This afternoon, as the House considers the Defense Authorization Bill of 2010, Republicans took to the floor to condemn a single amendment that would repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, which prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. Under the proposal, Congress would repeal the statute this year, but the current military policy would remain in place until President Obama, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal is “consistent with the military’s standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention” and Congress and the public had 60 days to review the study.

In an orchestrated manner, almost every single House Republican took to the floor to condemn the proposal, misrepresenting it as an immediate repeal that does not allow the Defense Department to complete its study. In the midst of considering other amendments, Republicans turned the discussion into an opportunity to condemn gays in the military:

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): “If someone has to be overt about their sexuality, whether it’s in a bunker where they’re confined under fire, then it’s a problem. And that’s what repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell does. It says, ‘I have to be overt, I don’t care. I want this to be a social experiment.”

REP: TODD AKIN (R-MI): “So are we then going to then protect and condone homosexuality in the military?…Is this the sort of thing that George Washington or our founders would be proud of, that we are doing today in this quick flash before Memorial Day?”

REP. TRENT FRANKS (R-AZ): “We’re going to say, ‘No. We don’t care what you say. You can die for us on the battlefield, but you have no input into this process.’ That’s a disgrace to this institution and it’s an insult to the men and women who pour out their blood on foreign battlefields for the country that we all love so much.”

Watch a compilation:

In the Senate, Armed Services Republicans threatened to filibuster the defense authorization bill “if it comes to the floor with Democrat-backed language repealing DADT.” “I’ll do everything in my power,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said. “I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda.” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) agreed, promising to support a filibuster “if the repeal language makes it into the version of the bill that goes to the floor, most likely after the Memorial Day recess.”

A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 75 percent of Americans support ending DADT. A New York Times survey indicated 70 percent support for gay men and lesbians serving openly.

By Jamelle Bouie

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to learn this, but both House and Senate Republicans have proposals on the floor to cut President Obama’s proposed 1.4 percent pay raise for federal civilian workers. House Republicans argue that the raises — which would cost approximately $2 billion in 2011 — are necessary to getting the budget deficit under control. What’s more, this push to eliminate the federal pay raise has picked up steam among conservative stars. Rep. Michelle Bachmann actually introduced the first bill to eliminate Obama’s proposed raise, and Rep. Eric Cantor has picked up the torch. Indeed, if you google “federal pay raises, conservatives” you’ll find quite a few conservatives lambasting the fact that federal employees are paid so much.

Of course, federal workers are only paid “too much” if you fail to take into account the fact they tend to be both more highly educated and have more experience than their private sector counterparts. When you control for both, the private/federal pay differential makes perfect sense.

It’s worth saying that in my marginally more favorable perfect world, federal employees — particularly those in regulatory positions — would receive significant pay increases. In the battle between regulators and the regulated, the latter have the distinct advantage of being able to offer a lot of money. In the finance sector especially, the pay differential is so huge that it makes little sense for someone with a head for finance to work in government. Which, as we’ve seen, is a real problem. Of course, the federal government will never be able to match the private sector in terms of compensation. But it’s possible that more pay could lure some of those kids away from Wall Street, and into the welcoming arms of Uncle Sam.

Yesterday, Newt Gingrich delivered a lecture in Davenport, Iowa’s John Deer Auditorium to push his new book, To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine. In light of the devastation wrought by the BP oil spill, which surpassed Exxon Valdez today as the worst in history, TP asked Gingrich whether it’s time to reevaluate his support for increasing offshore drilling. (The Obama administration has announced a temporary moratorium on granting new drilling permits.) Gingrich, the brains behind the “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” campaign, continued to push for opening California and the East Coast to offshore drilling:

GINGRICH: I think most Americans realize that in the long run we need the oil.

TP: We do?

GINGRICH: So that we’re not dependent on –

TP: Do you think California and the East Coast are going to be off the table?

GINGRICH: No.

TP: Or do you think that’s an option?

GINGRICH: I don’t think so because I think that there was a specific mistake made. I think it can be fixed. It’s the first oil well big problem in American since 1969. So I think when people put it in perspective it’ll be fine.

Watch the video:

Gingrich’s refusal to take drilling off of California and the East Coast off the table is a move that places the former House Speaker in opposition to prominent figures on the right including Gov. Schwarzenegger and Gov. Crist who have declared their opposition to offshore drilling.

Gingrich’s eagerness to downplay the ramifications of the spill should come as no surprise to those who have been following his career closely. In February, Edelman representative André Carter confirmed that American Petroleum Institute was “sharing resources, coordinating efforts” with Gingrich’s group, American Solutions for Winning the Future. Indeed, ASWF’s “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign continues as the BP oil rig disaster worsens.

After singing praise of the tea party, ThinkProgress asked Gingrich to comment on the anti-Rand Paul ads that American Future Fund ran in the final days of the Kentucky primary. Gingrich bizarrely appeared to be clueless about the organization, saying “I don’t know who that is” and refusing further comment. Ironically, the event that Gingrich was headling at that very moment was organized by the GOP front group.