In light of Christine O’Donnell’s gay baiting of Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), Slate’s Margaret Wheeler Johnson put together this handy guide to how politicians have insinuated that their opponent are gay while avoiding direct confrontation. For the accuser, baiting is full of benefit and almost no risk, Johnson writes. The baiter can always plead ignorance or suggest that opponents needs to develop a sense of humor. The practice “has been around since before the Revolutionary War” and is still alive and well, despite growing public support for LGBT rights. Here is a sampling:

- The Euphemisms: “Relies on certain preexisting association in the public’s mind. Terms like “San Francisco,” “wine drinker,” and even “renter” rather than homeowner.”

- Weak and Whiny: “One way to suggest a man is gay is to play to the notion that a man with a soft voice, touch, or walk is weak, and that weak men are gay. i.e. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) described “a little too light in the loafers” to fill the shoes of his predecessor”

- Like a Woman: Another way to suggest that a male politician is sexually attracted to other men is to liken him to a woman. i.e. John McCain McConce called Obama “fussy” and “hysterical,” and in an ad compared him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

- Lifestyle: “The goal of this bait isn’t necessarily to make voters believe the target is gay, only to make them think he possesses negative, stereotypically gay male qualities.” Ex: “When he’s not in San Francisco … Perry’s … flipping through the pages of his Food and Wine magazine … in his fancy … rental mansion.” This bait sticks not just because it is blatantly coded—”San Francisco,” “Food and Wine,” “fancy,”—or because it could also be cross-listed under “weak” and “effeminate” (the ad concludes, “Tell Rick Perry to stop cowering and face Texans like a man”)—but because it refreshes public memory of the already existing, unsubstantiated rumors that Perry is gay.

- All the Single Ladies: “Also known as the sporty/brainy-ladies-with-short-haircuts-and-no-kiddos bait.” The Wall Street Journal decided to announce Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation proceedings alongside a photo of Kagan in her softball-playing days on its front page,

- Unruly Wife: ” This rumor insinuates that a political wife who refuses to allow her ambitions to be overwhelmed by her husband’s—who in this sense acts like a single lady—must be a lesbian. ” i.e. Hillary Clinton

O’Donnell’s gay baiting was, in some ways, even more direct. One group, working on O’Donnell’s behalf, suggested that Castle was “gay” and she herself called Castle ‘unmanly.’ “You know, these are the kind of cheap, underhanded, un-manly tactics that we’ve come to expect from Obama’s favorite Republican, Mike Castle,” said O’Donnell. “You know, I released a statement today, saying Mike this is not a bake-off, get your man-pants on.” For more on O’Donnell’s record of anti-gay rhetoric, click here.

This afternoon, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed cloture on the defense authorization bill, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who had moments before tweeted that he was preparing to speak in opposition to debating the bill, jumped the gun and unintentionally objected to the reading of the motion. Told by the presiding president — Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) of all people — that his objection was “not in order” McCain stood down, only to re-emerge minutes later.

“This is a transparent attempt to win an election,” McCain — who himself knows a thing or two about what it takes to win tough elections — began. He unleashed a fury of complaints, charging that in the last two years, Democrats had politicized the proceedings of the Senate Armed Services Committee, attached extraneous legislation to the defense measure, and eroded the committee’s history of bipartisanship. McCain criticized Democrats for using the defense bill as a vehicle to pass hate crimes legislation and complained that this year’s DREAM Act amendment was similarly out of place.

McCain said that he suspected that Democrats were trying to move to the defense measure to please political constituents ahead of the November elections and fussed that Republicans would not have enough time to debate all their amendments. These concerns sounded bizarre, however, since moments before McCain spoke, Reid said that he would be “willing to work with Senate Republicans on a process that would permit the Senate consider [Republican amendments] and complete this bill as soon as possible.” And, McCain himself had refused to begin the debate earlier. On August 5th, he objected to a unanimous consent request from Armed Services Committee Chairman Cark Levin’s (D-MI) to begin debating the defense measure as soon as the Senate came back from recess (this week, rather than next week). Watch a compilation of these exchanges and Armed Services Committee Chairman Cark Levin’s (D-MI) response to McCain:

Next, McCain moved to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell amendment and appeared to soften his strong support for the policy. McCain still insisted that Congress shouldn’t act before the Pentagon completed its review of the policy and argued that Democrats are ignoring the views of the troops, but said that he was not necessarily opposed to repeal:

MCCAIN: I want to make one thing very clear. I do not oppose or support the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at this time. I do oppose taking legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough review of the law.

Watch McCain on DADT:

Prior to his primary campaign, McCain — who had in years passed argued that he would consider ending the ban on open gay and lesbian service if military leaders like Colin Powell asked him to review the policy — insisted that the policy was working and did not need to be changed. “The policy is one that has worked by the opinion of their commanders,” McCain told the Arizona Daily Star in April. “So by any objective view, our military is the most professional, best equipped, best trained, most highest quality that it’s ever been. That means that its policies are working.”

“So I think, again, when I talk to men and women in the military, they say it’s not broke, it’s not broken, so we don’t need to fix it,” McCain told Greta Van Susteren in February.

Meanwhile, the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld is reporting that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is skeptical that supporters of repeal will have 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster. “The question is whether the Senate leadership can negotiate an agreement with the Republicans that will allow the bill to come up and get them to feel that they can introduce amendments that they want to introduce as well,” Lieberman told The Advocate. “But until that happens, I don’t think the votes are there to break the filibuster, which would be a shame.”

While the Justice Department is still reviewing a California court’s recent decision overturning the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, policy makers are pressuring the department not to appeal the ruling. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Udall (D-CO) have written a letter to the DOJ, arguing that “an appeal of the recent federal court decision could set back those congressional efforts” and the Log Cabin Republicans — the plaintiffs who brought the case — are now asking Judge Phillips to issue an injuction and block the government from enforcing the policy:

Phillips won’t rule on a possible injunction for at least a week, but she has already concluded that don’t ask, don’t tell violates the rights of gays and lesbians and harms military readiness. That’s because it hurts recruiting and leads to the discharge of troops with critical skills. In the past 17 years, the law has led to the dismissal of more than 13,000 service members.

Some gay-rights leaders worry that the judge won’t be able to stop the Pentagon from kicking out even more gays and lesbians — especially if government legal appeals stall any injunction.

The DOJ still refuses to comment on its decision, but if last night’s interview with with Vice President Joe Biden is any indication, the department will likely appeal the ruling, tying it up in litigation for several years. Maddow didin’t specifically ask Biden about the case, but the VP’s adherence to the Congressional process and the existing compromise amendment — which does not repeal the policy until the Spring or prevent the military from discharging more soldiers in the interim — suggests that the administration isn’t willing to take additional steps to revoke the policy. “In other words, everybody’s looking for, in my view, if I could just wave a wand, it would just be flat repeal,” Biden said. “But the truth of the matter is, we had to build a consensus for this. Working very hard on the telephone. Calling people. And everybody’s looking forward to the orderly elimination of this law. I would prefer it not be orderly. I prefer it just end, boom, done. But that’s why that hasn’t happened.

Legal expects disagree on the reach of Phillips’ possible injunction (whether or not it could effect the whole country), but say that “because this is a facial challenge, not just an as-applied challenge,” it could have broad implications beyond the plaintiffs in this one case.