I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to post this piece because, really, there’s nothing news-worthy in the clip. Senator Bayh seemed wary of an ambush-style interview (even though I’ve introduced myself several times), and didn’t have much to say beyond the standard Hill dodge, “talk to my press secretary.”

With that said, Senator Bayh has engaged with progressives in the past. Not too long ago, he spent some time with Rachel Maddow explaining why Joe Lieberman deserved to keep his Chairmanship. Progressives can be frustrated with the Senator for any number of things, but he shouldn’t be accused of cowardice.

As you all know, I’m unabashedly liberal. When progressives complain about Lieberman, Lincoln, Pryor, Conrad, Nelson, Nelson, Baucus, Bayh or any of the other more conservative members of the caucus, I’m feeling their pain…

But…

Well, maybe it can be chalked up to Stockholm Syndrome, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to really ramp up the outrage when these folks operate in ways that disappoint me. After all, almost every one of them represent a red state. And they found a way to get elected as a Democrat. And it’s not like any one of them ever represented themselves as a birkenstock-wearing liberal. They ran as conservatives to represent conservative states. And now they are doing what they advertised! It seems a little unfair to me that we’d expect anything different.

Of course, it’s still plain to me that conservative policies are bankrupt, regardless of what letter comes after the name of the politician pushing them. It’s never wrong to question perceived inconsistencies in rhetoric and voting records. And when progressives find themselves the subject of attack, there’s nothing wrong with responding aggressively.

So here we are. In recent months, Senator Evan Bayh has gone on television and decried “left-wing blogs“. He frequently joins with Republicans in espousing tax cuts as a path to prosperity, including recent calls for reform (reduction) of the estate tax. He calls himself a fiscal conservative, but thinks it is a bad idea to fund the wars he votes for.

I decided to ask him what the “left-wing” bloggers that criticize him are wrong about. He decided not to answer right then, but I’ll keep trying to get his thoughts.

A long, long time ago… Way back in 2006, the blogosphere was still pretty novel, at least as far as the Democratic establishment was concerned. Back then, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and even Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel!) thought it’d be a neat idea to hold fairly regular conference calls with leading bloggers. They’d take questions and everything!

I participated in two such calls in the wake of the 2006 elections. As you’ll recall, the Democrats won majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Bloggers were ecstatic. We couldn’t wait to see our leaders do to Republicans how they did done us for most of the Bush years… We thought it’d be a no-brainer that the new Congress would make Republicans live by the rules they established when they were in power…

Alas… That was not to be.

Both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, within days of the election, told bloggers that the new rules would establish a climate of robust bipartisanship. Although they admitted that the Republican majority had operated under rules designed to neuter the Democratic minority and had deployed every conceivable parliamentary maneuver to get around whatever slight Democratic prerogative remained, the new Democratic majorities in both houses were determined to treat the Republican minority fairly. In short, many of the rules the Republicans had enacted when they controlled Congress would be reversed; Democrats would not use the power of their majorities to neuter the Republican minorities.

Buy, that worked out well, huh? Just look what it’s gotten them!

So now you have Senator Casey telling me that the Democratic caucus is looking at ways to change the rules of the Senate to get around the filibuster. We’ve seen Senator Tom Udall take the floor and rail against the rule-making process in general and the filibuster rule more specifically.

But that’s not the whole story…

There are still old-time Democrats that treasure the institution of the Senate. Senator Dodd is one of them.

I had previously spoken with him about Republican obstruction and, without prompt, the Senator launched a full-throated defense of the filibuster, eventually saying that it was part of what made the Senate the Senate and should not be abandoned.

Remembering those words, when I ran into him yesterday, I asked what he thought of reconciliation and recess appointments. He never answered that question, but he had some pretty strong words for the conduct of certain Senators (that remained unnamed), saying they needed to “start acting like Senators”.

But perhaps the most revealing thing Senator Dodd said was that because the Senate is currently dysfunctional, “because we’re frustrated right now over an abusive use of a historic vehicle that led to the essence of what the Senate is, we’re about to abandon the essence of the Senate.”

That came after he said, “I’m saddened in a way… the reason the Senate works is because the chemistry of the membership makes it work. That’s why it takes unanimous consent to do almost anything. And the essence of the Senate was basically a longer, slower look at things.”

