the freeper-left**, was someone that John Kerry thought enough of in 2004 to offer up the vice presidency as his running mate. And more than a few Dems in 2004 were for it. John McCain is not GW Bush. I don't fear a McCain presidency as long as a Democratic congress does its job. And if we can't trust a Dem congress to hold a McCain in check, we surely can't trust a Dem congress to hold an Obama in check.

WITH A DIVIDED CONGRESS NEITHER MCCAIN OR OBAMA WILL BE ABLE TO PURSUE THEIR AGENDA MAISEL 08

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1007/ijde/maisel.htm The Republicans currently hold 22 of the 34 Senate seats that will be contested in 2008. Even slight Democratic gains will not give that party an overwhelming Senate majority. Senate rules require 60 votes to take major action; the Democrats are extremely unlikely to approach that number. The Democrats hold approximately 30 more House seats than do the Republicans. While many incumbents' plans remain in flux, approximately 25 representatives are likely to vacate their seats after this Congress. Most of those seats — and perhaps another 25, many held by Democrats who took over Republican seats in 2006 — will be hotly contested in 2008. The Democrats seem to have a slight advantage in these races and might add slightly to their majority, but again not enough to give them a free hand in governing. As a result of the upcoming congressional elections, if a Republican is elected president in 2008, he may face a determined opposition that controls a majority of both houses of Congress. If a Democrat is elected, he or she is likely to govern with a Congress controlled by his or her party, but one in which the Republicans retain enough strength to thwart major policy initiatives.

5

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

NEW OBAMA IMPACT—TAXATION OBAMA WILL ACT TO QUICKLY INCREASE DEMOCRATIC TAX PROPOSALS

PETHOKOUKIS 7-26-08 James, U.S. News http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/6/26/obama-will-tax-more-thanjust-the-rich.html Let's be clear: If Barack Obama is elected, everyone who has an investment will face higher taxes because Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress will raise the rate on capital gains. There is also a "hidden tax" that will come from the depressing effect on stock prices. (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, he probably will have tax legislation before Congress before the end of next winter. He will surely seek to abolish the Bush tax cuts for "the rich," loosely defined as those who make more than $250,000 per year. But with the budget deficit exploding, the definition of "rich" may be defined down to pay for Obama's spending priorities in areas such as health and the infrastructure. The top individual rate, now 36%, is scheduled to revert back to the old top rate of 39.6% at the end of 2010, but Obama probably would attempt to raise it more quickly. Some Democrats want to add a surcharge of 1 or 2 percentage points on top of 39.6% for individuals making more than $500,000. 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.... Perhaps the biggest tax issue for the financial markets involves the capital gains and dividend rates.... If Obama wins, those rates are likely to wind up in the mid-20s, with an effective date that could come as early as some time next year.... With the Democrats determined to raise taxes (the Social Security payroll tax cap also would rise), there's a bit of good news: there's a strong consensus that the top corporate rate of 35% is too high; it probably will come down to 30 or 31%. And some middle class taxpayers may get relief on the Alternative Minimum Tax.

THIS WILL DESTROY THE ECONOMY NORQUIST 07 Grover Norquist Available to Discuss Rangel's Trillion Dollar Tax Bill http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10252007/0004690427&EDATE=. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) introduced "the mother of all tax bills" today on Capitol Hill. While the bill contains two welcome tax reforms --AMT repeal and a small corporate rate cut -- the massive tax increases contained in the bill would destroy the U.S. economy. "Charlie Rangel's tax bill raises taxes on small businesses, middle-class families, pension funds, and Americans doing business overseas -- you name it, and Rangel taxes it," said ATR President Grover Norquist. "This bill is a clear and present violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, and should be opposed vigorously."

6

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

7

DEMOCRATIC TAX PLANS WOULD CRUSH THE U.S. ECONOMY KERPEN 07 Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity

http://www.philkerpen.com/?q=node/155.

