In response to a GOP senator’s concern that the repeal of DADT might lead to horrible other things:
Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said that if they began to loosen one restriction, others might unravel, leading to a louche atmosphere brimming with “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art.” Don’t ask, don’t tat.
I have been beyond frustrated with the President’s slow progress on the DADT and other LGBT issues. Frankly, a lot of what he has done is far too “center-right” in its policy tone for me. But that’s a different blog entry. For now, all credit is due the President. I believe he has handled a complicated management and policy problem (not to mention political problem) in a way I actually find I work myself. He has lined up as many ducks in a row as he can and has put the Republicans in a very tight place. Republican after republican have stated in the past that they would defer to the military’s opinion on DADT.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in October 2009 that for a reversal of DADT to be successful, there would have to be a “buy-in by the military.”
“They should be included in this,” said Graham. “I am open-minded to what the military may suggest, but I can tell you, I’m not going to make policy based on a campaign rally.”
Former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a November 2007 debate was asked if he looked forward to “a day when gays can serve openly in the military?”
“I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say,” he replied.
In another Republican presidential debate a month later, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joined Romney in insisting that the country needed to hear first from military command.
“I probably would let the military make that decision,” he said, when pressed. “One thing I don’t think you need is a president who’s trying to tell the military how to run the military, other than set broad policy agenda. The Uniform Code of Military Conduct is the best way to handle that and I would leave it to — to those who run the military.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) has insisted, as recently as 2009, that he would “defer in large part to our military leaders on matters of military readiness and code of conduct. This includes the impact changing the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy would have, especially since military leaders note that this issue is fundamentally about military readiness.”
In a 2008 interview, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) defended DADT as a sound military policy by arguing that he had not “sensed that the military is calling for a change.”
Any change to these sorts of comments will again show the blunt bigotry that truly lies behind these men.
I truly don’t believe that this can be done overnight. I think a year is reasonable. My fear was always that the President would not do anything on this at all. It now appears he may have been doing quite a lot. Recently joining in with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is now the former man that held that position; a man who helped to draft this policy: Collin Powell.
So Mr. President, when I’m wrong, I’m wrong. So far on this, I am feeling a lot better. Now about that other stuff…oh, just let well enough alone, Lynch.
I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the President while he was campaigning. My problem with him since then is that he doesn’t appear to be the same person. We as progressives deal in a media environment in which the assumption is that we are a conservative country. This despite much evidence to the contrary. And there is some evidence that the GOP is misreading the public in this way again. Mike Lillis via Andrew Sullivan:
But while Republicans are hoping Brown’s victory foreshadows a GOP landslide, a number of political experts are warning that the country’s restless anxiety — as evidenced not only in Massachusetts, but in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Florida as well — is less a backlash against Democrats in particular than a rebuke of the business-as-usual politics of Capitol Hill in general. Even as unemployment soared and housing markets tanked, voters have watched lawmakers bicker endlessly over a stimulus bill that proved too small and a health reform proposal that remains unfinished. Meanwhile, the banks have bounced back on the wings of a taxpayer bailout, paying out billions of dollars in employee bonuses this month while the jobs crisis outside Wall Street only worsens. In such an environment, some experts caution, incumbents on both sides of the aisle could find themselves surprisingly vulnerable in November.
I have no doubt that he will give a stemwinder of a speech. I’m just not sure what he really stands for anymore. I want to see him fight. He will bring up again a call to end DADT, but we’ve heard this before. He will announce some spending freezes. He is beginning to play more and more on the conservative side of the field. I hope we see a change in this. Not just from the speech, but from his actions.
I’m still bewildered by the Democratic Party’s inability to pass anything progressive or within a fairly centrist Democratic Party agenda. We shouldn’t go Bill Clinton’s way. No small ball. The country needs more.
As an aside, can anyone tell me the last major piece of progressive/liberal legislation that has been passed in the country.
As some of you have been reading my posts over the last few months know, I’ve been pretty harsh with some of the decisions and strategy of the President, particularly on the issues of health care reform and LGBT rights. It hasn’t just been the president that I’ve been critical of, it’s also been the Democratic Party in general.
I had a brief, but very interesting conversation with someone tonight about how the White House has taken on some of these issues. This guy is a smart guy, works at Harvard, and is politically astute. He suggested that things would turn out fine, that the politics of the moment meant that a very strategic president needed to reach these goals differently and with patience.
Pretty standard argument. These are hard things to do, the right will eat him up, one step at a time. Not an argument that I am prone to buy into anymore. But one thing he said did really strike me.
It’s no secret that the LGBT movement and its fight for rights does not do as well politically among people of color as it should be doing. Though I don’t buy into the Prop 8 myth that blacks caused us to lose, I do believe that we have not built the bridges that we need to build. So his point was basically this:
How does it look when white gay leaders and activists are among the most vocal critics of the first African-American president in US history?
Doesn’t it feed into an already difficult relationship? And does it mean that we can not criticize Mr. Obama?
I think it would be very difficult for anyone to deny that many of the right-wing attacks against the president and his place of birth and socialism and all the rest, does not have, in some form, a racist tone. There is a strong cord of racism in this country and in particular going back to the Palin rallies, racist attacks against President Obama.
So, I want to be more aware of how I frame my critique of the White House. I don’t want to ignore what I think are problems. But let me be more clear about what I think the genesis of many of those strategy errors are. The Democrats, including the White House, are allowing the right wing to frame every debate.
Our policy prescriptions are good ones, but we start out by being defensive about how the Republican Party will attack them. We don’t fight for our own beliefs. We have bought into the notion that progressive ideas are radical ideas. Where in reality, they are popular and workable ideas.
So, where my focus will be is in trying to get the Democrats to fight from a position of strength, to be willing to lose with your best ideas, and not water everything down out of fear of what a minority, regional party may say.
The truth is, they are willing to say anything. We should be willing to say the truth and fight for our own ideals.
Secretary Robert Gates
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trying to figure out how to make DADT more humane until the democratic leadership in Congress gets around to changing the law. But here is what really frustrated me in the story:
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff and others have cautioned that repeal of the law must be done carefully so as not to disrupt military cohesion in wartime or to place an additional burden on an already overstretched uniformed force.
Gee. We wouldn´t want to burden you by dying for our country or anything. Perhaps what really burdened the military was the illegal invasion of another country on false grounds (later proved to be active lies) and all the subsequent cycle into a country of torture, occupation, and war crimes. All of that, we are told, is also to burdensome for us to investigate and dwell in the past.
Why did we elect these leaders?
Zzzzz
I was out for most of the day running errands and getting ready for my trip to San Francisco tomorrow and enjoying another (really hot) day in Madrid. It was wonderful. I signed the lease for my new apartment, which is located a stone’s throw from the Royal Palace (the biggest in Europe – the Palace, not my apartment) and came home to walk the dog and clean the house.
I quickly fired up the ol’ Mac and took a swing around the intertubes and I gotta tell ya, sometimes you just need to take a break. In fifteen minutes I read:
Had enough? I’m going for a walk and taking a break. Sometimes you just have to disconnect.
See you from SF.
The president’s memorandum was pretty weak soup after a week of heated criticism of his administration’s language in their DOMA brief. As stated earlier in this blog, Harry Reid basically passed the buck on DOMA to the president and he has passed it back. The actual memorandum is arguably not permanent and arguably doesn’t extend new options for federal agencies.
I am happy for those that may have gotten something new today. It is always good when some rights are extended. However, it seemed to me to be as little as possible. He is not the “fierce advocate” of the campaign and this is thoroughly designed to placate an angry LGBT community. Unfortunately, many are already saying how great this is, happy for any recognition at all. It was disappointing to see some of our gay leaders there to give the president cover and help him cool down the PINK FIRE.
We’ve waited too long. We’ve been patient. We are not beggars. And the community must keep up the pressure. At least he responded a little bit.
Time for more, Mr. President.
