What high-profile policy change has the support of 75 percent of the American public, and could be implemented by changing a very few simple statutes at essentially no cost to the American taxpayer?
That would be a repeal of Public Law 103-160, the 1993 measure more commonly known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which prohibits openly gay persons from serving in the United States military.
Public sentiment on DADT has shifted dramatically since 1993. A May, 1993 poll by ABC News and the Washington Post showed that 44 percent Americans favored allowing homosexuals (their wording) who have publicly disclosed their orientation to serve in the military, as compared with 55 percent opposed. An identical poll taken in July, however, shows 75 percent in favor versus just 22 percent opposed. Other recent polling shows similar results; in May 2007, CNN showed 79 percent of Americas in favor of allowing for openly gay troops to serve to 18 percent opposed, and in March 2007, Newsweek had 63 percent in favor and 28 percent opposed.
What has changed? Well, certainly, America has become more liberal on a variety of issues related to same-sex-attracted individuals. But also our country is now at war, and military recruitment has become more of a problem. Not coincidentally, the number of dismissals under DADT has decreased significantly since 2002 as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ramped up. (It's not OK to be gay -- the army seems to be saying -- unless we actually need you.)
If this were any other issue, it would be the sort of slam-dunk stocking stuffer that a new administration would be looking to implement quickly to bolster its favorability ratings. But of course, DADT is laden with historical significance, precisely because of the way that the Clinton administration mishandled the issue in 1993 and expended a lot of its political capital in the process. A Washington Times report -- as yet unconfirmed by other sources -- suggests that Barack Obama is likely to delay action on the issue until perhaps 2010.
Does Obama have legitimate reason to proceed cautiously? It is hard to know. On the one hand, even if those who still oppose gay servicemembers are in a small minority, sometimes the minority is much more vocal than the majority. Going after a DADT repeal would surely pique the interest of the Radio Republicans; they'd attempt to portray Obama both as a liberal boogieman and as a political naïf for making the exact same mistakes that the Clinton administration did.
On the other hand, perhaps this is the sort of fight that Obama should be inviting -- for target-practice if for nothing else. Obama should be fully ready to deploy the patriotism card, e.g. that our best and bravest troops should be allowed the honor of serving our country, and the commonsense card, e.g. that when our forces are stretched thin, we can't be dismissing them for something as frivolous as their sexual orientation.
This is also precisely the sort of issue on which the Radio Republicans are liable to overplay their hand, missing the fact that Americans are capable of finer points of distinction than "Gay People Bad!", and that there is a sizable swing vote that is ready to see gays and lesbians serve in the army, even if they aren't ready to see them get married or adopt babies. Let the Radio Republicans wallow in their own insignificance.
Put differently, if Obama can't get a DADT repeal passed, then good luck with something like universal health insurance, which though also supported by solid majorities of the public, is not at 75 percent support, and will be met with much, much more vigorous resistance from lobbying groups.
11.22.2008
The Ghosts of 1993
@ 5:21 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
194 comments
first?
I don't think it should be a top priority. Too much of a trap, even though it is the right thing to do.
Something like that might force Obama to expend political capital which might be useful for other things.
Still though, its an excellent act of symbolism.
Two Clinton-era travesties deserve to go down decisively: DOMA and DADT. I think that working carefully, not enraging the Neanderthal base, and building broad-coalition type support for repealing cultural war legal homophobia will be a challenge. As you note, the Radio Republicans are looking for shrieking drama. How ironic!
I strongly disagree, Nate. Maybe the wingnuts would overplay their hand, but the very overplaying would make this a big, distracting ruckus.
No Drama, dammit.
In 2009, we do stimulus, we do infrastructure, we do health care, and hopefully climate change and the re-regulation of the financial system.
AFTER all that, let's talk about Net Neutrality (which is dear to my heart), EFCA (ditto), and DADT repeal.
But not until. DADT will fall, but let's do the big, important stuff first.
Universal health care first, then DOMA, then think about DADT.
There are bigger fish to fry, dont waste the good karma on the smaller things.
DADT needs to go, and is going to go, and even McCain spoke quietly in favour of ditching it - but I don't think there's any particular benefit in doing it now rather than in 2010. 'Symbolism' is the right word, considering how many gay and lesbian people there are in the military; the don't ask part is holding up (except when it comes to Arabic-speaking translators...) It's not nearly as urgent as ENDA, nor as constitutionally fucked as DOMA. It will happen, but I'm sure I'm not the only queer who'd rate ENDA, and SCHIP and other health policies, as greater priorities than DADT. It's more a joke of an anomaly than a factor in people's lives...come on, the military is almost as gay a profession as the stage or the priesthood or the Republican party!
2009 will not be 1993 because Obama understands that the real battle is won from away from the cameras, not in front of them. 2009 will not be like 1993 because Obama understands that the pendulum has swung, and that the country is post-Reagan era rather than in Reagan-era's consolidation. But perhaps, the biggest reason why 2009 will not be like 1993 is not Obama- its in the stats you used.
PS
I really enjoyed Nate's interview on Queerty. This is one gay who is crushing on this site.
Well, I personally think it is important, especially with the passing of prop 8 in California(and I am biased, as a queer canuck). However I personally view it as a lightening rod for attention, and should be pushed to maybe 2011, or after re-election.
The economy, infrastructure, and environment are things that need to be right now, as well as the "war on terror". Then address healthcare. I am sure Obama has studied closely Clinton's experience, and if he moves too quickly on DADT, there will be sort of a self fulfilling prophecy from the right, calling it Clinton Redux, with a similar failure.
Another thing to think about is assuring that the Democrats will not lose seats in either houses in 2010. If he has proven to be effective in mitigating the worsening economy, and dealing with various foreign policy and domestic issues, he may be able to push through a repeal of DADT.
DADT has to go, but timing will be key. As Obama has demnstrated many times, he is a master of timing and I will leave it up to him.
My guess...not early, as there are bigger battles to fight. I think the point of discussion here should be when, not if. When will it be easiest, due to more build up of politcal capital or when people are more focused on something else? Or when will either be least politically costly or when it would provide the greatest political benefit?
Let's face it, all that matters early on is the economy - he turns that he has the strength to do anything - he doesn't turn it and he might be a one termer.
Keep your eye on the ball!
It's like shooting fish in a bucket.
Now it will still take some time and there's *tons* of stuff to do. But I would hope he would do it perhaps the later part of 2009, just in case there is blowback it won't affect the midterm election as much as doing it in 2010.
Stay away from divisive social issues for the entire first term!!!
The way to get rid of DOMA, DADT, Prop 8, etc. for good is through control of the federal courts, particularly the SCOTUS. But in order to get liberal justices in place, the Democrats need to hold onto the White House and Senate for at least 8 years. Keep the national dialog focused on economic issues while quietly getting liberal judges in place. That will set the stage for progressive reforms initiated by the judiciary (for which Democrats will pay less of a political price than if they were taken on directly) as well as protections for existing rights.
As far as political capital goes, wouldn't it be better for Obama to lump all the GLBT issues together, so he only has to deal with them once?
I mean, a lot of stuff could be fixed with a single GLBT Civil Rights Act, outlawing all forms of discrimination (including DADT) and requiring states to offer same-sex couples a status equivalent to marriage. The vast majority of Americans would likely support such an act, especially if it was presented in terms of civil rights, instead of as a hot button cultural issue.
Focus on the big things first--economic stimulus, taxes, energy independence, heath care, the environment. In other words, the issues on which he campaigned. I don't recall any Obama commercials or campaign rallies focused on DADT.
Psst, I think with LGBT issues, you can't lump them all together. I am sure with something like marriage, a lot of folk will have the mentality "I am ok with civil unions I don't hate gays, but I don't want gay marriage". So while there is a sizable chunk of people out there, who wouldn't mind gays in the military, some of them, would be against same sex marriage, or same sex adoption, or even gay discrimination(the latter because of it would have impact on organizations such as boy scouts etc).
And walt526 is right, that you need to have a liberal leaning court before addressing head on same sex issues. Because it will probably require a liberal leaningcourt to either safeguard new LGBT legislation or take down anti LGBT legislation.
I agree that DADT is bad policy and should be done away with. However, even though the public at large is by large margins against it, the military isn't representative of the public at large. The recent report from some 100+ admirals and generals shows support from the high brass, but for most in the military, they rarely ever interact with the admirals and generals. In my experience, unfortunately many (enlisted and officer alike) say that being around gays would be uncomfortable for them. The policy needs to be repealed, no doubt, but doing so will not come without some backlash from the ranks. Hopefully any of that would be short lived, but it needs to be taken into account.
You know- I don't mind people having an opinion- but several of the posters here are just plain silly on their face.
No offense.
I mean- what the hell is Walt talking about with regards to the Courts and DADT is beyond me.
You are like such a child in that post. What? What Courts? The magic fairy dust Courts packed with Conservatives? What you really mean is you don't want Obama to deal with any gay issues but that does not quite square with your faux-liberalism.
If anyone can explain in a way that does not make you also look stupid or afraid, I'd appreciate it.
For the record, I agree with Obama's level of caution because it's based on fact. I do not agree with Walt's "throw gays under the bus" post because it's based on Walt not giving a crap about gays other than how he wants to avoid us. Screw you Walt.
I want to be nice here. But it's really hard when people let their opinions turn into blackholes from which no real facts can escape.
The vast bulk of the American people want the repeal of DADT. Obama is smartly saying I want to get the military brass on board too. That is not what you said Walt. You said- do nothing. Again, screw you. And not in the good gay way either.
You are essentially saying that even if its's realistically something that Obama can get done. He shouldn't try. And to that, as a realistic but also someone with a core morality, I say forget that stuff.
I would be deeply disappointed in Obama if he put this of until 2010, as 2010 is an excuse to put it off indefinitely. After all, if you can't do something during your honeymoon, why risk it during an election year? That puts it off until 2011, and then we are already talking about the 2012 election.
If Obama gets re-elected, maybe he can pass it in 2013, but by then we should be out of Iraq, so what's the point? 2014 is another election year, and then Obama is a lame duck.
Guess we would have to elect another Democrat in 2016 to get this passed, meaning the BAD, BAD policy of DADT is 24 years old! Meanwhile, it's been a decade since the UK integrated its military in 1997, making the US and Turkey the only NATO allies who openly discriminate against gays.
If Obama cannot take on DADT with these kinds of numbers, then he is just following the great Democratic tradition of serving as the American Useless Party, unwilling and afraid to do the right thing because it might offend somewhere who had no intention of ever voting for Democrats anyway.
Meanwhile, Republicans can come back to power, impose their radical agenda on the country, unafraid to do what they think is right because of political expediency. If Republicans weren't so evil in their intentions, I would admire their chutzpah.
. . . requiring states to offer same-sex couples a status equivalent to marriage. The vast majority of Americans would likely support such an act, . . . .
I think you are seriously misreading the American electorate, especially red states. Besides, marriage has traditionally been a state issue and even people who may be in favor of civil unions do not want the federal government imposing it.
@walt526:
While I agree with most of your post, I disagree that Democrats will "pay less of a political price" for "progressive reforms initiated by the judiciary." Relaxtion of restrictions on abortion (via Roe v. Wade in 1973) was undertaken primarily by the courts, but was one of the issues regularly hung around liberals necks by conservatives ever since. That is probably because the justices got ahead of the society when they so ruled (although a history of polling on abortion would be useful if anyone could offer it). I'm just saying that, historically, judicial responsibility does not confer political cover.
The policy needs to be repealed, no doubt, but doing so will not come without some backlash from the ranks. Hopefully any of that would be short lived, but it needs to be taken into account.
I agree and this is another reason it should not be forced early on. With some time and effort, the backlash can be minimized. Obama can start the ball rolling by creating some kind of commission to study the issue, composed of military and defense types. They'll inevitably produce a report favoring repeal of DADT. This will allow some time for the military to get used to the inevitable and provide some military cover for repeal. Even if Obama is going to repeal DADT no matter what, there will be less backlash when the opponents have had a fair chance to express their dissent.
@Another Mike:
Well put!
Repeal of DADT should be an absolute priority on that 100 Days list. The political cost is marginal, and what does waiting buy? In security terms DADT is bad policy. Look at DADT cases at the Defense Language Institute. Every time we discharge a gay soldier or sailor with a much needed language skill we endanger hundreds of others. The real issue isn't how the electorate views DADT it seems to be how the services themselves feel. Well, rereading the history of Truman's desegregation of the military it's fortunate that the Prseident didn't let objections -- particularly from the Army override his dseire to accomplish the job.
As Martin Luther King, Jr., said, the right time to do the right thing is always now.
No, the reason to put off repeal of DADT has to do with the safety of gay service members.