Rep. Charlie Rangel is bent on including a carried interest capital gains tax hike in the must-pass patch to the alternative minimum tax. This bad idea will carry tax implications for every American. With such a strong push behind it, this is a plan that we need to take seriously, because the stakes are high. This tax hike would, in itself, cause a significant economic disruption by sending capital offshore and discouraging the creation of new venture-backed businesses. Everyone Loses Even worse, however, is the precedent that would be set for raising the capital gains tax for everyone, which many Democrats are now openly advocating. Carried interest refers to the portion of the profits interests that the general partner who sets up an investment partnership retains. The general partner is the entrepreneur who has the ideas and connections to make investments. When a partnership is formed, the general partner will bring in limited partners by selling them a stake in the fund, typically 80 percent, in exchange for them putting up all or most of the money. It’s really no different from the founder of a small business who has the ideas and know-how bringing in an outside investor. This structure — where general partners retain a carried interest in the fund’s profits — is common not just in private equity, but also in venture capital, real estate, oil and gas, and hedge funds. Under current law, when the partnership has income, 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, and if it’s capital income they pay capital gains tax. Under Rangel’s bill, the character of the underlying income no longer matters. Even if the income is from the sale of corporate stock, the portion that general partners retain as a carried interest would be taxed at the full ordinary income tax rates. 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, to avoid taxing inflationary gains, and to encourage capital formation, entrepreneurship, and investment. All of these rationales obtain in the carried interest case, because the income really is capital income. This is about hiking the capital gains tax for a particular group of politically unpopular taxpayers, with serious economic consequences.

Scaring Capital Away Private equity has been a key source of prosperity in recent years, as our public capital markets have been increasingly hampered by excessive litigation and overregulation under Sarbanes-Oxley. 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. Higher taxes could choke off this engine of prosperity and encourage capital to flee abroad. If all this is not bad enough, the trend is toward something much worse: There is a Democratic effort underway to raise capital gains taxes for all investors. In House Ways and Means Committee hearings on carried interest, Chairman Rangel asked panelist after panelist whether raising capital gains taxes across the board would solve the so-called problem of carried interest taxation. The majority of the witnesses on the stacked panel said it would, 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. All of the major Democratic presidential candidates have come out for higher capital gains taxes, with both Barck Obama and John Edwards calling for a return to the pre-Clinton tax cut rate of 28 percent, a whopping 87 percent tax hike.

Capital gains tax hikes would dramatically reduce the after-tax return on stock investments, which would be a great impediment to stock markets. They would significantly raise the cost of capital, drying up investment in many innovative, entrepreneurial companies. They would hit the U.S. Treasury hard, contrary to the conclusions of the static-revenue scorekeepers. History is an excellent guide here: Every capital-gains tax hike in the past 30 years has led to lower federal revenues, while every cap-gains tax cut has led to higher revenues. Yet Democrats and tax-scorers are repeating this mistake yet again in the carried interests fight at hand. What's at Stake

One reason the tax hike is attractive to Democrats is that it scores as a major revenue raiser, which helps them meet their self-imposed pay-as-you-go rules, which require them to offset tax reductions with tax hikes or spending cuts (they never choose the spending cuts). 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.

In other words, we could be looking at a major economic disruption without any federal revenue to show for it.

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

OBAMA WIN MEANS BUSH IRAN ATTACK IF OBAMA WINS BUSH WILL ATTACK IRAN GARAFALO 6-5-08

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/05/pipes-democrat-iran/ Daniel Pipes, a far right-wing pseudo scholar who called the NIE report on the halting of Iran’s nuclear program a “shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda,” said he believes that President Bush will attack Iran if a Democrat wins the White House in November. During an interview posted at the National Review Online, Pipes said that the U.S. and its allies should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack”: What I suspect will be the case is, should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something. And should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt, and let McCain decide what to do. Pipes also said that countries like Russia and China should aid the U.S. in pressuring Iran, if they want to prevent America attacking unilaterally: Look, if you don’t want an American attack, 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.

MCCLEMORE 6-22-08 Andrew McLemore http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-mightattack-iran-if-he-thinks-obama-will-win/ President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he thinks Senator Barack Obama may be elected, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol told FOX News Sunday morning. Kristol added that if Senator John McCain was going to win the presidency, Bush would “think it more appropriate” to let him deal with the issue.

8

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

9

DADT Obama would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Michael Saul, Daily News Political Correspondent. “Obama: I'll end don't-ask, don't-tell”. CNN. April 11, 2008. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/11/2008-04-11_obama_ill_end_dontask_donttell-1.html Barack Obama said he's confident he could end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military, but he won't make it a criteria for serving on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Obama said during an interview with The Advocate, a gay publication. "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, not ideology," he said. Obama said ending the policy, which was instituted during Bill Clinton's administration, is something he could "reasonably" get done if elected. "There's increasing recognition within the armed forces that this is a counterproductive strategy - ya know, we're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe," he said. Obama said he is interested in including transgendered people as part of the legislation eliminating "don't ask, don't tell," but he said it's "going to be tough" to get that provision through Congress.

Obama supports repeal of DADT. Amanda Erickson, Washington Tribune. “Hearing examines 'don't ask, don't tell' policy: Discussion intended to look at effect of gays-in-military rule”. Chicago Tribune. 7/24/2008. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chidont-ask-dont-telljul24,0,7652923.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. Congress had not re-examined the "don't ask, don't tell" policy since it was approved by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993. 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. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, supports retention of the policy while likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama backs its repeal. Legislation has been introduced to repeal the policy, but Wednesday's hearing was not intended to advance the bill.

Obama would repeal the “cruel and unpatriotic” DADT policy if elected president. Associated Press and The Washington Post. “Two views on gays in military”. News Tribune news services. 7/24/2008. http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/422034.html WASHINGTON – Opponents of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military denounced it Wednesday as cruel and unpatriotic. Supporters insisted it was needed to maintain military morale, and one raised the prospect of a rise of HIV infection among service members if gays are allowed to serve openly. The heated exchanges came as Congress held its first hearing on “don’t ask, don’t tell” since its enactment 15 years ago. Although legislation has been introduced to overturn the policy, the hearing wasn’t an attempt to advance the bill, something supporters say can happen only if Democratic Sen. Barack Obama is elected president. Republican Sen. John McCain supports “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

10

Obama pledges to repeal DADT if elected president. The Boston Globe. “Out of the campaign trail limelight, Romney remains on political hunt”. April 11, 2008. Lexis Obama pledges support for gay rights issues Barack Obama pledges that if he wins the presidency, he would pass an employment nondiscrimination law covering gay Americans, guarantee federal benefits to gay couples in civil unions, and would end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. "We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe," he said in an interview with The Advocate, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender-related newsmagazine. 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. The Illinois senator, responding to criticism that he hasn't talked to the gay press or directly tackled gay issues, contends that he is addressing them in a broader context. "I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history," he said.

DADT Uniqueness McCain would keep DADT. Josiah Ryan, staff writer and Allison Aldrich, correspondent. “GOP Wants to Keep ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”. 7/23/2008. CNS News. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32891 On the Spot (CNSNews.com) - Despite recent calls from Democrats, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, to do away with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy concerning homosexuals in the military, Senate Republicans, including John McCain, say the policy seems to work and should be kept. On Wednesday, a House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel will convene to review the controversial policy. “I think the policy is working, and from my understanding the leadership of the military is comfortable with it,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (RAla.) told CNSNews.com at the Capitol on Tuesday. “It’s not perfect, but it seems to be effective,” Sessions said. “Their interest is in having a strong military, so I would be in favor of keeping the policy.”

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

11

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

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

12

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

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

13

DADT costs the military money and hurts military effectiveness. The Boston Globe. By: Martin Meehan. “WHY WE SHOULD REPEAL `DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'”. April 27, 2006. Lexis. ON MONDAY a US District Court judge in Boston ruled that while Congress has the authority to bar gays and lesbians from the military, Congress is also the most appropriate outlet for ending that ban. Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. found that while Congress made a rational decision when it adopted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, "deciding that Congress has made a rational choice is not the same as deciding it has made a wise choice." He added that "the remedy for bad decision-making by the political branches is to be found in the working of the political process." This was the ninth time the "don't ask, 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, not legal action. 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, don't tell" policy. This policy has proven to be unpopular and costly, and there seems to be little convincing evidence for it to remain in effect. In the 12 years since the ban was enacted, public opinion has shifted in favor of repealing "don't ask, don't tell." 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. But a May 2005 poll conducted for The Boston Globe found that 79 percent of people favored allowing openly gay people to serve. It is time for Congress to catch up with the country and overturn this policy. While public opinion polls show that "don't ask, don't tell" is wildly unpopular, 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. A year ago the Government Accountability Office released a study showing that the cost of enforcing "don't ask, don't tell" in the first 10 years was more than $190 million. 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. At a time when our military is already stretched to the breaking point, wasting taxpayer dollars by discharging competent service members under "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't make sense. This money could be better spent protecting soldiers in the line of duty, instead of discharging brave Americans who proudly serve in our military just for being gay. "Don't ask, don't tell" undermines the very freedom these servicemen and women have volunteered to defend.

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

14

DADT hurts military readiness by depriving the military of qualified personnel. Stephen Benjamin, former petty officer second class in the Navy. “Don't Ask, Don't Translate”. June 8, 2007. The New York Times. Lexis. ''Don't ask, 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. Political and military leaders who support the current law may believe that homosexual soldiers threaten unit cohesion and military readiness, but the real damage is caused by denying enlistment to patriotic Americans and wrenching qualified individuals out of effective military units. 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 tell'' was instituted. How much valuable intelligence could those men and women be providing today to troops in harm's way? In addition to those translators, 11,000 other service members have been ousted since the ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy was passed by Congress in 1993. Many held critical jobs in intelligence, medicine and counterterrorism. An untold number of closeted gay military members don't re-enlist because of the pressure the law puts on them. This is the real cost of the ban -- and, with our military so overcommitted and undermanned, it's too high to pay. In response to difficult recruiting prospects, the Army has already taken a number of steps, lengthening soldiers' deployments to 15 months from 12, enlisting felons and extending the age limit to 42. Why then won't Congress pass a bill like the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal ''don't ask, don't tell''? The bipartisan bill, by some analysts' estimates, could add more than 41,000 soldiers -- all gay, of course. As the friends I once served with head off to 15-month deployments, I regret I'm not there to lessen their burden and to serve my country. I'm trained to fight, I speak Arabic and I'm willing to serve. No recruiter needs to make a persuasive argument to sign me up. I'm ready, and I'm waiting.

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

15

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

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

16

AT: Lifting DADT hurts military readiness Despite ominous predictions, lifting bans on gays and lesbians has been empirically proven to have no effect on military readiness. Aaron Belkin, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author of numerous studies on sexual orientation and unit cohesion and coeditor, with Geoffrey Bateman, of the new book Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the U.S. Military. “Don't ask, don't tell: Is the gay ban based on military necessity?” Parameters. Carlisle Barracks: Summer 2003. Vol. 33, Iss. 2; pg. 108. Lexis. Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion, led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops. In a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers, the Canadian Department of National Defence found that 62 percent of male service members would refuse to share showers, undress, or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier, and that 45 percent would refuse to work with gays. A 1996 survey of 13,500 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. Yet when Canada and Britain subsequently lifted their gay bans, these dire predictions were not confirmed. In Australia, Commodore R. W. Gates, whose rank is equivalent to a onestar admiral, remarked that the lifting of the ban was "an absolute non-event."7 Professor Hugh Smith, a leading academic expert on homosexuality in the Australian military, observed that when the government ordered the military to lift the ban, some officers said, "Over my dead body; if this happens I'll resign." However, Smith said that there were no such departures and that the change was accepted in "true military tradition."8 Bronwen Grey, an official in the Australian Defence Ministry, reported, "There was no increase in complaints about gay people or by gay people. There was no known increase in fights, on a ship, or in Army units. . . . The recruitment figures didn't alter."9 In Canada, Steve Leveque, a civilian official in the Department of National Defence, commented that including gays and lesbians in the Canadian Forces is "not that big a deal for us. . . . On a day-to-day basis, there probably hasn't been much of a change."10 A 1995 internal report from the Canadian government on the lifting of the ban concluded, "Despite all the anxiety that existed through the late 80s into the early 90s about the change in policy, here's what the indicators show-no effect."11 In Israel, Stuart Cohen, a professor at the Center for Strategic Studies who is recognized as a leading expert on the Israel Defense Forces, remarked, "As far as I have been able to tell, homosexuals do not constitute an issue [with respect to] unit cohesion in the IDF. In fact, the entire subject is very marginal indeed as far as this military is concerned."12 Reuven Gal, the director of the Israeli Institute for Military Studies, wrote, "According to military reports, [homosexuals'] presence, whether openly or clandestinely, has not impaired the morale, cohesion, readiness, or security of any unit."13 An internal government report that appraised the British change in policy characterized it as a "solid achievement . . . with fewer problems than might have been expected."14 The assistant chief of the navy staff, Rear-Admiral James Burnell-Nugent, concurred: "Although some did not welcome the change in policy, it has not caused any degree of difficulty."15 Overall, the report suggests that "there has been a marked lack of reaction" to the issue of including homosexual personnel in the British armed services.16 These reactions were typical of the comments made during the interviews with politicians, academic experts, non-profit observers, ministry officials, veterans, active-duty officers, and enlisted soldiers. Even the leading opponents of allowing gays into the military concluded that the lifting of the bans did not damage the armed forces. In Australia, for example, spokesmen for the Returned and Services League, the country's largest veterans' group, had previously said that lifting the gay ban would jeopardize morale and military performance. Eight years after Australia's 1992 decision to lift its ban, however, the President of the Returned and Services League, Major General Peter Philips, stated that gays in the military have "not been a significant public issue. The Defence Forces have not had a lot of difficulty in this area."17 In addition, our review of 622 documents and articles revealed no evidence that the lifting of the gay bans undermined military performance, led to difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection.

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

17

DADT removes linguists which are key to MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS The Washington Post. “Still No Gay Linguists”. The Washington Post. April 16, 2003. Lexis. THE UNITED STATES may be at war -- both with al Qaeda and in Iraq -- but the military still knows a domestic threat when it sees one: gay linguists in training. Last year, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), an advocacy group that represents gay men and lesbians trying to serve their country despite the military's irrational "don't ask, don't tell" policy, disclosed that the military had discharged at least 10 linguists, seven of them Arabic-speaking, because of their sexual orientations. The military preferred to exacerbate a governmentwide shortage of Arabic-speakers rather than relax its gay ban, though the policy stigmatizes patriots and injures the military's readiness. You might think the Pentagon would have responded to the negative publicity. But apparently it has been undeterred. In fact, the SLDN now informs us that the discharge of gay linguists has actually accelerated. The group has represented 24 linguists -- nine speak Arabic, eight Korean, three Farsi, two Chinese and two Russian -- and knows of at least one other case. According to Steve Ralls, the group's spokesman, 22 of the discharges are complete. (The Defense Department did not respond to calls seeking comment regarding the SLDN's claims.) Overall, gay discharges actually declined last year -- as they typically do when the country faces war and cannot afford to spend its time on witch hunts. But the progress has been spotty. So even as some gay men and lesbians are being tolerated temporarily while they help liberate Iraq, others are being kicked out of military language training. This is an enormous waste of human resources, at once self-destructive and unjust. The military cannot afford to brand as unfit for service qualified men and women who wish to put their talents -- whether those lie in combat roles or languages -- in the service of their country.

DADT perpetuates violence against gay and lesbian service members. Human Rights News. “U.S. Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy Panders to Prejudice: Anti-Gay Harassment Flourishes”. January 23, 2003. http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/us012303.htm By stigmatizing homosexuality, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has perpetuated prejudice against gay and lesbian servicemembers. As detailed in “Uniform Discrimination,” anti-gay harassment remains commonplace, with gay servicemembers subjected to name-calling, threats and even physical attacks. In a Department of Defense survey of service members, 80 percent reported hearing offensive speech, derogatory names, 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. In 1999, 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. The report also documents “lesbian-baiting,” 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 Pentagon has done little to protect gay and lesbian servicemembers from hostile treatment or violence by other servicemembers. Harassment of gay and lesbian servicemembers is committed with near total impunity. Many servicemembers endure harassment in silence for fear that reporting it will lead to disclosure of their sexual orientation and hence a discharge. 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. Although the Pentagon announced in 2000 an Action Plan to combat antigay harassment, it has failed to implement it.

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

18

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

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

19

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

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

20

DADT Good Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military would devastate unit cohesion and morale. SGM (Ret.) Brian Jones, Chief Executive Officer, Owner, Adventure Training Corps. House Armed Services Committee. “Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military”. July 23, 2008. http://cmrlink.org/fileuploads/HASC072308JonesTestimony.pdf In the civilian business world, decisions frequently are based on bonuses and job security. In the military environment, team cohesion, morale, and esprit decor is a matter of life and death. Bonus and job security come second to the reality of writing the hard letter to a loved one, or holding the hand of a team mate who is fighting for his or her life. In my 21 years of service in the US Army, I sought, and performed in as many leadership positions that I could. As a leader, my first obligation was to the Nation. It meant keeping our soldiers ready for any situation for which our country called upon them. It meant taking care of each Soldier I had the honor of leading. It meant being fair and impartial to every Soldier. It also meant keeping the Soldiers under my charge as safe, secure, trained, equipped, and informed as I possibly could. On their behalf, I would respectfully like to say that in this time of war, I find it surprising that we are here today to talk about this issue of repealing the 1993 law. Our Soldiers are over‐ tasked with deploying, fighting, redeploying, refitting, and deploying again. These brave men and women have achieved what many Americans thought impossible. With all of the important issues that require attention, it is difficult to understand why a minority faction is demanding that their concerns be given priority over more important issues. As a US Army Ranger, I performed long range patrols in severe cold weather conditions, in teams of 10, with only mission essential items on our backs. No comfort items. The only way to keep from freezing at night was to get as close as possible for body heat–which means skin to skin. On several occasions, in the close quarters that a team lives, any attraction to same sex teammates, real or perceived, would be known and would be a problem. The presence of openly gay men in these situations would elevate tensions and disrupt unit cohesion and morale.

Allowing open homosexuals in the military would hurt morale, retention, and unit cohesiveness. Cantrell, Mark E. "Allowing Gays and Lesbians in the Military Will Adversely Affect Morale." Current Controversies: Gay Rights. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Military service necessarily takes a heavy toll on personal freedoms and privacy. At best, a junior unmarried or unaccompanied Marine can expect to live in a small single BEQ room with at least one other Marine. Three- or fourman rooms are still fairly common and squad bays are often used by deployed units or in training commands. Communal heads and showers are typical, regardless of room type. Privacy is even more restricted on shipboard or in the field; there is no such thing as personal space in a two-man fighting hole or tent. Under these circumstances, homosexuals would thoroughly demoralize servicemembers who seldom get to choose their roommates. 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. It is irrelevant whether the homosexual is actually attracted to the heterosexual. The point is that the heterosexual would be completely uncomfortable undressing, showering, or sleeping under those conditions. Most Marines would also be terrified of the rumors and assumptions that would inevitably start among their peers. Gay rights activists will no doubt argue that the heterosexual's discomfort is his problem, the result of Neanderthal attitudes. But few parents would be ready to let the military train or regulate modesty out of their sons and daughters, even if it could be done. Commanders will have no workable solutions for dealing with this privacy problem. The cost of private rooms would be staggering. Privacy on ships or in the field is simply unachievable at any price. Homosexuals cannot be given private rooms without infuriating heterosexuals. Billeting homosexuals together would complicate billeting assignments and draw protests from heterosexuals who are not allowed to room

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

21

with their girlfriends or boyfriends. If we authorize quarters allowance for homosexuals to live off-base, we will, once again, draw protests from heterosexuals who are forced to live on base. In short, homosexuals will present unsolvable problems that are certain to hurt morale, retention, and unit cohesiveness.

Allowing open homosexuals in the military would decrease the public’s opinion of the military. Cantrell, Mark E. "Allowing Gays and Lesbians in the Military Will Adversely Affect Morale." Current Controversies: Gay Rights. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. We think nothing of seeing uniformed servicemembers kissing their spouses goodbye in an airport. 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, consider the fact that society is by no means unanimous in tolerating homosexual behavior. More important, 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. Openly homosexual behavior by uniformed servicemembers would be completely intolerable. 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. Instead, openly homosexual behavior will destroy morale and esprit de corps like no enemy ever could.

Open homosexuals in the military would increase resentment among service members. Cantrell, Mark E. "Allowing Gays and Lesbians in the Military Will Adversely Affect Morale." Current Controversies: Gay Rights. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. It has become increasingly popular since the end of the draft to look upon military service as just another job. But the military demands far more from servicemembers than any civilian employer. We are asked to endure long separations from family, frequent moves to places we do not choose, and long hours without overtime. Many have missed the birth of a child; others have had children set back in school or upset at the loss of friends due to midyear moves. We have given up many of what most people consider God-given rights. Most important, we are required to entrust our lives to our appointed leaders. Servicemembers make these sacrifices and continue to serve for a variety of reasons. Pay, which we are told lags well behind pay for "comparable" civilian jobs, is certainly not the most important motivator. Morale and esprit de corps, on the other hand, are a large part of the volunteer military's success. But thousands of servicemembers, who had no part or representation in the decisionmaking, will now find their living and working conditions radically altered. They will be forced to choose between continued service under conditions they find intolerable, or resignation after faithfully investing years of their lives in a military career. Widespread resentment and anger are inevitable. In a corporation, such a leadership blunder could cause lost productivity and high employee turnover. In the military, the costs could be measured in lost lives and failed missions.

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

22

Allowing open homosexuals in the military would decrease effectiveness. Cantrell, Mark E. "Allowing Gays and Lesbians in the Military Will Adversely Affect Morale." Current Controversies: Gay Rights. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. The American military is traditionally, and rightfully, reluctant to become involved in politics. It is customary to voice our concerns in private, and then do our best to execute our orders, whether we agree with them or not. 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. Those who acknowledge that there will be considerable resistance in the ranks are inclined to blame it on homophobia. Few have taken the time to interview more than a handful of junior officers and enlisted servicemen. In fact, the papers seem to contain more interviews with discharged homosexuals than with ordinary servicemen. Under the circumstances, we cannot afford to be spectators in the debate. We have a right as citizens, and a responsibility as officers and noncommissioned officers, to reinforce the warnings of our senior military leaders. Specifically, anyone concerned with the outcome of this debate should make known their concerns to their elected representatives, their family, their friends, and to editors of hometown newspapers and favorite magazines. Additionally, while it would be inappropriate to coerce or lobby your subordinates, there is nothing wrong with encouraging them to participate in the democratic process by writing as well, whatever their views. 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. Presumably, we in the military will keep our mouths shut, follow orders, and thereby prove to ourselves and society that homosexuals and heterosexuals can work side by side. But no amount of sensitivity training will allow openly homosexual people to serve harmoniously in the military. Moreover, 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. Even in such an enlightened age, we would find that fighting hole romances can gut combat effectiveness.

Repealing DADT now would lower morale, harm recruitment, and undermine unit cohesion. J. Matt Barber. "The Military Should Not Accept Open Homosexuals." Opposing Viewpoints: Military Draft. Ed. Viqi Wagner. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale "It's no secret that our current military leadership ... continues to overwhelmingly oppose allowing openly homosexual men and women to enlist." J. Matt Barber is policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian political-action organization based in Washington, D.C. In the following viewpoint, Barber portrays the movement to drop the ban on open homosexuals in the military as liberal hypocrisy: Politicians pushing a liberal social agenda, such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, 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, he says. Nothing the prohomosexual lobby says, Barber warns, can change the facts that anti-gay sentiment remains very strong within the military, and homosexuality remains immoral. As you read, 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.S. armed forces? According to Barber, 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, Don't Tell policy) be defeated, 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, but in the culture war on the home front, those same liberals are prepared to enthusiastically push for an "escalation" in troop enlistment by repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and permitting openly homosexual men and women to sign up. (Move over National Guard and Green Berets—make way for the avant-garde and Lavender Berets.) The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the Human Rights Campaign, and a host of other powerful and extremely well-funded pro-homosexual activist groups are leading the charge. But it's the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-California.), who's sounding the shrill bugle call. According to the Washington Blade, a top "gay" publication, Pelosi has signed on to the homosexual lobby's top-ten "gay" wish-list as a "co-sponsor for all 10 gayand AIDS-related bills that are languishing in Congress." Of those ten bills, the innocuously titled "Military Readiness Enhancement Act"— which would repeal "don't ask, don't tell"—is a top priority. Other liberals are weighing in as well. On January 2nd, the New York Times fired off a real opinion piece dud. "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military" was penned by blast from the past, John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Clinton administration. Needless to say, Shalikashvili's column sorely missed its target. In the piece, Shalikashvili opines that "don't ask, 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." So, while admonishing us that "the debate must be conducted with sensitivity," 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. Shalikashvili notes that: "The concern among many in the military was that ... letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion." Well sir, that's still the concern "among many in the military" today—most in fact—and those concerns are just as well founded now, as they were during the military's Paleolithic Clintonian era.

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

23

AT: DADT hurts military readiness

Discharges for homosexuality are not significant enough to have an impact on readiness. Center for Military Readiness. “Invalid National Security Arguments for Homosexuals in the Military”. October 2007. http://cmrlink.org/cmrnotes/HomosexualDischarges100107.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. The truth is that annual numbers of discharges due to homosexuality, compared to discharges for other reasons, actually are quite small. According to figures provided to the General Accountability Office (GAO) by the Department of Defense, discharges due to homosexuality amounted to only 0.37% of discharges for all reasons (about 5% of unplanned separations) between the years 1994 and 2003. During that ten year period there were 59,098 discharges for “drug offenses/use; 38,178 for “serious offenses; 36,513 for violations of weight standards; 26,446 for pregnancy, 20,527 for parenthood, and 9,501 for homosexuality.

The Zogby poll they mention is biased and inaccurate. Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. “Constructing the Co-ed Military”. May, 2007. Duke University Journal of Gender Law & Policy. http://cmrlink.org/fileuploads/DukeLawJournalSectGaysinMilitary.pdf A closer look at the Zogby poll reveals more interesting details that should have been recognized by news media people reporting on it.99 First, the Zogby poll news release clearly states that it was designed in conjunction with Aaron Belkin, Director of the Michael D. Palm Center, formerly the Center for Sexual Minorities in the Military.100 This is an activist group promoting homosexuals in the military.101 Second, the poll claims to be of 545 people “who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations), from a purchased list of U.S. Military Personnel.”102 However, the U.S. military does not sell or provide access to personnel lists. Due to security rules that were tightened in the aftermath of 9/11, personal details and even general information about the location of individual personnel is highly restricted.103 Third, the apparent absence of random access undermines the credibility of the poll, which inflates the claim that, “The panel used for this survey is composed of over 1 million members and correlates closely with the U.S. population on all key profiles.”104 Fourth, activists frequently claim that the greater comfort of younger people with homosexuals is evidence enough to justify changing the law; however, if that were the case, all referenda banning same-sex marriage would have been soundly defeated. On the contrary, the voters of several states have approved twenty-six of twenty-seven such referenda, often with comfortable majorities.105

SDI 08 ELECTIONS SUPPLEMENT

24

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