Apparently the president is putting together a rush job of a presidential memorandum (note: not and executive order) to extend benefits to partners of federal employees. There will be a speech made live at a time that the networks will not cover. The White House admits that this is a rush job to quell the PINK FIRE that is spreading as a result of his Justice Department´s DOMA brief. He will certainly try to talk his way out of the anger being expressed broadly by the community.
A few things to remember and take note of:
This just isn´t going to satisfy anyone. Where is our fierce advocate?
I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding
promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers
and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class
citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that
together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.
Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate
discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that
prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending
protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate,
I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide
benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of
my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and
a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full
equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best
way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not
stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and
lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal
only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not
discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I
have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting
American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as
married couples in our immigration system.
The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention,
we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be
part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex
education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to
combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle
exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local
governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia
– that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to
evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president.
That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues
is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning
broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination
in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well
as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of
inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked
about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have
been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT
activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin
Luther King once preached.
Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise
on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to
the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward
together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.
Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible.
I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this
country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit.
Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all
Americans, gay and straight alike.
Emphasis added by the Queen.
Barack Obama
As I said yesterday, I got a lot of feedback about my call for the DNC gay event boycott and a lot of push back on some of my other ideas about national organizations. Today, I spent the day reading and not writing. I wanted to hear what people had to say about this issue without injecting myself into it much more.
The take away is that there are a lot of angry people. The response about the DOMA brief is one of the most significant moments of anger against the Democratic Party that I have seen in my life. Cleve Jones has called for a March on Washington. David Mixner, Andy Towle, Americablog and I have called for a halt on funding DNC LGBT activity.
But everyone is talking. I think that is healthy. We all have a point of view and a way to respond with our frustration. Rhetoric can get heated. I count myself lucky to have so many good friends in the fight with me. I do not always agree with them, and I won’t always support their ideas, nor them, mine. But I do want the focus to remain on the president’s failing at this moment in history, not the fight on process among us.
I’ve been getting several emails from well-connected people, for whom I have respect, that are sharing with me their feelings that people are getting a bit out of control with their anger with the Obama Administration. It’s just not the way things are done. We need to work within the system. And I understand their feelings. I have been getting much broader feedback about how angry people are. They are sharing stories of betrayal and shock. It is not just that nothing has moved forward on LGBT issues yet. It’s the lack of coordination, the insulting official responses, and the “just wait, we’ll get to it,” replies that have every one in a dither. I’ve been told that the key groups really know what they are doing. This in particular I find hard to believe. It is not a secret that their are many primary national and local organizations for whom I have little respect. I just don’t know what is happening with all that money or what we have to show for it. I’ve run an LGBT organization in a major city, and we were hard pressed for cash all the time. And we had other problems. The truth is that the general public doesn’t understand their non-profits or how their accounting works or how program dollars are used. I’ll write about this when I’m a bit more rested up. 
But let me clear, I don’t want to call for groups to be ignored. I’ve been attacking the Democratic Party. Why do LGBT Democrats feel such a responsibility to protect the Democrats that are hurting us? We criticize the far right for blind loyalty to the Republican party no matter what they do or say. Are we the same? We do have options. One option I’ve suggested is give your money to LGBT orgs or to candidates who have actually done something. Make them earn your money. Just don’t go to a DNC LGBT fundraiser the week after you’ve been called incestial. Jesus, why don’t we just say we bumped into the door instead of tell the truth about the beating we just took before we went to the party. Some of us may lose our invites to those VIP parties with the Democratic Party big wigs, but you know, all I ever go was a picture anyway. And I’ve met most of the big national, state, and city big cats. Hold on to your bucks one time. It’ll feel good. I don’t want to wait anymore to change how Washington works. We’ve been doing that since before Clinton, and look how that turned out. What I know now, is Washington doesn’t work for me.
© 2010 Thom Lynch Blog · Proudly powered by WordPress & Green Park 2 by Cordobo.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional | Valid CSS 3