Obama needs time to work with the military brass to work out a plan so that the military has policies in place for proper training and non-discrimination. It's not the political fallout that he's worried about - what the Clinton episode revealed is how difficult it is for the military to accomplish something like this. It is not as simple as pulling a switch: there has to be a revision of the current anti-gay military culture put into place so that this can happen with the minimum of incidents. With the support of top brass this is going to happen. This was all reported along with the 2010 timing. It all makes sense - worry not, it will happen, and having a year to make sure he does it right is wise. If you don't trust Obama's political smarts on this sort of thing by now, you haven't been watching.
What concerns me more, however, is DOMA. Obama also promised to end DOMA but there will likely be no peep on that for a long while, and I'm afraid it may be politically impossible in his first term. I hope he can do it sooner, but I wouldn't be shocked if it didn't happen.
Re Marriage
Not sure why my last post was deleted.
Look, stop with the lies.
Marriage is not just a state rights issues or else there would not be 1200 plus rights that acrue at the federal level.
You know- I get it. Many of you don't have a pair of balls from which to have courage about anything.
You want the rest of the world to be as cowardly as you.
That's not going to happen.
@k
Psst, I think with LGBT issues, you can't lump them all together. I am sure with something like marriage, a lot of folk will have the mentality "I am ok with civil unions I don't hate gays, but I don't want gay marriage". So while there is a sizable chunk of people out there, who wouldn't mind gays in the military, some of them, would be against same sex marriage, or same sex adoption, or even gay discrimination(the latter because of it would have impact on organizations such as boy scouts etc).
@Another Mike
I think you are seriously misreading the American electorate, especially red states
Well I wasn't suggesting that the act impose gay marriage, just civil unions equivalent to marriage. I think that marriage-equivalent civil unions, anti-discrimination rules, and open military service are all things supported by healthy majorities of Americans, so I don't see why they shouldn't be bundled together.
Looking at poll numbers... it seems that perhaps 65% of Americans now support civil unions, 75% support open military service, 89% support equal rights in job opportunities... Those are good numbers. It seems to me that hitting these three birds with one stone would be much easier than trying to tackle them all separately.
Maybe it's not a project for the first 100 days of the administration, but it definitely has to happen before 2012!
IT DID NOT COME UP IN CAMPAIGN
I think all of you are missing an important point -- the gays in military issue did NOT come up in the campaign.
President-elect Obama needs to work as hard as possible toward meeting his campaign promises before he starts changing things that he didn't mention need changing.
To pursue the gays in military issue early is just not honest. Actually, it's Bushian.
And, for the record, I favor gays in the military.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Obama does NOT need to be remaking Bill Clinton's mistakes. He needs to start on the ECONOMY, number one when he gets in, then health care, energy, Iraq, etc. Then and only then, when people are satisfied with the job he's doing on the big issues, can he address DADT. Do we want 2010 to become a repeat of 1994? I didn't think so.
Yet another stupid comment by an idiot trying to avoid all issues gay.
So , Presidents are only according to this post address those issues that come up during his campaign?
Really?
Wow, who knew. God, the fear here is amazing. Well, fear or homophobia, and I am starting to lean toward the latter.
I imagine if this were George Wallace in the 1950s and 60s many of you would be endorsing him because that would be the "safe" thing.
I think repealing DADT hinges very much on how "solid" that 75% polling number is. When asked in the relative calm of day when not alot of media attention has been devoted to it (relative to the economy, Iraq, gay marriage), I think most Americans are OK with repealing it. But being OK with it and actually supporting repeal are two different things. And if it is pushed to the front of the line in this economic environment, I think that the support for repealing DADT would melt faster than Harry Reid listening to Joe Lieberman. Once it starts getting debated, I would completely expect that there will be nothing like a 75% number for repealing it.
Personally, I think the first battle on GLBT rights will be to reintroduce and pass ENDA. There will be a quieter effort on DADT, mostly by working with the Pentagon and probably some sort of commission to study the issue and how to make a repeal work for the military. With ENDA passed, and a military that has a plan to follow, DADT can be presented to Congress and voted on, likely in 2010. And I think it will be a very close vote, and it just may be repealed. Just my 3 cents (I found a penny on the floor), as a member of the military back in 1993 when this came up the first time.
And yet another idiotic post
How is it remaking Clinton's mistake when the public supports it?
Yeap, more and more convince it's homophobia amongst the so called left.
Bigotry thy name is so-called progressives.
To answer the cowards and bigots:
"Today, Americans have become more supportive of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent. More than eight in 10 Democrats and more than three-quarters of independents now support the idea, as did nearly two-thirds of self-described conservatives."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/18/ST2008071802580.html
This has been true across multiple polls for most of this decade. It's true across idealogical and social divides. You people are just plain weak and full of it.
When Obama brings this up, Republicans are going to have an ugly choice between standing against their base and their party ideology and standing against 75% of the population. I hope he does keep it for an election year.
Personally, I would much rather see Congress take up ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act), which would protect all gays and lesbians from employment discrimination. This measure also enjoys support from a comfortable majority of Americans, and it is not the "hot button" issue that DADT is, since it does not bring to mind Clinton-administration failures or impinge on the intimacy of the foxhole (or whatever other military-comradeship images might come up). Best of all, passing this legislation would help ALL gay and lesbian citizens, not just those in the military.
ENDA has been kicking around in Congress for years, so it would be easy for the leadership to bring it to the fore this year or next... then it would not necessarily be viewed as an "Obama initiative." All Obama would have to do is not veto it.
GROSS!!! As a gay american who is also an *anti-war* american, I am disgusted with my own community for even bothering with this issue. Let's end military service for everyone! Let's not compete for the right to kill/murder/torture our "enemies."
Put differently, if Obama can't get a DADT repeal passed, then good luck with something like universal health insurance, which though also supported by solid majorities of the public, is not at 75 percent support, and will be met with much, much more vigorous resistance from lobbying groups.
Nate,
I think you're missing an element in this comparison, which is intensity of support. While the intensity of the opposition is probably comparable in these two cases (though from different quarters), the fact is that though comparable percentages may support both actions, much of the support for repealing DADT is at the "in principle" level, whereas the support for Universal Health Care is at the "this directly affects my life."
An situation for comparison is the GOP's use of the immigration issue. They thought it would be a big winner for them, because they could drum up lots of opposition to immigration. But at the ballot box, it largely turned out that the greatest number of anti-immigrant voters were in areas where there weren't a lot of immigrants, so it wasn't an intense enough concern for them to actually vote based on it. In areas were there were more immigrants, and it actually affected people's lives enough to affect their votes, sentiment was much more mixed.
It's actually higher for ENDA. About 85 percent.
zwrite - it came up in McCain's campaigning (he said he wants DADT gone). I'd be surprised if Obama hadn't gone on record about it at all (though Obama only mentions pro-gay policy when he's the only straight person in the room, we know that).
Lincoln didn't sign the emancipation proclamation until Jan 1, 1863.
Wilson didn't sign on to suffrage until Jan 1918.
Truman didn't desegregated the Army until July 29, 1948.
Kennedy didn't send the Civil Rights Act to Congress until June 19, 1963.
I wish policy was divorced from politics, but it's not.
Jesse - I guess you don't live in the South, then. DADT also may be more of an issue for gay women than gay men - shame we can't easily collect statistics on that without repealing DADT first :)
But either way, your anti-war position should not stand in the way of giving other queers the opportunity to serve if they so choose, just as an anti-marriage position shouldn't stand in the way of giving other queers the right to marry if they so choose.
why is this a gay rights issue?
because anything involving gays goes to being about the fact gay people have sex wih the same gender, and people's mind don't move beyond the sex.
That's the reality. It's the same reason why people are against gay marriage. It's about the sex. Their mind's do something like this "well, I don't want to have sex in that way. So, it can't be natural. Plus I got this handy book that although I am misinterpreting, I can claim says that its wrong. Again, although I know there are a lot of sections I ignore personally." that's the nature of the prejudice.
It's something that should get a lot of support but because Republicans are such puritan authoritarian drama queens it can't be done in any sort of showy way. If it comes out early than the R talking point is that with the economy tanking all that Obama can focus on are wedge culture issues (notwithstanding that only focusing on wedge social issues is standard operating procedure for Reps).
Uhm- here's the thing Clarissa. They just tried that. Why is it now going to be sucessful?
I wouldn`t rush with this, deal with our economic problems first. I was in the army and we knew guys were gay but they kept it to themselves.
When this is out in the open it will cause problems with the troops. I`m sure the anti gay jerks will think every gay guy is checking them out.
I would leave thing they way they are right now but let it be known that kicking out gay soldiers is not something we need to be occupying our time with.Eventually gay soldiers would be accepted with no problem.
It's a national security issue.
We have a depleted military, and many qualified people are being kicked out, while others cannot join.
This has been particularly a problem in the intelligence and language divisions - a whole slew of Arabic speaking troops have been kicked out. This is dangerous to the safety of the country.
The notion that DADT didn't come up in the campaign and therefore isn't on the table is just silly. Puppies didn't come up in the campaign either -- does that mean the President shouldn't do right by his kids? Some issues don't have to come up explicitly because CHANGE came up and was the central theme. Either Dems roll the dice and actually try to achieve across the board changes on a host of issues,,,or it's the Clinton years all over again. DADT is such an easy one. Don't want to debate it in Congress? Fine, make it an Executive Order. Do it and be done with it and with all of the important economic issues on the table DADT would be lucky to last through three news cycles.
reelgeist,
Right, so everyone who disagrees with your prioritization of the issue (not necessarily on the merits of the issue itself) is a "coward" or an "idiot," in your opinion. Sorry, that doesn't really merit a response.
Obama should (and apparently will) focus on the core issues that got him elected: economic stabilization, healthcare, and energy independence. Everything else is a peripheral issue.
If you want someone who will make silly distractions the centerpiece of his campaign, then you should have supported Dennis Kucinich.
NOOOOO!
Do healthcare first, PLEASE. Make health insurance available and affordable for everyone; that will affect many more people much more desperately than gays in the military and doing gays in the military would, you may be sure, put the kibosh on healthcare just like it did with Clinton. The polls on that proposition in CA were pro-gay marriage . . . until there was a campaign. Obama was losing to Hillary by 30 points . . . until there was a campaign. Once there's a campaign, these 75% numbers will shift dramatically as people focus on the specifics rather than what the media has presented as goody-two-shoes "tolerance."
I know a lot of Wall Street Republican types at work who are surprisingly welcoming of Obama suddenly ... they're all saying he is their president now, and we need somebody to step up because Bush is being useless.
As much as I support addressing the DADT issue, and as much as I think it could be sold as helping beef up the military when it is stressed, I think it is hard to overstate how much it would turn off people who - while they might support repealing DADT in theory - are considering supporting Obama because he might be able to fix big problems.
One example: a Republican I know said if Obama can fix the economy, he'll be the best president ever and will win his support next time around.
Obama *has* to focus on first things first to build on and lock in his credibility. People will give him DADT without a fight once they see he is serious about the problems they care about.
If it's a statutory issue, why does Obama have to do anything about it? Why can't congress just quietly pass a bill? Is there really any significant congressional opposition to this that would lead to problems?
DADT is such an easy one. Don't want to debate it in Congress? Fine, make it an Executive Order. Do it and be done with it and with all of the important economic issues on the table DADT would be lucky to last through three news cycles.
No, the president cannot unilaterally rewrite the USC. Prior to 1993, an executive order could have overridden the 1981 Defense Department directive. However, once Clinton pushed for it to be decided by Congress and it became a federal law, it would require congressional action to amend the code (or a federal court decision to declare it unconstitutional).
walt
re-read your own post. you are coward because of what you and others are saying here. period.
and in response to by pointing out your cowardice, you respond by changing the subject
I really hate talking to cowards like you. The level dishonesty you use to ignore the image in the mirror is difficult to address.
There is a vast difference between saying Obama should exercise precaution in getting the military aboard with this, and your response- which essentially is that even though he has the public support, and even should he obtain the military support behind the scenes, he should do nothing.
There are really only two choices for such a post- cowardice or homophobia. You decide which you are. I don't care. What it isn't is based on facts.
Equality is only a silly distrcation to a bigot.
If it's a statutory issue, why does Obama have to do anything about it? Why can't congress just quietly pass a bill? Is there really any significant congressional opposition to this that would lead to problems?
There would be significant congressional opposition to revising the statute. Sam Nunn (a Democrat from Georgia) was probably the legislator most responsible for forcing the DADT compromise. It would require a lot of political resources to come up with 60 senators to vote for cloture on the issue, which would be required because the far-right would fight tooth-and-nail to filibuster against it.
I also love the strawmen that if Obama works to achieve the goal as he has said he wants to achieve it on DADT that will somehow means he can't address healthcare, etc.
I see Nate's point now with many of the cowards posting strawmen along this thread.
Hey, come over here, BOO! Now, run away cowards.
There's little reason to think the House won't take up repeal on its own and that repeal won't eventually make its way through both the House and the Senate (where, possibly, the test for Democrats will come if and when a cloture motion vote is required.) When the legislation makes its way to this President's desk, whatever the year, he'll sign it.
The Congressional resistance to this is minimum. Conservative groups yes. Congress no.
Sam Nunn- has since changed his position on the issue because of the change in public sentiment. Look it up rather than just make shit up.
The solution to DOMA is simple...sort of. Somebody with big bucks files suit against a state with a law against gay marriage under separation or church and state. The people who passed the law have provided enough evidence that marriage is not secular.
If you can figure out how to articulate support for your position without resorting to ad hominem attacks, then I'd be happy to discuss this further. But it's rather pointless to argue with someone whose only contribution to the thread seems to be namecalling.
Sam Nunn- has since changed his position on the issue because of the change in public sentiment.
Nunn's also no longer in the Senate. The point of mentioning him was that opposition will come from moderates as well as the far-right, rather than identifying him a specific obstacle.
@reelgeist:
If you want to attack those holding "go-slow" sentiment on DADT on this thread as chickenshite or fearful, go right ahead. But don't call it homophobic. Your cause needs as many adherents as possible, and calling us homophobes isn't going to achieve your goal.
Your point was to spin the Sam Nunn point as Congressional opposition, which is also factually false. Try again. The last remain opposition is more likely the military leadership which Obama correctly wants to address behind the scenes. I have no problem with what Obama is doing. Just the lying that's going on here because none of you liars want to address any gay issues at all.
Walt
I don't need to articulae anything to a coward and a liar. I need only correct your misstatements, lies and exagerations as to what is being said. You are the one arguing that Obama should do nothing. I am the one arguing that I am okay with the approach Obama has described. You are the one claiming he should just let the courts-whatever the hell that means- handle it. You are a coward and liar.
I don't think it should be a top priority. Too much of a trap, even though it is the right thing to do.
Overturning DADT is a political winner. Do it early in the first term, do it quickly. Do not hem and haw and bring in some dickweed like Sam Nunn to Third Way it. Clinton's problem was that he was too mealy mouthed and Third Way about it. Plus it was a long time ago. Will and Grace has been off the air for two years now.
Round up the brass, tell 'em it's coming, and that they can be on the right side of history (not to mention current public sentiment). Make another awesome speech like the Race Speech in Philly, challenging the military to act like professionals and what have you. Then repeal DADT, then move on to more important matters. Obama will be seen as a leader (and for good reason) if he gets in front of this inevitably and by 2012, only the James Dobsons and Kathryn Jean Lopezes will give a rat's ass. And there are plenty of right-leaning people who don't want to be associated with those jackasses. We'd see more supportive columns from Kathleen Parker, George F. Will, and David Brooks and the Jonah Goldbergs of this world would flail away, futilely trying to claim that they aren't part of the "oogedy boogedy" party.
Do it early in the term, do it with surgical speed and efficiency, and double dog anyone not to come along.
As with opposing the disastrous Iraq Invasion, this would be both good politics as well as good policy for Obama.
Poll
They aren't advocating go slow. They advocating do nothing. Obama is advocating go slow, but do something as quickly as possible. The homophobia comes when they do not see this as an issue for which anyone should ever, and I mean ever since I have seen another of these "progressives" express this position- do anything. It's homophobia because if you challenge them about race- would they do the same sort of "go slow." They would instantly start parsing and waxing and bullshitting about "the obvious differences." Its the do nothing types who are basicially lying along this thread as Walt has already done several times.
Um, 75% of the public supports allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in our military. We are fighting 2 wars on two fronts and recruitment is down. He even has support inside the Pentagon. How is this a "danger" issue for Obama?
The Dems suffered the 1994 set-back because Clinton moved right of center in his first 2 years and lost the liberal base (they stayed home in protest). I think Obama's mistake would be to look at these numbers and the support such a move would have and act AGAINST the will of the people and general public opinion by not getting rid of DADT.
If Obama does repeal DADT, the only people railing against it would be the Hannity, Drug-baughs, and Weiners of the radio talk world and they would just end up further isolating themselves from the mainstream of American society.
I wish Progressives would stop being so timid and apologetic. Obama has a mandate to change the way things are done AND he has a true coalition of bipartisan lawmakers and policy people to back him up. Please, let's allow the President to do the RIGHT thing for a change and then support him loudly and proudly when he does.
@reelgeist:
If you want to attack those holding "go-slow" sentiment on DADT on this thread as chickenshite or fearful, go right ahead. But don't call it homophobic. THIS cause needs as many adherents as possible, and calling us homophobes isn't going to achieve OUR goal.
(CAPS for emphasis on changes from previous post.)
I believe we elected the man who could do more than one thing at a time while President. I recall hearing that when someone wanted to put his campaign on hold and solve the economic crisis. Do you remember that?
It's a long list of what he has to do. But his stump speech always talked about empowering "straight and gay" as well as other groups, so it will come soon.
And it will be done because it's morally right and, just as importantly, will drive the Rethuglican base nuts and marginalize them even more.
There could be other considerations -- President Obama may be well-advised to earn the respect of his military (including the top, older brass) before tell him how to do their jobs. If I remember correctly, top brass saw Bill Clinton as presumptuous in barging in on Day One and telling them how to do their jobs. As a result, many in the military never really took him seriously as Commander in Chief.
Given other changes and stuff Barack is going to be asking of our military from a purely -- um, military standpoint, it may be better for him to "earn his stripes" with them before trying to change their culture. One thing we do not want is to institute the end of DADT and then have follow-up story after story after story about how the military is ignoring him, and what's he gonna do about it.
Poll
If you can't call a duck a duck then you should examine yourself, rather than ask me to examine myself. We don't need these 25 percent when we got 75 percent *(some of who are probably homophobes, but still believe in equality). For folks like Walt to exist means that he's at the extreme of oursociety, not me. Since you love calling yourself poll- which is more larger 75 or 25? I once again repeat- Walt and others aren't advocating the now dishonest post you keep making about go slow. They advocating do nothing. Your repeating it is no more impressive than a Republican repeating his or her talking point on CNN or Fox news. Their posts given the context speak for themselves. A la Walt.
I wish Progressives would stop being so timid and apologetic. Obama has a mandate to change the way things are done AND he has a true coalition of bipartisan lawmakers and policy people to back him up. Please, let's allow the President to do the RIGHT thing for a change and then support him loudly and proudly when he does.
Yes, indeedy. And from Obama's political standpoint, it would be an awesome bone to throw to progressives since he's pretty damn centrist, and has so far turned to the Rahm Emmanuels of the party. It would be an easy thing to point to if Obama, say, went NAFTA on us or something.
It is amazing how history does repeat itself. The calls to "go slow" on gay rights are the same calls that MLK Jr. got in the early 50s in regards to Civil Rights. They told him to "go slow. you don't want to seem uppity or force people to do something they arent yet ready to do".
You ever listen to Nina Simone's song "Mississippi Goddamn"?
Let's try to move past the silly namecalling: Name 60 senators who will vote for cloture on the issue, keeping in mind that at the very least Byrd and Nelson will vote against it.
If we pick up the seats in both GA and MN, then it might be possible in to squeak by. But assuming we hold at just 58 (with Byrd and Nelson defecting), which 4+ GOP senators do you think would defy their party on the issue?
The only possible resolution of gay marriage is to make gay marriage illegal. And make het marriage illegal too.
Tyranny of the majority, on either side, and tyranny of the courts, will just lead to hurt, violence, and no reconciliation.
Create a civil partnership, open to any bona fide economic unit, gay, straight, or Shetland pony. Grandparents raising grandchildren. Elderly friends. Two parents two kids. Communes. You name it. Assert that any reference to marriage in national or state statute or rules shall be understood to refer to the new civil partnership.
And leave marriage to churches, each with their own rules.
There could be other considerations -- President Obama may be well-advised to earn the respect of his military (including the top, older brass) before tell him how to do their jobs.
Yeah, or Obama could ask the bigot brass to do the right thing, obey their Commander in Chief, or resign to the wrong side of history. He could sit them down and let them know it's coming, take suggestions on advisement, and proceed with doing the right thing. This isn't so difficult.
thene - you're right that i don't live in the south (though i'm not sure what that has to do with it) - as far as gender goes (also not sure what that has to do with it) i am not a gay man. also, my moms are lesbian so not only am i myself a queer woman but i was raised by queer women!!
i disagree with you that it's about choice. many people in the military are there out of economic coercion, they've been told they will get paid and get job training and get education loans - promises that often end up being patently FALSE. i don't want my fellow LGBTQ people, members of my community, who i love, sent to kill and die because they think that's they're only choice.
also on the choice level - no, i don't wish for people to be allowed to join the military "if they choose to do so" because i see war as immoral. many of the most recent wars we have fought are also *illegal*. so, i don't support the "choice" of joining the military anymore than i support the "choice" of committing murder or torture or war crimes.
and, yes, i have family in the military -- it breaks my heart with pain and worry for them, and rage at the elite politicians who send them away to shed blood for oil and corporate profit. it also breaks my heart to know they may be put in situations where they are complicit with war crimes - such as the torture and abuse at abu ghraib and guantanamo.
so, no, i don't think it's an equivalent "choice" as the choice to get married. getting married doesn't hurt anyone - being in the U.S. military hurts almost everyone.
and my final word on the issue - lest i be misunderstood - i am being purposely provocative, trying to get my community -- the LGBTQ community - to reconsider its political priorities. why not join our progressive allies in the anti-war movement rather than fighting for a piece of the imperialist, violent pie? on some level *of course* i support DADT - because i know that it causes pain and suffering for LGBTQ people who are already IN the military - but no, i do not under any circumstances want MORE people to join, no matter what their sexual orientation is.
Couldn't Obama do this with an Executive Order? He could have a big signing party with the necessary military brass standing behind him as he signs it and have all of the cameras there to record it.
Then let the right wing lunatics cry fowl over that! How will they look criticizing the military brass over this?
Charlie made a good point above...Obama has the political capital to pull those military people into a closed meeting and tell them to get behind it and be a part of history or resist and get left behind. This is especially possible since 75% of the American people support such a move.
@reelgeist:
Sorry if repeating the post offended you, but I felt uncomfortable with the way I called it "YOUR cause" and "YOUR goal" in the first post. The second post was an attempt the change the emphasis to "THIS cause" and "OUR goal". I believe that Another MIke's approach of getting the military on board through appointing a commission is the right way to go on this. I also pointed out that Walt's opinion that judicial decisions would provide political cover was bullshite (see also Abortion, Roe v. Wade).
I don't care how much political capital it expends - DADT has to go, and I hope it's one of the first casualties of the Obama administration. Saying "universal healthcare has to come first" is tantamount to insanity.
The Democrats have the largest mandate they've had since LBJ. Not ditching a piece of legislature as shitty, prejudicial, and unconstitutional as the DADT policy for fear it will use up too much political capital is absurd.
Sorry, Nate, I don't think this is the issue worth spending time or political capital on. Obama is going to have only a precious few months before the Democratic Party starts infighting, as it always does. Given the choice of this issue or universal health care or serious climate change legislation, this just has to wait.
Moreover, America's consciousness is being raised on this issue every year. By 2010 it will be easier. Let the California Supreme Court take the heat for striking down Prop. 8 (which will be the proper judicial decision). Gays in the military just won't be much of an issue after that.
Couldn't Obama do this with an Executive Order?
No. Clinton could have in 1993 (when it was simply an agency policy), but instead he forced Congress to act on it. So now it's codified in the USC. Overturning DADT requires legislative action or federal court intervention.
Presidents who challenge the military aggressively get shot.
So yeah. Barack has a reason to proceed cautiously.
Boring issue. So bloody what. Fix the economy, end the wars, overcome poverty, create new jobs. This is in no way a priority.
Poll
Once again- reread again what I wrote. I didn't say Obama shouldn't get the military aboard. I disagreed with Walt and others point that Obama should do nothing all. In other words, that we should just roll up in a ball and terrified to even look in this direction. Please read. I am not trying to be rude, but if you don't read what I actually write then it's kind of pointless to argue with me. You can yet another poster, Wine Rocks, making the exact same argument. It's not one that grows out of just cowardice or fear. If it were, they would say the same things about race.Yet, if you challenged them, they wouldn't. That's the peg by which you can determine that its actually the gays part that makes them against this. That's homophobia.
I don't agree with the commission. I think others are right that Obama needs to get these people on board behind the scenes. That's been my major problem with Democrats. We used to understand how to do things behind closed doors, and announce it after the deal is made. Not before. Commissions maybe theorectically "good government' but they really just lead to the 25 percent leading the 75 percent.
One of the old tricks with bigots is to keep raising the bar. Now Walt is stating we need sixty to get this done. My grandmother (I am not just gay. I a black) used to say this is how whites who had a problem with race would do it. They would always hide the ball some place else. If you achieved the point they claimed needed to met- then suddently that wasn't the standard at all. I have refuted each of his point, and each time he's increased the standard by which this should happen.
As someone else posted above- much of this is verbatim the language that used to be used with race. You can practically cut and paste it.
Peixte
No- he can't. It will require legislative action. That's why I agree lining up the ducks is the right approach. It's not merely him. Although liars like Walt wills ay we need sixty. Really we just need a majority vote. No one will fight this with the real public support at play. This is a Terri Shiavo kind of issue. It's not like marriage. The American public believes in equality inthe work place if not in marriage. Thus why this is more just about getting the military okay with this. The strategy should be for Obama to convince the military brass rather than follow it. A reason I am against the "commisison" idea.
Last check at 6:44pm shows that Coleman is ahead of Franken on the Minn SoS website by 181 votes. So the Coleman lead has grown from 115 earlier today up to the present 181. Sorry to see this happen. I didn't expect this turn of events.
What the hell would be the point of a Commission? What do they need to "investigate"?
Again, 75% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT TAKING THIS ACTION! I'd love to see Repubs who are up for re-election (especially those like Specter) stand in the way of something like this that has such a high level of public backing. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me though.
Coleman's challenges have also increased. Others may argue, but this is clearly a strategy he's running at this point rather than just random. We are now in more Democratic votes, and suddently his challenges increase?
Fred said:
Universal health care first, then DOMA, then think about DADT.
As Nate noted, repealing DADT is more popular with the public than universal health care. Counterintuitive, I know, but Nate knows how to crunch the numbers.
Even if universal health care turns out to be a no-brainer first project, I still think DADT should be repealed before DOMA: not because it's "more just" that way, but because ... well, hell, you wouldn't deny the right to marry to a returning war hero, wouldja? And still be able to look him in the eye?
(Word verification: subju -- Gonna subjugate bigotry in '09!)
RE: Filibuster
All it takes is one conservative senator to want to derail the issue through a filibuster. At the very least, DeMint will oppose it (he believes that gays shouldn't be allowed to teach in public school!). And then you have the far right nutjobs like Coburn, Inhofe, etc. But all it requires is one senator willing to filibuster to necessitate needing to get 60 votes for cloture.
Not one Senator would fillabuster this if Obama has 75 percent of the public for it, the Congress for it and gets the military brass behind it. You are just making up boogieman's to increase the threshold for it to happen, and, thus moving the ball.
coleman adds 66 votes in one day-
i smell a rat.
at this rate coleman will win by 10,000 votes. he seems to be winning in democratic areas too. how strange. everytime franken gets closer norm the worm slimes back ahead.
I love the characterization: Radio Republican.
Those guys are horrid and need to be called on it - made to be as small as they really are.
It'll be interesting to see how Obama engages those who have been ostracized over the last thirty or more years.
WV:jects - rejects, objects, injects...
Another thing - re: the evolution of the NS persona.
Experienced telly personalities turn so that they are at a slight angle on TV and maybe sit back and relax a bit.
Paul Krugman is notable for not doing this and often looks upset even when he isn't.
Not one Senator would fillabuster this if Obama has 75 percent of the public for it
No, unless they're planning on running for president, most senators don't care about national poll numbers; they're considered about where their state is polling. And nowhere near 50% (much less 75%) of SC or OK voters support liberalization of gays in the military.
RE Military support
I beleive the polls are mixed. Most seem to be basically along the lines of generational and most seems to be along th elines of so what. As I remember its not great, but not horrible. But as in 1993 the point that is often missed is that the military is top down. The brass determines sentiment. No matter what people say. The only real danger would be to the soldier coming out in the wrong unit. But the reality is that a plenty of gays already serve openly. I've dated a guy who was out to his commander,e tc. It's just more of used as a tool for a) greater poltical culture (placating the right and homophobes ) and b) retaliation. etc
WALT
Not interested in debating you any further. As I said, each time you move the ball. One senator can not sustain a fillabuster with this kind of public sentment. That 75 percent includes a lot of concervatives and Republicans as per the link I provided from the Washington Post. Much of this you could google and find out yourself.
I wonder how many of the "top brass" within the Military supported Harry Truman's Executive Order that desegregated the military in 1948?
Folks, why are we so worked up over the timing? It's going to happen in a thoughtful, deliberate, shrewdly strategic way--just the way the campaign was run, ONCE HE HAS BEEN SWORN IN. Sheesh.
I think it is timing. Obama needs to establish himself, and show progress to some pretty good extent. If he can do that, then I think he would have great success with not too much aversion getting it repealed. And the military knows they need it. They are shooting themselves in the foot with this one. They have lost many top notch experts because of this stupid rule.
wv= It's all warative to the situation.
How I long for the day when filibusters actually took place and were occasionally broken,not by a cloture vote but by the filibusterers dropping from exhaustion. (How I loathe the totally inept Harry Reid for always folding and never allowing a filibuster to take place.)
A single senator obviously could not successfully filibuster a DADT bill to death!
@ Opus 132
Yes, a Senate Majority leader with a spine would be nice. Could you imagine Trent Lott or Bill Frist pulling a bill from the floor because Dems threatened to fillibuster?
Assuming all Dems in the Senate are on board, DADT isn't an issue that the GOP can fillabuster. There are two or more GOP Senators who would cross the end debate. Again, the public isn't up in arms about this issue. Any "caution" is aimed at placating military brass -- and that worked out ever so well for Clinton, didn't it. Like Truman, Obama can ask the brass -- but when they hesitate he will need to tell them he intends to do what's right, whether legislatively or otherwise. The real deal is this. There are plenty of almost-openly-gay soldiers and sailors and airmen who have served this country in combat in recent years -- only to be discharged over DADT AFTER returning home. Don't ask the Generals about policy. Ask the other soldiers and sailors who served on the same ship or in the same platoon. Ask the guy who had his life saved by a gay soldier if he would have rather served with a straight soldier. Ask the straight soldier who saved the life of a gay soldier if he regrets his actions. It isn't 1993. This wouldn't be a big deal to vast majority of enlisted persons. Again, after years in the wilderness if the Dems are afraid of shadows and compromising already over the "little" issues we'll never get the big ones.
I don't really care what you are interested in debating, but so long as you continue to make grossly inaccurate statements you should be expected to rebutted.
It is clear from your posts that you are largely ignorant of political realities and Senate procedures. The far-right nutjobs (DeMint, Sessions, Coburn, etc.) will go to any length necessary to prevent liberalization of DADT, including the filibuster. To suggest otherwise betrays a lack of understanding of the most conservative senators.
Fortunately, Obama and Emmanuel do understand the political sensitivities and nuances of these issues. Accordingly, they indicated a deferral on these divisive social issues so as to expedite action on the core issues for which he campaigned. DADT will not be a priority until 2010, while the problematic issue of gay marriage will probably not be taken up until a second term (and possibly not even then). In the meantime, the Democrats can hopefully continue to hold onto control of the White House and Congress, where they'll appoint the progressive judges and justices needed to not only safeguard choice but broaden 14th amendment protections to better protect gay rights on military service and marriage. But that's at least a decade from being realized.
If you want faster action, then you should have supported a true progressive like Kucinich. Of course, had Kucinich won the nomination, McCain would be president-elect. There's a reason why every mainstream Democratic candidate for president (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc) all basically punted on the more liberal social positions instead focusing on foreign policy and economic issues.
Assuming all Dems in the Senate are on board, DADT isn't an issue that the GOP can fillabuster. There are two or more GOP Senators who would cross the end debate.
There are at least two Democratic senators who would vote to sustain the filibuster: Byrd and Nelson. And there are probably a dozen or so in Red States who would not want to cast a vote on it (Landrieu, Lincoln, etc). So we'd need 4 GOP to cross sides (assuming GOP holds onto MN and GA).
Could we come up with 4 GOP votes? Probably, but it would require some arm-twisting, pork, and make it a lot easier for the GOP to hold onto seats that otherwise might be vulnerable in 2010. In other words, it would be costly in terms of political capital for Obama as well as compromise efforts to expand Democratic majorities in Congress in two years. Nearly all of the potentially vulnerable GOP Senate seats in 2010 are in socially conservative states, so forcing a vote on DADT (or worse, gay marriage) just gives the GOP something to rally their base around.
I'd be interested in seeing the proportion of military leaders who favor repealing DADT. If, as I've heard in some places, conservative Christianity is overrepresented in the military leadership, then we can't just point at the repeal's overwhelming popular support and say it'll be easy to effect.
People who demand universal health care first, and DADT repeal later are (whether they know it or not) shoving DADT repeal into the second term. The reason is that health care is a textbook Big Issue, and Big Issues never get decided in one Congress.
The earliest that universal health care will be done is in the next Congress. More likely, after the 2012 election. In any case, it will be a multistage process.
DADT reform, on the other hand, is (no pun) a rifle shot. There's a single regulation here. Sure, there are some operational issues, and there'll be some of the typical hysteria. But even the far right wing so-called "milblogs" seem to be on board with that one. In short, I agree with Nate that it's just not as much of a hot-button issue as it was 15 years ago.
There isn't a lot I will give George W. Bush credit for, but I'll credit him with the following: He's rarely been afraid to push ideas he cared about. The idea that political capital is a fungible, bankable commodity is just wrong. In politics, you go from strength to strength. Victory leads to victory.
This one is a big issue to some people, but a small issue to most. The public in general, and the military specifically, is more ready for this than nervous liberals imagine. Go for it, I say.
On what basis would Byrd vote against cloture? I don't know any factual basis for that.
To assume Harry Reid is going to run the Senate the same way with a strong majority and a Dem president the same way he did with the narrowest of majorities, out of commission Senators (Johnson, then Kennedy), multiple Dem Senators running for President, a Lieberman wild card etc. is frankly the height of political naivete. It's a new Senate, there will be new rules.
Unfortunately, a lot of Dems here (and at Dailt Kos) are clueless about the way politics works.
DADT may be repealed by an act of congress, though Obama could do it be executive fiat. Regardless of when this blatant injustice is finally addressed, gay, bi and lesbian folk will continue to face discrimination in the military because of DOMA and, no doubt, kicked out for purported evidence of "deviant" sexual activity. In this way, the repeal of DADT may be ultimately meaningless as countless number of newly "out" marines, sailors and airmen rouse the suspicions of their homophobic superiors and end up dishonorably discharged. So... will Obama and the Dems secure full civil protection for gays or not?
The Right-wing would LOVE a big fight over hot-button social issues right at the start of Obama's administration to distract everybody from the economy!
Right now, the right-wing is down from having been crushed at the polls. And Obama is in a position to steam-roll them on a host of issues from health-care to the economy.
Over at the Cato Institute they are terrified:
"The GOP strategist . . .suddenly cut out the schtick and got scary serious. "Let me tell you something, if Democrats take the White House and pass a big-government healthcare plan, that's it. Game over. Government will dominate the economy like it does in Europe. Conservatives will spend the rest of their lives trying to turn things around and they will fail."
Noting that "After the Labor Party established the National Health Service after World War II, supposedly conservative workers and low-income people under religious and other influences who tended to support the Conservatives were much more likely to vote for the Labor Party," they noted:
"Passing Obamacare would . . .pull America to the left. Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, . . .puts it succinctly in a recent blog post: "Blocking Obama's health plan is key to the GOP's survival."
But just give them a controversial decision on some red-button social issue to distract America with! That's red-meat to conservatives. It would rally every conservative in America to oppose Obama at every level.
And don't kid yourself that you can do Health Care, Iraq, Energy policy, the Stimulus Package, Economic bailouts for the auto-makers and then also focus on Gays In the Military.
That's wrong because the instant he does this, a HUGE firestorm will erupt in the media that will suck all the attention and focus away from everything else he wants to do!
It's not what percentage of people support this, it's that it cannot be the focus of his first hundred days because of the media attention that will result.
The media would spend ALL their time talking about Gays in the military, and allowing right-wing gas-bags to attack Obama over gays in the military, and bloviate about whether Obama was elected to promote gays in the military, and then interview "ordinary people who oppose gays in the military."
He doesn't need to wait until 2010 though. Probably 2009 would do. He doesn't need Congress, he can achieve everything by an executive decision.
At that point, he will have passed a stimulus package and a health-care initiative and have made some progress towards a sustainable renewable energy plan.
At that point he will have some accomplishments to point to and all the focus won't be on social issues. Conservatives will have their hands full fighting universal health-care and won't be able to mount a full scale attack on gays.
And Obama will be in a better position to shrug off such attacks anyway once he's stabilized the economy and has some accomplishments to his credit.
Obama did NOT campaign on controversial social issues, he just won a mandate to pursue an ambitious ECONOMIC agenda that will require every bit of muscle he has.
Health-care and economic reform and ending the war in Iraq will cement liberal economic policies in place for generations.
And he should instead move the debate over to an issue he didn't campaign on and which America isn't expecting?
That's EXACTLY what destroyed Clinton. He campaigned as a "new Democrat" and then his "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowed conservatives to brand him as "just another liberal."
It certainly helped Newt Gingrich win control of Congress and that was the end of the entire Clinton agenda. He accomplished exactly ZERO progressive policies from there on out.
Obama is much too smart to repeat Clinton's blunder.
Gays in the military will be a small issue. Obama will work toward it in his first few months, get a lot of military support up front for it. It will be a one-day big news story.
We are in a different world today than we were in 1993. This will be no big deal.
YES, HONESTY IS IMPORTANT
How many people on this post favored George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security that he announced the day after the 2004 election?
Remember, Bush said he had the political capital to make the change and, thus, he was going to do it -- even though he didn't bring up the issue during the campaign.
Yea, that's what I thought. ZERO hands.
If Obama proceeds on the gays in military issue, he would be being Bushian. Bushian means dishonest.
And voters will be RIGHT in complaining about this Bushian tactic. As numerous people have said, he should move forward on the bread-and-butter issues that he talked about.
And if he loses the support of people like ReelGeist who don't care about democracy, so be it. People like that have no understanding how much they are hurting their own cause.
Let's fix energy, health care, and education. Obama was specifically asked by Bob Schieffer what his top priorities were and that was his answer.
Others should take the lead on the gays in the military issue -- not Obama.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Today's Minnesota re-count results -Coleman's lead increased 50%,from 120 to 180-is a HUGE disappointment.
Anybody have any details?
On what basis would Byrd vote against cloture? I don't know any factual basis for that.
Byrd was a very vocal opponent of allowing gays to serve in 1993 and has continued to be one of the most anti-gay Democratic senators: for example, he voted for cloture on FMA a few years back. Last September, he abruptly ended an appropriations committee hearing when Harkin (D-IA) started questioning General Pace on DADT because he didn't want to revisit the issue.
Blanche Lincoln (R-AR) would probably vote for cloture it her vote were decisive as a matter of conscience, but supporting it would make her re-election effort in 2010 very difficult. Blue Dog Democrats (in both the House and Senate) don't want to hand an issue like this to their opponents on a silver plate.
Obama is clearly on record saying he will repeal DADT.
If this were such a huge issues, McCain and the GOP would have made an issue of it during the campaign.
Let's see a show of hands about how many ads we saw from them on it?
That's right, zero.
If there were mileage in it, they would have brought it out.
They didn't.
End of story.
Obama will implement it in an orderly way, with the military on board. It won't be some 1/21 announcement making it look like the centerpiece of his administration.
I am 100% convinced that this will be in-place policy by 2010, and 95% convinced that this will disappear quickly as an issue.
Cugel, Walt and Etc
This is a site based on numbers. Not your gut which is probably more based on you views about gays, not the way the American public feels. I like how you keep ignoring the numbers in favor of your pet beliefs. That's why ultimately the back and forth with you is a waste of time. if our side brings numbers, facts and where people actually are, and all you can do is must silly arguments like about privatizing social security- we are never going to be talking to each other. The reason why is you are point blanking lying with the choice of the analogies, non facts and moving the ball. Lying is not something I care to debate. Honeslty, privatization fo social security? Are you people kidding me with this? Are you seriously that homophobic that you are compare something with no support in the public with something that is supported by 75 percent. It's funny how logic goes out of the window when dealing with bigotry. Most of you are perfectly reasonable when its not something for which your own prejudices come into play. ALl ofyour posts are essentialy you saying "I don't want to deal with this issue because this is how I FEEL ABOUT GAYS." Not what the public has said. KNow nothingism indeed. Let me repeat- you can't beat the numbers with your gut. I don't care about your gut anymore than I care about a flat earth debater arguing the earth is flat.
I don't think any rational person can deny the following:
1. A media firestorm would certainly erupt. Regardless of how many people support or oppose the policy, the media would concentrate on this to the exclusion of all else.
Economic policy may be 1 million times more important, but it's BORING!
Having raving right-wing pundits talking about how Obama "betrayed his pledge to bi-partisanship" and now the Republican party had to rally to defeat Obama's agenda, would be a wonderful food-fight for them.
All the bloviating pundits on the talk-shows would shake their heads.
In short it would be a media relations disaster of epic proportions.
2. Right now the Republican base and Congressional Republicans are trying to put a brave face on their demands that Obama "move towards the middle" but in reality, Obama has the bully pulpit and can destroy them if they really try to filibuster health care or the stimulus package or an economic bailout or his energy policy.
He can go on national TV and accuse them of "obstructionism." And in this economic crisis, Republicans will be between a rock and a hard place. The right will be demanding they stand firm against "socialism," but they know Obama just won the election and the overwhelming majority will be with him. Their party will pay a heavy price if they try and block health-care reform.
Yet, if it passes, they are totally destroyed.
3. But, Obama did NOT campaign on any hot-button social issues. He said virtually NOTHING about gays in the military.
If he wanted to do this, then he should have said something about during the campaign! That would have prepared people for such an action, and he could say he's fulfilling a campaign pledge.
Right now, it would be coming out of left-field. He needs some solid accomplishments first on the economy, jobs, health-care and energy policy (all achievable in his first year) before he can take on any divisive social issues.
I also am tired of the strawman posts about it must be day one. That's not even the damn point. That's an attempt to make obama into Clinton. Obama is smarter than clinton. And apparently less petty which is a surprise even to me.
Cugel- I dont think you speak for "rationality" here. You speak for your emotions. You need to learn the difference between the two. When can bring numbers to a site based on numbers for why you are right- let's talk. Otherwise, stop wasting our time with these "Cugel's gut says" posts. We get it. Your gut is a coward. The rest of us are just not willing to buy into it when all facts that we actually have are to the contrary. The false strawman about the first 100 days being yet another example of manipulation. Now, the press will stop it. Right, okay, whatever.
"To assume Harry Reid is going to run the Senate the same way with a strong majority and a Dem president the same way he did with the narrowest of majorities, out of commission Senators (Johnson, then Kennedy), multiple Dem Senators running for President, a Lieberman wild card etc. is frankly the height of political naivete."
Eunuchs can grow a set?
For what it's worth, I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't see anything substantively wrong with Walt's first "controversial" post. The Supreme Court only hears around 200 cases per year. The real precedent is set in the Circuit courts, which tend to be disproportionately packed with conservative appointees.
Obama and the Dem Senate need to create new appointments to tilt the balance back, in addition to the attrition that will take place from conservative justices retiring or passing on.
As for the Supreme Court, my guess is that John Paul Stevens retires within the next two terms, while 5 other justices are at least 69 years old. That kind of turnover is methodical, but ultimately how you create long-lasting judicial and social policy.
reelgeist -- It is NOT about "numbers" or how many people support or oppose the policy -- it's all about the media. That's all.
If the media could be counted on to treat this for exactly what it is, not a terribly big deal that doesn't deserve endless weeks of firestorm controversy attention, then fine!
Obama could make the announcement. It would be a 1 or 2 day event and everybody could get back to health-care. He could say, it's time to get this done, now lets' talk about the stimulus package.
But you know that's NOT what would happen!
The publicity on this would be about 1000 times greater than anything else. The media would literally discuss NOTHING else for weeks and even months. It would color the entire transition period. There would be endless controversy and NO attention would be paid to anything else Obama wanted to do.
It would, as I said, suck all the oxygen out of the room.
Obama would go on national TV wanting to talk about the economy and put pressure on wavering Republican legislators to pass a stimulus package . . . and have to answer 20 questions all about gays in the military.
The media wouldn't want to hear about health care, the economy or anything else. It would be ALL gays in the military, all the time!
And THAT is not something Obama can afford! NOT if he wants to get anything done in his first term.
Once he passes health-care fine. The media can have their field day. But NOT before.
Just as the Cato Institute fears, we're in a position right now to destroy the right-wing in America for the next 50 years. A LOT more than gays in the military will pass.
But ONLY if certain basic things are done first.
Cugel - Obama's stated and totally unnuanced position what that he would end DADT. The reason it wasn't brought out more because IT ISN'T A BIG ISSUE - very few people care.
There will be zero media firestorm - there is no rational basis to claim there will be. Will the radio fringe go nuts for a few days? Sure. But that will be that.
If this were controversial, once again, it would have been used against Obama in the election. It wasn't. He position was clear- elect me president, DADT is over. And the GOP NEVER raised it. NOT ONCE.
What more proof do you need?
A media firestorm would certainly erupt.
Meh, but only in support of Obama. The media may not be really be liberal, but they don't want to be on the wrong side of history. If Obama insists on moving on after repealing DADT, then only the increasingly irrelevant Fox News will go firestorm.
It's pretty laughable that you're trying to call out the political pragmatists/realists here for being "emotional" when essentially your entire argument has been a series of ad hominem attacks.
The previous comment dozens of comments back about a federal GLBT civil rights bill is a great idea. Unfortunately the passage of a variety of ballot initiatives in this election and in the past few years clearly demonstrate that broad GLBT rights (marriage, anti-discrimination laws, adoption rights, etc...) are anathema to a large swath of this country. This reality makes it all the more important for remedial federal legislation. Such a law will obviously not put an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but it will definitely get us on the road to eliminating this form of discrimination. If we allow a few more election cycles at the pace we're at gays will be true second-class citizens in a number of states.
While this GLBT civil rights bill will certainly be unpopular in certain corners of this country, this is nothing new. Title VII (aka the Civil Rights Act of 1963) was not surprisingly immensely unpopular in many parts of the south. This statement from Richard Russel a senator from Georgia on the senate floor in 1964 demonstrates this mood: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
As far as the Congressional power to pass this GLBT civil rights legislation, it is clearly rooted in the Commerce Claus because anti-gay or non-protective legislation does clearly affect interstate commerce (how many out of state gay couples went to CA, MA, and now CT when marriage became legal there but was not in their home state) and it would be constitutional for Congress to legislate in this area. Although the Rehnquist Court did do a number on some of the more broad interpretations of the commerce clause, Justice Kennedy has shown himself to be pretty progressive when it comes to gay rights issues (Lawrence v. Texas). With Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter any GLBT civil rights bill should be safe.
Will such a bill make be popular in more conservative parts of America? obviously not. But desegregation wasn't popular either in many parts of the country.
BTW after a solid two months of obsessive reading of this amazing blog, this is my first comment.
By the way, our troops are fighting two wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - integrated with openly gay soldiers from the UK, Canada and many other countries.
I have yet to hear one word of protest or complaint about this.
It is accepted practice. It works.
DADT may be repealed by an act of congress, though Obama could do it be executive fiat.
No he can't. DADT is required by federal law.
The Right-wing would LOVE a big fight over hot-button social issues right at the start of Obama's administration to distract everybody from the economy!
Other way around. The economy is so bad that not too many people are going to give a shit about DADT one way or the other.
the instant he does this, a HUGE firestorm will erupt in the media that will suck all the attention and focus away from everything else he wants to do
That's what happened in 1993, but this is not 1993. Unlike Clinton, Obama won an unambiguous majority. Unlike 1993, the economy is in scary condition. No one's going to pay a lot of attention to DADT repeal, given that most people support repealing it to begin with. You really need to quit being afraid of your own shadow for a change.
Let's fix energy, health care, and education. Obama was specifically asked by Bob Schieffer what his top priorities were and that was his answer.
No one is going to "fix" those in our lifetime, if ever. They are neverending tasks. By demanding "fixes" for those things before taking up DADT, you are essentially saying the DADT should stay as is.
But, Obama did NOT campaign on any hot-button social issues. He said virtually NOTHING about gays in the military.
You're wrong about that. In fact, Obama repeatedly promised to get rid of DADT. The fact that you didn't listen to him (probably because you agree with the policy) doesn't mean he didn't make this promise.
Cugel- I dont think you speak for "rationality" here. You speak for your emotions
Cugel is fighting the last war. He doesn't realize that the country has changed since 1993; that Obama was elected with an unambiguous majority; that the country is ready for changes of all kinds; that most people, including in the military, are ready for the change; that very few people want to argue about this issue.
Cugel is desperately afraid of Rush Limbaugh. Either that, or Cugel IS Rush Limbaugh.
this is one of the biggest problems obama will face. not the DADT, per se, its that everyone has their passion that they want "the saviour" obama to solve. he won't be everything to everyone, and since expectations of him are so high he will fail in most of your eyes. i believe this is a very important civil rights issue, but that being said, what would a poll asking the same people "what is the most pressing issue that you want obama to address first" indicate? i imagine dropping DADT would not even reach the 10% mark in such a poll.
again this needs to be addressed, but is it the single most important issue on the table in front of obama's administration?
Grinder
Yes, I notice there are these people who like Cugel seem completely out of touch with where this country is. It's kind of sad that they they what is essentially a conservative extreme position is as Walt puts it "pragmatic." I am begining to realize that Nate maybe right. If someone is seriously going to argue they can't get something done with 75 percent support, then there is little hope on anything that is truly going to be a dog fight like healthcare reform. It's funny also how they confuse their fears with pragmatism. The pragmatic position is to work the crowd to get what you want. Not run away scream in the dark over what you fear.
EIN
Welcome to a society of 300 million people. I know its a surprise that we aren't all just following whatever the nervous nellies here are afraid will happen just because they point out tha they are afraid of it. Some of us (SHOCKER) have actually started to think in terms of getting shit done rather than the GOP boogieman of yester year. Oh, watch out- KARL ROVE. Run. Run for your lives Cugel and Walt. He's gonna gitcha.
"Charlie said...
A media firestorm would certainly erupt.
Meh, but only in support of Obama. The media may not be really be liberal, but they don't want to be on the wrong side of history. If Obama insists on moving on after repealing DADT, then only the increasingly irrelevant Fox News will go firestorm."
Personally, I think Obama should and will do this in his first term, but he sure as hell shouldn't and won't do it the first year.
All I can say Charlie is that you haven't been paying much attention if you think there'll be no media firestorm.
How spurious was all the Rev. Wright crap? And how long did the media fire-storm about THAT last?
What was that really all about anyway?
It was complete and total B.S. and a manufactured crisis! Who gives a damn what Obama's former pastor said? What's that got to do with anything real?
Unfortunately, that's just the way it plays on MSNBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, CNN etc.
They had to go on about it for weeks!
Take a look at the lineups that are on every single week on the talk shows: virtually ALL conservatives! What would they all be saying about this?
Forget Hannity, just imagine what establishment blowhards like David Brooks would be saying.
Anyone who thinks the media wouldn't LOVE a total diversion from talking about "boring" topics like health-care and the economy and divert total attention to something like "Gays in the military, is this only the first step for the Obama administration? Let's hear from our panelists drawn from the usual right-wing suspects" is just fooling himself.
The most important issues the new President has to face are the tanking economy, the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the inadequate American health care system. Obama cannot do everything, and it is wrong to expect him to. Please work on the other issues yourselves and allow him to focus on the three most important ones.
May I just point out that Clinton's decision did not estabish the ban on gay people from serving. On the contrary, it told the services to stop asking about people unless they volunteered the information. I won't defend how the military chose to respond to that even mild loosening of restrictions on gay servicemembers. Go back to the newspapers of 1993--you would have thought Clinton was ordering gay orgies in the barracks. DADT wasn't the problem; it was an opening of a door.
Cugel, quit being such a whining, scared little chickenshit. Look, Obama just survived an election campaign in which he was called every fuckin' name in the book. And now you are worried about what FauxNews is going to say? Holy shit, what a tender soul you must have.
RE: "pragmatic"
Talk about strawman.
I used the word "pragmatic" to differentiate between hardline conservatives like McConnell and Cornyn who can be reasoned with on procedural issues, versus the nutjobs that will obstruct anything and everything that the Democrats put forward. Coburn, DeMint, etc. The latter are the guys who would filibuster until their dying breath on DADT. McConnell is conservative and would vote against cloture, but he probably wouldn't personally organize or carry out the filibuster.
The most important issues the new President has to face are the tanking economy, the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the inadequate American health care system. Obama cannot do everything, and it is wrong to expect him to. Please work on the other issues yourselves and allow him to focus on the three most important ones.
You seem to think that they can't do more than one thing at a time. I have news for you. This is a big country, and the federal government accounts for about a quarter of the economy.
There are millions of federal employees, including tens of thousands in the White House and Congress. Reforming DADT is a simple issue. This can be handled with a simple piece of legislation and a few interservice task forces to work out the details.
Face it: Your objection has nothing to do with priorities. It's either, a) that you agree with the policy and want to see it continued, or b) you are a scared, whining little mouse who is still scared of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
I think DADT has been sentenced to death. I believe Obama team has already laid the groundwork for this one. I think it'll be dead quicker than a lot of other chimp filth.(I know, it's Willies)
"Either that, or Cugel IS Rush Limbaugh."
LOL! THAT was worth the price of admission!
I'm a LOT thinner and more handsome than Rush and I'm not addicted to Oxycotin! Will that do for a start?
I see nothing wrong with gays in the military or anywhere else.
My father on the other hand rants about it. He was in the Navy in WWII and can't stand the idea of "queers" in the service.
He didn't take it too well when my sister came out!
No, it's not 1993, but NO American hasn't changed all that much on social issues as California proved. What rational reason is there after all to care if gays get married?
Frankly, that doesn't matter. It will certainly be possible for Obama to change military policy by changing the military code of justice.
But, watch and see. It's NOT going to happen in his first year.
Anybody care to make a bet on that?
All I can say is I would not have want any of you whiny little bitches around in a fight. I certainly hope they ignore your chicken asses when it comes to the bigger fights. Because you can be damn sure you will be doing a higher decibel whine then. Whimps. Damn I thought all the battered wife syndrome victims were starting to get with the program. You can all your whining pragmatic, "new coke" or whatever. It's still cowardice.
California proved that 48% of the population of the largest state approved of gay marriage, despite a lying campaign that said that it would lead to it being taught in schools and forced into churches.
Things haven't changed? Ridiculous - 48% OF CALIFORNIANS APPROVED OF THIS. And the next vote, likely in 2010, will overturn the ban if the state court doesn't do so first.
Things have changed amazingly fast on gay issues. In 1993 I doubt that more than 20% of Californians would have voted yes.
The only firestorm over this issue would be if Obama does not work to overturn DADT - that would be a crisis for him and his supporters.
Oh, and Obama will begin the process to get it changed within the first 90 days of his administration. It will be some sort of panel to recommend how it is implemented. It will be an orderly process, and paralleling Congressional efforts.
No, it's not 1993, but NO American hasn't changed all that much on social issues as California proved. What rational reason is there after all to care if gays get married?
California proved that America hasn't changed? Are you fuckin' crazy? In 2000, gay marriage lost in CA by 62%-38%. In 2008, it lost by 52%-48%. That's a 20-point improvement in eight years.
Oh, and in 2008, even the opponents of marriage went out of their way to assure everyone that they weren't anti-gay and that they favored civil unions. And you say there hasn't been substantial change? What planet are you living on, anyway?
It will certainly be possible for Obama to change military policy by changing the military code of justice.
The change will require an act of Congress, which will entail legislative horsetrading. Therefore, unlike in 1993, it can't be done by a simple executive order. But the idea that Obama has to fix every other problem facing the country before he can touch this one is flatly absurd and cowardly.
California proved that America hasn't changed? Are you fuckin' crazy? In 2000, gay marriage lost in CA by 62%-38%. In 2008, it lost by 52%-48%. That's a 20-point improvement in eight years.
No, that's 10 point improvement, not 20 points. And CA is quite a bit left of center compared to most states (including all the key swing states), and there still isn't majority support for gay marriage.
Actually a couple polls taken since the election out here show that enough yes on 8 voters have changed their minds that already it would lose if revoted.
And we aren't talking gay marriage anyway - we're talking gays in the military.
By the time this gets to Congress I wouldn't be surprised if John McCain isn't supporting repeal of DADT. It's yesterday's news.
And if it becomes a Limbaugh/Fox firestorm - great. Takes their eyes off of health care reform.
The problem with Nate's analysis of DADT is that public sentiments are not necessarily the sentiments of a crucial subgroup: the military.
Even if the public massively agrees that gays should be able to serve openly in the military, military personnel may not. Now, I agree with most of the public on this one. But I also think it would be extremely unwise for Obama to push this issue early in his presidency. Those in the services should be sounded out, heard, and prepared before Obama proposes any action.
Bill Clinton suffered a tremendous hit when he started dealing with issues that he didn't run on. I know times are different today in some respects. And I know it's difficult for a group to wait longer for rights that they should have had all along. But in the interests of securing the long term good for all involved, I think this issue should be tackled later on.
@reelgeist-
you do realize your rhetoric isn't exactly persuasive. this "i am right, you are wrong" black and white way to look at things is very Rovian, if you ask me:)
i do appreciate your passion on this issue, however, calling people cowards and homophobes, that may actually only have a minor disagreement with you isn't a winning argument.
a point i would like to raise, if it hasn't, is: what do GI Joe and Jane think of the issue? they aren't exactly the same cross section of america that is represented in that poll. just from my limited experience with the marines i have met, they aren't particularly accepting of "other folks." not that i care what bigots think, but would the opposition within the military still, unfortunately, be too violent to consider this even now in the 21st century?
For the love of pete, OBAMA RAN ON THE ISSUE OF REPEALING DADT! That is wasn't a front and center issue is because nobody cared to make it one. Period. What part of this don't people get?
If it were a negative. the GOP would have run ads against him. They tried nearly everything else. They did NOT make an issue out of this. Why? BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED!
It was a non-issue.
Yes he'll finesse it better than Clinton, but he will get it done.
You know there is a class of stupid here that's hard to address.
For instance, dsimon, did you read anyone else's post before posting? Just curious because what you discuss has been discussed.
I am going to cap this for Walt because he really is reaching for kitchen sink:
DADT IS NOT THE MARRIAGE ISSUE. THE SAME VOTERS WHO SAY THEY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE MARRIAGE ISSUE BY AND LARGE, INCLUDING IN CONSERVATIVE STATES, SUPPORT GAYS IN THE MILITARY. YOUR ARGUMENT IS A STRAWMAN SMOKE SCREEN.
Do you get it? None of your arguments thus far matter because they are not based in reality. They are based on what Walt fears. Do you know how to separate out what you fear from reality? Thankful Obama won't govern if he is smarted by the cowardly parts of the party. Pragmatic. Yes. Fearful. No. Like I said, nothing would ever get done using yoru calculus unless we have 100 percent endorsement by everyone and then only if they sign for it in blood.
walt526 said "... Sam Nunn- has since changed his position on the issue because of the change in public sentiment. Nunn's also no longer in the Senate. The point of mentioning him was that opposition will come from moderates "
How do you figure that? All the so-called "moderates" on the anti side from back then have been replaced, or have changed their minds. Right-wing nutjobs from the Ozark-to-Appalachia belt will still be opposed, but there aren't 40 of them in the Senate, not even close. What Republicans will vote for closure? McCain and Specter from the senior, plus the New Englanders and most of the Great Plains since this will be framed as "why are you wanting to hurt our brave soldiers?"
And no, it won't need "Obama" to do it. It will be quietly introduced in Congress along with a raft of other legislation, and pass with very little objection. Coburn and Inhofe will be happy to get to use it for alarmist fundraiser letters, and that'll be it.
EIN
I am not trying to persuade you. I m point out what you are- cowardly. Grow a pair.
And yes, part of this is based on your views of homosexuality. I always ask the question about race when ever sexual orientation comes up, and the bigots never disappoint because they avoid the question like the plague.
They know what their answer, the real one, would mean by implication. Hence, the true nature of why they feel this issue should be avoid for "civility" reasons or "political" reasons or whatever other excuses they convince themselves is the "real" basis of their behaivor besides their views on homosexuality.
The problem with Nate's analysis of DADT is that public sentiments are not necessarily the sentiments of a crucial subgroup: the military.
Yeah, and 73% of military members are okay with gays serving. Now, the military is a big institution, and acceptance varies. Infantry units are less accepting than others, except for corpsmen/medics, who widely believed to be gay to begin with.
No, that's 10 point improvement, not 20 points. And CA is quite a bit left of center compared to most states (including all the key swing states), and there still isn't majority support for gay marriage.
In 2000, gay marriage lost by 24 points. In 2008, gay marriage lost by 4 points. Do the math.
what do GI Joe and Jane think of the issue? they aren't exactly the same cross section of america that is represented in that poll. just from my limited experience with the marines i have met, they aren't particularly accepting of "other folks."
It's going to depend on implementation in the field. Military gays are going to be discreet where warranted.
And I know it's difficult for a group to wait longer for rights that they should have had all along. But in the interests of securing the long term good for all involved, I think this issue should be tackled later on.
Because legislation will be needed, it won't be solved by an executive order. Obama can't decide this one with the stroke of a pen. And there will be some implementation issues. But the scared-of-their-shadows "Democrats" are just laughable.
"Eek! There are still bridges crumbling in Upper Michigan! Once we fix them, we can debate gays in the military!" Give me a break.
Have you gone MAD???? Gays in the military? Do you want Obama to fail? Are you insane???? You want to even think about this distraction? And the same issue that sunk Clinton in his forst two years? You have gone MAD!! Stop it - we need to work on the economy. This is MADNESS!!
This issue is best left to his second term - and I support gays in the military.
Been there, done that. Would I like it to happen? Sure. Is it what I voted for? Not exactly. I REALLY don't want to see a return to 1993, when a President took office with a ground swell of support for the national healthcare plan he made the centerpiece of his campaign--and then blew all his political capital pushing a controversial DADT policy before even taking office.
I saw something recently about a debate among Obama advisors over whether to move fast and hard like FDR or slow and contemplatively like Clinton. FDR was elected four times, ended the Great Depression and won the Second World War. Clinton spent 75% of his administration fighting impeachment and most of his big legislative accomplishments were pet projects of conservatives. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Why not tackle a few issues near and dear to the hearts of hundreds of millions before we go embracing third rails? Just for fun? Please...?
Because while I know it's very important to all of our homosexual servicemembers, and that a majority (certainly among liberals) support it, tracking and exit polls have consistently ranked "openly gay servicemembers" well behind "the economy", "national security" and "Iraq" among issues people consider most important.
I am begining to think a lot of posters here are really old people who just discovered the internets.
I am not a spring chicken, but damn if some of these statements aren't out of the twilight zone.
Regardless of data about the general public, the Congress, and now Grinder's addtion of data about the military rank and file we are told this is so radioactive that it will abort Obama's Presidency by the mere fact he is working on it.
You people are taking hyperbole to new levels. Next you will say it will lead to the out break of a zombie apocalypse that will wipe out all of mankind.
If you are going to start just getting more and more outlandish, you may as well really go for it rather than this half ass faux "I am the adult" shit because no one is buying it.
reelgeist (or leftist limbaugh)-
your point of view is no less bigoted than that of limbaugh's or hannity's. you are merely a blow hard just like the two of them, and try to make your point by name calling and being divisive. if you aren't trying to persuade anyone, then just stop talking. what's the point of arguing if you aren't trying to persuade or at least come to some common ground.
and your whole "cowardly" statement doesn't make any sense anyway. if i am a coward i can't possibly see how anything i have said would lead to that conclusion. i haven't said i was scared of anything or gave the impression i wasn't willing to fight for anything. you don't even know if i am gay or straight, black, white, etc., male or female. so go ahead and call me a coward, but no matter what you say it isn't based on anything you know about me.
ultimately, i am against DADT, so we have the same point of view on this matter. and the same as obama and the same as 75% of americans apparently. we are brothers you and i:)
BTW i enjoy back and forths like this, but i will probably not continue to feed into your limbaugh-rovian tactics of divisiveness, anymore. because you are my brother and you are silly.
This is a radioactive issue. Trust me. Jobs, the economy, the credit meltdown and the two wars we are currently fighting are much more important!!
If Obama even touches the gays in the military situation in his first term he is CRAZY. Even if the majority supports gays in the military, a very vocal minority does not. This issue would make headlines for months and distract from real meat and potatoes issues. PLEASE STOP. WE NEED OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY TO WORK!! We can not risk derailing it with this UTTER MADNESS!!
EIN
You are still a coward no matter how muc you spin. Save your faux support of repealing DADT. Your support would be like me believing in dragons and unicorns. Competely fictional. I really competely skimmed your post because I no longer care what you are or the other cowards think. You have been too much data to refute your postions. Instead of accepting that data you return to your fears. Thankful the Democratic Party is leaving your sort to cower in the corner while it gets stuff , the things you claim you want, done.
Market, there's going to be a ton of legislation introduced, lots of it on the economy and healthcare, but lots of it on many other topics as well: like overturning all the last-minute deregulations Bush is pushing through. This will be one piece of legislation among many, and most of the public just doesn't care, or is outright supportive. The senators from Oklahoma will use it for red meat in their stupid state, and that's it. If the Radio Republicans want to make a big noise about it, they will be clubbed; we could only hope that the GOP would be so stupid as to make a Custer's Last Stand on such a loser of an issue for them.
Bob X - I think you have it wrong. If Obama changes any gays in the military related law - there will be a very loud right wing furor. Some people will see the furor and they will throw their hands up in disgust at the whole political process - that Obama would focus on gays in the military while the country is heading towards depression. OBAMA WIL LOSE SOME SUPPORT NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE GAYS BUT BECAUSE THEY WILL CONCLUDE OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE HIS PRIORITIES RIGHT. And Obama has BIG things to do which will require every ounce of political goodwill to get done.
Even if people agree with Gays in the military (and I do) they will see the furor and conclude Obama does not have his priorities right and he is not focused on the things that matter to people.
I think it is madness and plays to the right wing crazies - the more noise the right wing makes over gays in the military, the more moderate Obama supporters would conclude they elected a left wing crackpot who won't deal with the economy in a timely manner. It is madness. Utter madness. Save it for the last year of his second term.
A House member will introduce something like the Military Readiness Enhancement Act and the legislative process will play itself out. It may take a year or another year or another Congress or yet another. That's how these things work.
Agree with Loner.
It's not the issue that Market Factors et al are making it out to be. No one is arguing to change DADT at the expense of any other issues. Some Congress member will introduce it. It's just not that controversial anymore and who cares if even a 25% vocal minority opposes it? Plus it's better to pass sooner to show the public that it works without any issues so that it is not a "wedge" issue during an election cycle.
Many of our allies accept gay citizens in their armies. Our own army admission standards have been lowered and we're accepting many more recruits with past drug/minor crime backgrounds. More and more of our military brass are in favor of repealing. We are losing some critical recruits (esp.translation) and we are fighting 2 wars. All winnable arguments against any right-wing rantings.
Since 1993, we've had Ellen, Will&Grace, and Ellen again. We have Barney Frank. This is not that controversial and is a completely less controversial issue than gay marriage.
Yes the economy, healthcare and Iraq are the major issues that should be worked on immediately, but that does not mean you can't work on other less critical issues as well.
In 2000, gay marriage lost by 24 points. In 2008, gay marriage lost by 4 points. Do the math.
No, that's not how public opinion is typically expressed. A swing from 62% to 52% is a 10% swing in public support. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature why calling that a "20 point" swing is double-counting.
"media firestorm": think for a moment, where will they get footage on the issue from? Where will they get "personal stories" to give the issue life? Unless the bigots can find a "my buddy was blown up because of a gay in my unit" story that anyone will swallow, all the personal stories will be of loyal soldiers thrown out because of their sexuality. I'm all for political pragmatism - I don't know why anyone thinks that a poster who calls all who disagree with them "cowards" and "homophobes" even warrants a response - but this issue is a big winner for Obama. It won't cost political capital - it will bring it in, and the real cost will be to all the bigots who put themselves on the wrong side of it.
That's why he shouldn't do it now, but hold off for the Congressional elections in 2010. That's when he needs a distraction, because a lot more people will have lost their jobs then and there's only so far "it was the last guys fault" goes even when it's totally true.
reelgeist: For instance, dsimon, did you read anyone else's post before posting? Just curious because what you discuss has been discussed.
I confess: no. I usually try to do so. It was late, so I didn't this time. I agree it's usually better to try to read the entire thread, but I can understand it when the occasional person doesn't go through 160 posts in order to express an opinion. If that person misstates something, that person can be corrected in a manner that is respectful and more likely to change that person's mind. (I yet to see an instance where calling someone else "a new class of stupid" caused that person to say "Hey, you're right after all!")
My main point is that Nate's original post, which I expect is accurate as far as it goes regarding overall public opinion, is not necessarily the only opinion that should be taken into account on this issue. If there is strong support for repealing DADT in the military, so much the better. As all the polls show, younger people care less and less about someone else's sexual orientation. If that includes those serving in the military, so much the better. Nor do I believe that Obama needs to wait for consensus within the military to make proposals on this issue, just as Truman didn't wait with race. I believe that he and Congress should change the policy.
But: it's not a major issue that Obama campaigned on. Many people do care about this issue, but for most these days it's not high on their priority lists. People are losing their homes, their retirement savings or college funds, or are trying to find food to put on the table. Plus there are opponents who are just waiting to show that Obama is the far-leftist candidate they said he was (which he isn't, and repealing DADT should be considered a part of basic civil rights and not far-left, but that won't stop them from saying it).
Yes, DADT is bad policy. Yes, I think it is detrimental to our military. Yes, I think it should be repealed and there should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the military. But I doubt Truman just went in and changed military policy on race without a lot of study and preparation. And some in the public, while supportive, may wonder why Obama would take this on so early when there are so many other crises going on that demand the attention of his administration, and there is only so much than can get done in the first few months.
I believe that this issue could have better and more long-lasting effects if it's not done right now but in another year or two when the economy is (hopefully) in recovery and the administration has proven itself as a reliable, steady manager. It could be better both for the administration and for the cause that I support.
But I can understand that others may have reasons for disagreeing with me without falling into a new class of stupid.
Simon
I believe you need to learn how to read. I asked a simple yes/no question. Did you read the prior posts before posting.
Wow, Ive probably gotten more out of reading the comments in this thread than in any other and have actually had my point of view changed a bit
Id like to give a shout to reelgeist from another black gay and point out again that reel doesn't disagree with the REPORTED (not confirmed) Obama plan of "building consensus" or whatever first. I defer to the team that just ran the most brilliant presidential campaign in history for the most part, and the approach seems sensible for me, so Im in board.
But Im also persuaded by the stats that there just doesnt seem to be massive resistance to repealing DADT and is certainly something that will be addressed in the first term.
Funny story....I remember discussions with my sister about gays in the military and DADT around 1992. Her husband was ROTC turned career military. While my sister was against any change and said "i dont want us to approve of this as a lifestyle" she told me my brother in law, a captain at the time, felt that it was inevitable that gays would serve openly in the military.
PS:this was before I came out to my sister thankfully her thinking is much evolved)
The second comment captures it perfectly.
Right thing to do, yes, but there's a way to do it without expending any political capital -- the way that we've "learned" Obama plans to approach it. A Blue Ribbon panel comprising high level officials, even those involved in the original DADT on the other side (Gen Shali, Powell, Nunn, etc) all recommending that to NOT overturn this law would be detrimental. It's about process and depth. Yes, 75% now favor (let's say, they believe it is "ok" to allow openly gay SM to serve), but it is not a deep belief, and subject to manipulation (prop 8, anyone?). A deliberate process is the right way, and 2010 isn't too much to ask. As you know, gays are openly serving now and only get kicked out if that's what they want. In fact, this has pretty much always been the principal modus... with some sad exceptions.
I think you're right about 98% of the time, Nate, but wrong on how easy this would be, and characterizing as "target practice" is a sadly mistaken characterization of over-confidence. Peace!
Apologies if anyone has made this exact point (I just didn't have time to read all the above comments)....
I will always remember the high sense of optimism for change and progress held for the incoming Clinton administration and Dem control of Congress as 1993 dawned. It is this memory that gives me extreme indigestion NOW.
I honestly can't remember the exact timing, but in my memory, it seemed like only a day or two after inauguration that that GOP minority in Congress--somehow peeling off conservative Dem's like Sam Nunn--unexpectedly pulled out of their collective ass some sort of leverage to force the gays-in-the-military issue prematurely.
Clinton's hand was ultimately forced, and the best he was able to get was a law enshrining the ridiculous "don't ask/don't tell" concept.
Two important take-aways: First, Clinton was knocked off-balance and off-message literally right out of the starting gate of his administration. While this (at least alone)didn't completely derail his administration and his policy initiatives, it certainly hurt him and distracted him. It sucked a helluva lot of wind out of his sails.
Second, it showed that bizarre and remarkable capability of the Dems to eat their own young. All of the punditocracy vamping about how the GOP was a coherent force, while the Democratic Party was just a collection of diverse special interests that would not be able to wield power in the majority was quickly proving true. It was amazing and outrageous that the powerful Dems like Nunn were publicly and energetically pissing all over their brand-new Dem Prez's policy positions (because of this, I was particularly shocked to see Nunn taking the "eminence grise" role in the Obama campaign).
This sideswiping of the early Clinton, and the meltdown of Dem party unity and resolve in the face of a surprising and venomous GOP minority directly lead to the Dem implosion and electoral destruction in 1994.
It may well be true that there is greater public support for open service of gays in the military these days, but I think that the conservative base of the GOP and the morons on talk radio will view the historical analogies as too enticing to let this go. They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, if history is a gauge. I fully expect the GOP to force the issue again, before the calendar says February, 2009.
My video blogging on this issue. -Tim Beauchamp
http://www.gayglobe.us/gay-sailor.html
DFS
Thanks for taking the time to read what I actually said. Where I disagree with the posters here is their attempts to not only suggest caution, but to suggest Obama shouldn't do anything. That's the real debate here. Notice what they say in their writings. It's all fear, and basically, an excuse to do nothing. They are stuck in 1993 rather realizing times change. By these people's logic, Obama shouldn't be President because 20 years ago people didn't want to elect Jesse Jackson. Remember, we are now talking 15 years ago. Not last week with regard to DADT's passage. It seems the problem isn't where the country is on this issue. It's where some of the posters are here. We have to be willing to let go of our own baggage. I know I thought at the begining of the year there were no way this country would elected a brown man as its President. I still can't believe it. But that just tell me my beliefs are wrong. Rather than admitting their beliefs are wrong here. They are running with them like they are some kind of higher truth than the numbers. This is what I find frustrating on a site dedicated to numbers, people would just rely on their own faith based reality.
reelgeist: I believe you need to learn how to read. I asked a simple yes/no question. Did you read the prior posts before posting.
I did answer it. And I expanded on it. But here is what you wrote.
You know there is a class of stupid here that's hard to address.
For instance, dsimon, did you read anyone else's post before posting?
Your use of "for instance" means that sentence relates to your claim of "a new class of stupid," therefore it was not a "simple" yes/no question; it was a characterization as well.
I have looked over your prior posts, and I don't think your repeated use of the terms "coward," "silly," stupid," "afraid," "idiot," "bigot," and "liar" does much to convince anyone to your views. You might want to think about you might react if someone tried to change your mind using similar tactics.
Hold your beliefs, explain your opinions, advocate for your goals. But keep in mind what's going to work and what might be counterproductive. That means keeping the vitriol in check sometimes, even if you feel it's justified. When someone starts with the personal invective, the natural reaction from others is to simply stop listening (as some posters have already done in this thread).
Simon
I think you are a liar. I am not going to waste anymore time on you. Good luck.
reelgeist: Where I disagree with the posters here is their attempts to not only suggest caution, but to suggest Obama shouldn't do anything. That's the real debate here.
I don't see very many posters here advocating doing nothing. Most favor doing something. The "real debate" is over tactics, not the goal.
We agree it's time to move on this. We agree that it's not 1993 anymore. The debate seems to me whether Obama should make it a first-100-days priority or whether it would be tactically and politically more advantageous to wait a year or perhaps two. It's not a question of fear, it's a question on what will best serve the long-term goals of this issue in particular and this administration in general. And that is a question on which reasonable people can disagree.
I think you are a liar. I am not going to waste anymore time on you. Good luck.
And where was my lie? How are you going to change my mind or get me to modify my views if that's your best response? How would you react if I made the same remark to you? Would you bother looking at anything else I wrote, no matter how well-reasoned it might be?
When was the last time you modified your views in response to name-calling? It doesn't work. I hope you'll reread your posts and see how many minds you've changed on this thread.
You might want to look at Nate's entry "Did Talk Radio Kill Conservatism?"
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/did-talk-radio-kill-conservatism.html
As he wrote, "They have not just forgotten how to persuade; they have forgotten about the necessity of persuasion." If you want to vent, fine. Sometimes people have to vent. But don't pretend it's going to persuade anyone.
I fully expect the GOP to force the issue again, before the calendar says February, 2009.
Let's just hope that there are not enough fool Democrats to make Republicans successful.
I have been wondering why Propostion 8 could pass in the oh-so-liberal state of California. And I came to my own little theory: While the country as a whole, and the liberal states faster than the others, moves towards equality for gay people, it is not yet at the point where a majority of people actually reject inequality. In other words, Prop 8 passed because too many people just didn't care.
There are 3 groups of people: Those that are ACTIVELY supporting gay rights, those who reject them, and those who don't really care either way (A big chunk of these I-dont-care-people are just not political people, I think there are a lot of them in California). In polls, these people tend to be on the liberal side (at least in this aspect), in the way that they wouldn't reject gay marriage per se, but they also wouldn't vote FOR it, or AGAINST a measure that would prohibit it.
So, Prop 8 passed because the people between the 2 extremes of the spectrum didn't really care about it. And that would actually be a good sign for a repeal of DADT. Because if people don't care about gay rights in the one case, they probably won't care about it in the other one.
I think it all comes down to the one who's got the initiative. And it comes down to social liberalization. California is ahead of many other states, but a repeal of DADT is surely no problem there - because a lot of people just dont care. And if we wait a few more years, and the next generation is going to be more liberal than the previous one, the social scale will tilt towards the liberal side and there'll be enough people actively rejecting things like Prop 8 (and there'll be less people to pass it).
I'd generally agree though that DADT is already an unproblematic issue right now. Could it be a "test run" for Obama's presidential skills? Maybe... or it might "only" demonstrate the powerlessness of the social conservatives. But do we need either of these? I have to agree with Obama's plans to wait until 2010. Let's fix the economy first.
Don't see anything about DADT in Obama's weekly address.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/22/105213/85/22/665098
Anyone thinking repeal of DADT is a first 100 days' priority is going to be disappointed. It will happen I believe in Obama's first term, but not right away.
Most of the commenters here seem to be under the mistaken impression that the President decides what legislation is introduced in Congress. The President can propose, and on many issues Congressmen talk a lot to the White House before drafting any bill, but the President actually is not the one who introduces legislation: the members do that.
So all of this concern-trolling about "will it make it look like Obama is wasting his time?" is completely misguided. The repeal of DADT will be introduced without any need for Obama to make a speech about it, and it will pass easily. Only a few of the right-wingers will make a noise about it, because it will be a terrible loser of an issue for them.
I'm gay and favor gays in the military and I do not want to see this issue raised now. It is minor, folks. I also watched in horror as Bill Clinton, with his political savvy etc, wade into this polarizing issue on virtually the first day after his inauguration. I guess he thought he had a mandate and it would be easy.
No issue relating to gays is easy, not yet. Hate the idea of wasting any time at all on this for a good while.
Is there any gay issue you think that is important to be raised right now? If so, what is it?
If you can't do the right thing when it is cheap, easy and popular, when can you do it?
Nate, I have to say I think you are wrong here.
Obama sees himself as having a mandate. A mandate to do what, exactly? He wants to craft "solutions" to the "challenges we face." Right now, the challenges that he seems to think are priority are the economy, health care, infrastructure, and energy. He will spend most of his political capital on those issues. As far as the "liberal values" issues go, I think Obama will work behind the scenes to move the ball in the right direction there. The "opposition" is weak in fighting Obama's moves in those areas because of the deteriorating economy and the fact that the GOP is now 100% social conservative. However, if Obama were to try to go for the liberal values issues first, he would face staunch opposotion from the GOP minority and run into issues with some of his base.
Remember, Obama has a pretty broad coalition and doesn't want to push off people who either were brought in by the current times (socially moderate / conservative middle class folks in Wisconsin, Indiana, etc).
you can't just change the law. you also have to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This isn't something the president can do at the stroke of a pen (it's actually quite difficult).
The politics of social change is a lot like surfing, seems to me. You have to position yourself to catch the wave.
The analogy works on a deeper level, too, because whether or not any particular legislator "catches the wave," whatever the law says about something, when the waves start to break the reality is accomplished.
This is the case with a huge number of social issues at the moment; DADT is just one of them and due to logistical issues, probably one of the least critical in terms of impact upon individual persons.
That is to say, whatever DADT and the uniform code of military justice have to say about it, in practice, it's less and less likely that the policy will result in the dismissal of good soldiers at this particular point in time, and certainly in the longer term within a liberal climate.
That is to say, those in favor of anti-gay policies will pay a far higher price politically for implementing such policies, even within the armed forces, whatever the official policy may be.
That may change when we return to a peacetime status, but that's not happening for at least half of Obama's first term. I would encourage him to address it before then.
But meanwhile, half of all gay people are women, ALL gay people need affordable health care, every single gay person is as affected by the economy as straight people, and speaking as a person who has at least a dozen pet "queer" issues - let's work on the fundamentals first.
I'd say that if you want a combined practical and symbolic symbol of change for the better, finding several openly gay and indisputably competent people to administer some of the critically important areas of federal administrative reform would be a no-brainier. Nor would it be particularly difficult; all one has to do is simply say that if you are gay, it would be administration policy to hoist the "Jolly Rancher" flag.
The reason this will be easy - even pragmatically necessary - is that there's an overwhelming urgency to replace Bush's evangelical idiot children with competant people. A significant percentage of those competant people will be gay, and it will be important to ensure that being gay within the federal service is not a national security issue waiting to happen.
The traditional excuse is "they could be blackmailed." Well, not if they have come out of the closet. We aren't worried about what people do - we are worried about what people do in secret that they could be held up for.
Areas that I would consider particularly deserving of apolitical competent leadership in which sexual orientation should not be an issue: FEMA, a reformed FDA, NTSB, a re-reorganization of the "Department of Homeland Security," and someone to review the psycological and sociopolitical conditions under which federal employees work and what impact that has upon their decision-making.
Walk into any US Government facility, if you wish to have a practical understanding of what I mean by that; the working conditions of federal workers speaks VOLUMES about the priorities of federal agencies.
These are things that are within Obama's constitutional authority to address fairly directly, things that could make a huge difference, don't generally require more than executive directives and could be largely accomplished in a budget-neutral sort of way.
Nor is it "symbolic." You can pass all the legislation you like, but if you do not pay some attention to those that have the practical job of implementing, enforcing and understanding, it's simply a particularly silly form of wishful thinking. It's a most critical infrastructural issue.
Obama's priority has to be focused on getting ethical and qualified quality people focused on securing quality information so that he can make critically important decisions.
DADT can ride those coat-tails and gain a great deal more momentum along the way. But as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks this or indeed, any other single issue taken out of the overwhelmingly urgent context we face) is a non-useful idiot.
Single issue, brain-dead litmus-test doctrinal policy-making, steering us all into the very sharp teeth of reality has caused this situation. Let us get our ethical ducks in a GENERAL row and then the specifics will tend to sort themselves out without anywhere near so much of a fuss.
Does anyone else think it is extraordinarily hypocritical that 75% of Americans favor allowing openly gay people to serve in the military while a majority are still opposed to letting them get married? People often complain about how at eighteen one can serve in the military but can't buy a beer. How much more hypocritical is it to prevent homosexuals who have served their country in the military from marrying people they love?
MARRIAGE V WORK
It's not hypocritical. Just ignorance. You have to understand that marriage has been framed as a religious issue by the right. Whereas employment, whether the military , is not. It's actually a hopeful sign that things will change on marriage as people realize that its a civil institution not a religious one. Arguments take a long time to disseminate. Rights should not wait for them to desseminate which is why we have equal protection, but the ideas over marriage also will happen eventually. Everyone knows it.
Bob King said "...whatever DADT and the uniform code of military justice have to say about it, in practice, it's less and less likely that the policy will result in the dismissal of good soldiers at this particular point in time"
??? It IS resulting in the dismissal of good soldiers, NOW. Whatever makes you think otherwise? That is why the time to change it is NOW-- or rather, as soon as possible once we get the Chimp out of the White House.
Bob X: "Less likely" means just that; "less likely." As in, it is LESS LIKELY. Not that it won't happen. It is LESS LIKELY that it will happen.
It is correspondingly MORE likely that IF that is to occur it is because it's a lot easier to get rid of someone for being a faggot than a fuckup.
Tragic, but morally superior to the more traditional expedient of sending said fuckup into battle with a trusted first sergeant and a deniable firearm, eh?
And in this shit-storm of injustice we laughingly refer to as "western civilization," what possesses you to argue that this one particular abuse of human rights within the military transcends all others?
Let us recall that in the worst case, it puts an end to a military career which carries with it a certain degree of responsibility for moral and ethical compromise by it's very nature.
Or in other words, addressing DADT when we have outstanding issues with actual rape within the military ranks, of the use of torture within the military ranks and an appalling deficit of what used to be referred to as the military virtues, visible spines, balls or guts within the chain of command, why should anyone care that someone may be denied the right to indulge their desire to blow shit up and fuck brown people people over for fun and political brownie points?
At this point in time, what the fuck do you think a "military career" is? It's certainly no longer an honorable option for honorable persons. And THAT is what must be changed. DATD is one obvious aspect on it, but it's simply a pimple between oozing, pus-laden sores.
Let us remember that every "faggot" kicked out of the military is one "faggot" who is thereby not ethically accountable for far greater abuses than those committed against themselves.
A sense of decent proportion is in order, Bob X.
At some point, one must decide whether being excluded from a club is a statement against oneself - or against the club. And at this point, I think being kicked out of the military for the "moral failing" of gayness to be a ... you should pardon the vulgarity ... a fucking moral complement.
Bob King said... " "Less likely" means just that; "less likely." As in, it is LESS LIKELY. Not that it won't happen."
It IS happening, several times a month. The probability that it will continue to happen, as long as the policy is in place, is ONE. Absolute dead certainty.
"what possesses you to argue that this one particular abuse of human rights within the military transcends all others?"
Who the fuck said any such thing? Are you trying to argue that no problem should ever be fixed, on grounds that other problems also exist?
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment