The Pentagon DADT study is out. Duhn duhn duhn. Read it.
The study came out a little over an hour ago, and most are still analyzing. Reports that you'll see will be based mostly on the executive summary of the report given to a handful of reporters in the Pentagon an hour before the press conference, and responses you'll see from organizations will also be mostly based on that summary. Really, responses to the study will be based on the executive summary until the Senate hearings on the study on Thursday and Friday.
Anyway, I'll be among those analyzing the study all evening, but in short: troops don't care, long term effects are non-existent, and short-term effects will be isolated and few. This will be spun around the same talking points on both sides, and you'll begin to see the true colors of your members of Congress.
Those determined to be against repeal and can't be swayed will complain about those isolated incidents in times of war and call for another study (McCain, Graham among others). Those who need cover will praise the study and offer at least tepid support of repeal (Snowe, Voinovich, among others). These will be mostly Republicans, with the exception of perhaps Manchin and Pryor (and technically Murkowski). What will help with cover is the insistence of Gates and Mullens to do this in the lame-duck to allow a slow and measured process (as opposed to going through the courts.)
As the rhetoric varies, it is important to separate the big R's to teeny tiny little R's. Why? Because we need 3-5 Republicans to achieve cloture on a motion to proceed if we want any chance of repeal this year. To do that, we need a fair amendment process that also is realistic with respect to the time left in the lame duck to do this. #rinsewashrepeat.
What exactly I mean by 'fair process' tomorrow. Also, a deeper analysis. Stay tuned.