From Politico:

Even as he accepted the resounding backing of the Pennsylvania Democratic state committee here Saturday, party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter’s vulnerability was on vivid display as he botched the name of a key Democratic officeholder in his acceptance speech.

“I’ll be fighting hard for the entire Democratic ticket. Sen. Andy — Andy —” Specter said, before pausing briefly, squinting his eyes.

“From Chester County,” he continued, losing his train of thought after clinching an emphatic 229-72 Senate endorsement vote from party regulars just minutes earlier.

“Dinniman,” the crowd responded almost in unison, referring to the state senator who represents West Chester. One committee member seated in the audience dropped his head and shook it.

From PA2010:

Specter was diagnosed in 2005 with Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system.

The political implications should be obvious. First, Republicans will have no qualms about making this a major issue in a race against Toomey in November. Second, and more importantly, if the Senator is not able to complete his term due to disease, his replacement will be appointed by the Governor, and polling data at this point strongly suggests that the next governor will be a Republican. That means the Democrats lose the seat—and the precious 60-vote super majority that the party establishment rolled over to get, and then lost in Massachusetts anyway, will be even further away.

Of course, there’s always the risk that a lame-duck Specter could revert to his Republican roots between the May primary and January of 2011, but that’s relatively small compared to the damage six years of a far-right, ultraconservative activist like Pat Toomey would do.

From the Washington Post:

Specter’s morning exercise regimen has kept him in remarkably good shape for a man his age, and he often boasts about his squash victories and weight-lifting prowess. He has a clean bill of health, his aides said. But at an age when most senior senators can coast a bit, Specter must demonstrate that he’s not walking into a sunset. And that walk is hardly brisk. At times, during a demanding week, he appeared exhausted and irritable. At other times, he recycled a joke about his physical condition to lighten otherwise tense moments.

I’ve run into one or two other reports that similarly require readers to “read between the lines”. I don’t believe in that kind of nonsense. In case you haven’t divined as much for yourself, if I have somehting to say, it’ll be on the page in black and white.

Senator Specter is 80 this year. He’s had a tumor removed from his brain. He’s made a series of unforced errors, and the number accumulates with every passing day.

It’s a huge mistake for Pennsylvania Democrats to perfunctorily stamp his primary card. He’s going to need every ounce of wits he’s got in him to beat Toomey in this electoral environment. If his age is catching up with him, he should withdraw from the race. If he refuses, PA voters should do the responsible thing and retire him at the primary ballot box.

This is difficult to write. My grandfather suffered through dementia for the last 15 years of his life. It’s never easy to talk about, and in politics, it’s particularly difficult because of all the potential for cheap-shot concern-trolling…

But there’s a dirty little secret everyone is keeping in Pennsylvania and Washington. It isn’t difficult to puzzle it out for yourself; in fact, given the circumstances, it’s probably difficult to avoid developing nagging suspicions. But there are a lot of stories being told off the record and in hushed whispers. Tonight, I’ve decided to stop whispering and come forward with my own.

First, background. You’ve probably heard the story about Senator Specter telling Michelle Bachmann to “act like a lady”. Before that, I interviewed him and when I tried to follow up with a related question, he looked at me and firmly told me he’d like to finish his sentence (about 1:30 – 2:15 in the video below). I demurred, and he told me to go ahead and ask my next question. It appears as if he had lost his train of thought…

That’s kinda weird, but nothing compared to what happened a few weeks later.

In the basement of the Russell Senate office building, there is a subway that ferries Senators and staff to and from the Capitol. Senator Spector was making his way over to the Capitol to cast a vote when I caught up with him and asked if he had decided to support or oppose the Bernanke nomination. He said he hadn’t decided. I asked him if he knew that Bernanke had said he was less concerned about unemployment than inflation. Specter answered gruffly that he was still making up his mind. Then he walked over to a call-button for the subway and pressed it several times.

The subway was already in the station.

It’s not like you can hide a subway.

The guard behind us yelled to the Senator, “Senator, he’s right there!” The driver of the subway yelled to the Senator, “Senator, I’m right here!” Specter continued to press the button for another coupla seconds before suddenly realizing the subway was already in the station and boarding.

Look… Does anyone think Specter makes the mistake he made with Bachmann 5 or 10 years ago? 5 or 10 years ago, does he awkwardly climb up on the stage while his primary opponent is being interviewed at an event ? At least Kanye West was drunk!

Dementia isn’t something you wake up with one morning. It’s not something that comes upon you suddenly… It’s a progressive affliction.

The problem for Specter and Pennsylvanian’s trying to decide who to support in the primary is that the decision is one they’ll be saddled with for six years (assuming Specter can beat Toomey). If Specter is showing signs of dementia today, they are pretty mild. He’s still capable of campaigning, legislating and, in general, doing what he needs to do to be relevant today. The problem is he can do all that with 95% of the capacity he had 5 years ago. But next year where will he be? 92%? 90%? 80%?

Or worse, for Democrats at least… will his 95% be good enough to beat Toomey? Will his loss of a mental step create the gaffe that makes him unelectable – after he wins the primary?

In the end, after seeing the Senator up close, as a progressive, I’m nervous. The Obama administration, Governor Rendell and DSCC will support Specter right up until primary day. Maybe that’s the price they paid to get Harry Reid his enormously consequential 60th vote. It’d suck quite a bit if an unanticipated cost of that deal turned out to be a newly-minted Senator Toomey.

Several years ago, I wrote that the problem with repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the religious make-up of the military itself.

For about 6 months 1987, I attended a Pentecostal church while stationed at the Marine Corps air base in Cherry Point, NC. It wasn’t just church. There were mid-week bible study meetings… weekend bowling and pizza fellowships… chow hours spent with other Christians… In short, we were Christians before we were anything else. And we were taught that our priorities were God, Country, and Family, in that order.

But even as I left the church, evangelicalism in the military has continued to grow. Hardly a week goes without a new data point adding to the body of evidence. Whether it’s the hazing of Jews at the Air Force Academy, scripture code being engraved on rifle sights or Blackwater mercenaries wearing their religion on their sleeve, we are faced with one story after another with a common subtext: the religious right has made incredible organizational gains within our military.

When Lane Hudson asked President Bill Clinton if he was ready to call for the repeal of DADT, Clinton thought for a moment and then gave an incredibly clear answer. According to the former President, when the policy was set he had secured promises from General Powell: gays would be allowed to go to gay bars. They could march in gay parades. They could do as they wished, so long as they did not announce their sexual preference while in uniform or in an official capacity. Then, according to Clinton, the mid-level officers all but revolted and the Democratic base didn’t rally. The current approach eventually cemented itself into place.

That was the early 90’s. Since then, the country and its military, if anything, have become more evangelical (even as we’ve, broadly speaking, grown more tolerant of gays).

It’s important to recognize what this means, or, more specifically, what DADT means to a fundamentalist. For these folks, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah isn’t a parable or allegory; it’s fact. It’s what God does to nations that tend toward “perversion”.

It may very well be an impossible ask for the country to expect a fundamentalist Army Officer to dispassionately rate the performance of a gay service-member. If one’s loyalties are to God before Country, favorably rating (and promoting) a gay subordinate may be too much to ask. Moreover, if a Christian genuinely believes that endorsing the “homosexual lifestyle” will bring the wrath of God upon the nation, I’m not sure what law could be passed to overcome such a soul-felt prejudice.

Don’t get me wrong. The fundamentalist objection is replete with contradiction and inconsistency. The same Officer that would refuse promotion to a gay might not think twice about promoting the fornicator… but hypocrisy is not the point. The point is that DADT will be hell to implement.

Nor is the point that we should think twice about, or even take our time with, repealing DADT. The policy is odious and it should go. Immediately. Yesterday.

The point is simply that we should walk into this with our eyes open.

I spoke with Senators Sessions, Lieberman and Wicker about this.

Senator Wicker only had a few minutes to spare, but it’s clear he doesn’t want to see the current policy changed:

Senator Lieberman favors repealing the policy and has a lot of faith in the professional military to dispassionately follow orders:

Unfortunately, I was only able to capture the audio of the interview with Senator Sessions. The topic clearly discomfited him in a way that would have been strikingly apparent if caught on video.

After speaking with the Senators, I spent a few minutes with Lt. Choi, one of today’s witnesses. I asked him about the exchange Lane Hudson had with Bill Clinton at the 2009 Netroots Nation:

Choi’s answer alluded to Admiral Mullen’s testimony about integrity. Asking gays to serve without acknowledging their sexuality amounts to suborning perjury. They are forced to swear they are something they are not. The West Point Honor Code prohibits as much: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”

Senator Gillibrand exchanged a few words with the Lt.: