Defense Secretary Robert Gates has sent Congress a letter stating that that ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy before the military conducts a thorough review (translation: not this year) "would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter." After all, those serving in the military expect to make political policy and dislike taking orders, right?
A release from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network states:
Gay rights advocates are furious after Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking for the Administration in a letter to the Hill, effectively killed the chances of a vote on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before the Midterms. And if the Democrats lose the House, repeal-a firm Obama campaign promise-may be deferred indefinitely.
Uh, oh, guess who's been thrown under the bus.
Not surprisingly, the Obama fundraisers at the Human Rights Campaign are spinning the Gates letter as if the Defense Secretary had operated independently, like some sort of loose cannon (reminds me of how in Russia during the '30s Gulag prisoners used to lament, "if only Stalin knew!"). States an HRC release:
Today's letter from Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton flies in the face of the President's commitment in the State of the Union address to work with Congress to repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law this year.... It is inconceivable that the Secretary of Defense would so blatantly undermine the Commander-in-Chief's policy commitment.
But as scholars at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, point out in a release titled Experts: Obama Administration Defers "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Two Years:
Christopher Neff, Deputy Executive Director of the Palm Center, believes that Secretary Gates' letter is a signal from the White House, not just the Pentagon. "Today's letter represents a public effort by the Obama Administration to put a stop to Congressional repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' in 2010. Clearly, the Department of Defense is not its own branch of government. The Secretary of Defense serves the President."
Somebody tell the Human Rights Campaign.
49 Comments for “If Only Obama Knew!”
posted by Tom on
I understand the impatience of gay activists for a quicker path to DADT repeal, but I don’t share it.
I believe that there is a good military reason to move deliberately, and I’m glad that President Obama and his administration is moving carefully, despite the howls. I think that President Obama, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are handling this exactly right.
While military culture is “top down”, in the sense that an order is an order and will be obeyed, I think it is important to understand, as Admiral Mullen seems to understand, that “buy in” by junior personnel is an important factor in ensuring that orders relating to DADT repeal, when issued, will be carried out efficiently, effectively and uniformly.
By spending a year confirming the earlier studies and planning for implementation, military leadership is building into the DADT repeal process an opportunity for military leadership to build the case for DADT repeal from the inside out, facilitating “buy in”, both to the necessity and wisdom of DADT repeal itself and to the military’s implementation plan for repeal.
Because I believe that “buy in” is important, I think that the year of preparation will have been time well spent, an important factor in ensuring that when DADT is repealed, the military adjusts quickly and efficiently.
In short, it is more important to do it right than it is to do it quickly.
President Obama and his administration have taken a clear and consistent position on this from the beginning, and I do not expect them to cave in to political pressure.
I’ll be curious to see what happens with DADT next year, in 2011.
The Republicans will, I think, be faced with this reality: The DOD will have a RAND study in place that confirms earlier studies, all consistent, predicting that DADT repeal will not create material problems for recruitment, retention or effectiveness. The military will present a plan for DADT repeal, and inform Congress that the military is ready to move forward and implement. The polls will show, as they do now, that a large majority of Americans think that DADT should be repealed.
I don’t know how Republican politicians will respond to that reality.
And I’ll be curious, too, to see how Stephen spins that reality, painstakingly created by the careful work of the administration during 2010, to the detriment of President Obama.
posted by Jimmy on
Is Miller suggesting that a Republican administration would address DADT in any way other than maintaining the status quo?
posted by avee on
No, Jimmy. Believe it or not, you can criticize Democrats without saying Republicans are better (which Miller doesn’t do). Your knee-jerk "but Republicans are worse" response is just what’s gotten us into this situation — giving Democrats a free ride to do Nothing but rhetoric because (wait for it….) Republicans are worse.
posted by Jimmy on
avee –
I criticize my own party quite a bit actually, because it is my party. I am justifiably annoyed with the hyper-methodical approach Pres. Obama has taken with regard to the GLBT issues he promised to act on. Then, I take a deep breath and take into account the things Tom wrote about, and I keep buggering on, as the Brits say.
Observing that “Republicans are worse” on GLBT issues is not what has gotten us here today, wherever that is. It is merely a declarative statement of fact, as in “the grass is green” and “the water is wet”.
posted by Debrah on
An interesting one at National Journal from Jonathan Rauch
posted by Jimmy on
Good read, Debrah. I agree with Rauch’s statement about the plausibility of the authors’ conclusions.
posted by Jorge on
When Obama asked why are people protesting him on DA/DT when he supports a repeal, I shouted at the TV because he took so friggin’ wrong on it. It is unacceptable for a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to fail because the Democrats lose Congress. Obama will have had two years to get it done in the most supportive environment possible. Why did President Obama wait so long to take a stand if the preliminary work was going to take so long? If a repeal of DADT does not pass, it means either Obama does not care about a repeal, or he is too politically stupid to pass a repeal.
Any idiot could have figured out DADT wouldn’t pass this year the moment the idea of a “study” (which I do support) came up. The who are “furious” in response to Gates’s letter are having a way delayed reaction.
By the way, I just read an article on why GLBT Americans need to stand in opposition on a completely unrelated issue (guess which one). Well, and we do, but we also need to stand in support on it–what a load of crap. We need to fight for our rights and dignity first.
posted by Bobby on
It would be dangerous to end DADT by executive order, the troops would resent it, hate crimes would increase. Instead, it’s important for the military to find the way to do it, maybe they’ll add gays to the sensitivity-training classes they already give, maybe they’ll develop new rules, maybe drill sergeants will be told they can call someone an f-g-t. This is a huge issue.
posted by Jorge on
I must say that article by Rauch was very fascinating. I’ve met young stablizing families like that… maybe once.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I think Tom’s point here needs to be stapled to the forehead of every idiotic, entitlement-minded gay activist who confuses the “Commander In Chief” title with omnipotent control over time, space, and the human mind. (“If Obama really cared about LGBTQ people, he could just do an Elizabeth Montgomery nose-wiggle and end DADT tomorrow!”)
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m not sure if this was a typo and Bobby meant, “will be told that they can NOT call…”, or if he actually meant to say “maybe drill sergeants will be told they can STILL call someone a faggot.”
I don’t think it goes without saying that the use of “homophobic” language like faggot would automatically have to be verboten in a post-DADT military. The question of how much gay service members would have to assimilate to military culture, and how much military culture would have to assimilate to LGBT expectations, is a not an easy one — because the reality is that a willingness to assimilate to the military culture has ALWAYS been demanded of recruits.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m not sure if this was a typo and Bobby meant, “will be told that they can NOT call…”, or if he actually meant to say “maybe drill sergeants will be told they can STILL call someone a faggot.”
—Yes, it was a typo, I understand that in the military they need to “break you down to build you up,” but just like you can’t call a black soldier a nigger, you can’t call a gay soldier you know what. I’m sure the drill sergeants will find plenty of verbal and non-verbal ways to keep breaking down those soldiers.
“I don’t think it goes without saying that the use of “homophobic” language like faggot would automatically have to be verboten in a post-DADT military. The question of how much gay service members would have to assimilate to military culture, and how much military culture would have to assimilate to LGBT expectations, is a not an easy one — because the reality is that a willingness to assimilate to the military culture has ALWAYS been demanded of recruits”
—Well, like all minorities I’m sure gays will have to fight harder, run faster, and perform greater just to be accepted. Ending DADT doesn’t end homophobia, it simply ends the fears of being outed and discharged.
posted by Jorge on
I think Tom’s point here needs to be stapled to the forehead of every idiotic, entitlement-minded gay activist who confuses the “Commander In Chief” title with omnipotent control over time, space, and the human mind. (“If Obama really cared about LGBTQ people, he could just do an Elizabeth Montgomery nose-wiggle and end DADT tomorrow!”)
All the more reason why he *should* have started earlier.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Leaving aside the point that he’s a liberal Democrat and the military skews rightward, Obama is a rather young man with no military experience. So if he had tried to push this through too fast, he’d be in the same position as a Lieutenant (i.e., a very junior commissioned officer) who tries to pull rank on a Master Sergeant (i.e., a very senior NCO). A Lieutenant outranks a Master Sergeant and is technically within his rights to order the latter around — but a Lieutenant with good leadership instincts will actually try to show deference to the Master Sergeant’s superior experience.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I dunno — I’m inclined to agree with Big Gay Al on South Park, who observed that “We gay men need to deal with the fact that the words fag and faggot are never going to go away, because they’re just too much fun to say! But what we CAN do is change the definition of the words to mean people who ride around on loud Harleys annoying the hell out of everybody.”
This, I agree with. But I don’t have a problem with drill sergeants using “faggot” in a post-DADT military, so long as they’re using it without regard for sexual orientation.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I will also point out that South Park is hugely popular with the “males 18-30” demographic — in other words, the same pool that the military targets for recruiting.
posted by jerry on
When DADT was passed in 93 it was not done as a stand alone bill, but it was put into the Defense Authorization Bill That gave cover to a lot of homophobic congresscritters who wouldn’t vote honestly. Repealing it can be done the same way. It’s my opinion that when it comes to gay issues, there is nothing honest about Obama.
It took a short one paragraph announcement to inform the public that women would be allowed to serve on submarines. I didn’t hear a single word about year long studies or even a 5 minute study. I am firmly in favor of women being given every opportunity to serve to the limit of their ability. I have no problem saying that I demand the same for gays.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Debrah, thanks for that National Journal link! One question that came to my mind — did the study take into consideration the percentage of Roman Catholics in various states?
Although it’s fashionable to call the Catholic Church backwards on anything and everything related to sexuality, there are at least a few things that the Church definitely does right in this area. For one thing, as most people know, Catholics are very divorce-averse — much more so than many Protestant denominations. Also, if a Catholic girl wants to have a church wedding, there’s a strict requirement that the couple attend at least six months of marriage-prep classes. There’s also a pretty widespread expectation of a “formal engagement” period lasting at least one year, though I’m not sure if this is mandatory. In short, quickie shotgun-weddings are strongly discouraged in Catholicism. (Which is not to say that they never happen — but only that there’s a pretty strong institutional tradition against rushing into marriage “for the sake of propriety.”)
posted by Bobby on
“I dunno — I’m inclined to agree with Big Gay Al on South Park, who observed that “We gay men need to deal with the fact that the words fag and faggot are never going to go away, because they’re just too much fun to say!”
—Really? Then why doesn’t Eminem use the n-word when he raps? Maybe I’m wrong, if I was in the army I could probably use the n-word and if some black guy wants to fight me for it, he could probably do that. So gays in the army are simply gonna have to stand up for themselves and teach the homophobes that being called a fg will not be taken lightly.
“This, I agree with. But I don’t have a problem with drill sergeants using “faggot” in a post-DADT military, so long as they’re using it without regard for sexual orientation.”
—Oh come on, that word IS about sexual orientation, there’s no getting away from it. Either way, the most important thing is getting rid of don’t ask don’t tell, after that we can worry about the military recognizing civil unions or not.
posted by Tom on
Throbert: “I think Tom’s point here needs to be stapled to the forehead of every idiotic, entitlement-minded gay activist who confuses the “Commander In Chief” title with omnipotent control over time, space, and the human mind. (“If Obama really cared about LGBTQ people, he could just do an Elizabeth Montgomery nose-wiggle and end DADT tomorrow!”)”
Jorge: “All the more reason why he *should* have started earlier.”
Throbert: “Leaving aside the point that he’s a liberal Democrat and the military skews rightward, Obama is a rather young man with no military experience. So if he had tried to push this through too fast, he’d be in the same position as a Lieutenant (i.e., a very junior commissioned officer) who tries to pull rank on a Master Sergeant (i.e., a very senior NCO). A Lieutenant outranks a Master Sergeant and is technically within his rights to order the latter around — but a Lieutenant with good leadership instincts will actually try to show deference to the Master Sergeant’s superior experience.”
Jorge, President Clinton ignored Throbert’s point, which is something that every young officer knows or, if not but competent, quickly learns.
Instead of working with senior commanders and treating the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military as military problem needing a solution, Clinton tried to impose a political solution on the military. It blew up in his face. In my view, what put the nail in Clinton’s coffin was opposition from senior military officials like then JCS Colin Powell. The result was DADT.
Notice that the situation was quite different this time around — Admiral Mullen moved with speed, clarity and deftness in the wake of the State of the Union address.
We don’t know what factored into Admiral Mullen’s readiness. A good part of it seems to be his personal conviction that DADT is harmful to military integrity, but it is obvious that the groundwork had been carefully laid by someone for the way in which the issue was handled in the weeks immediately following the State of the Union.
It is possible, as you suggest, that President Obama sat on his ass on DADT during his first year in office. But it looks to me like President Obama spent the year working with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to lay necessary groundwork.
I wish that this were moving faster. You are impatient. I am too. I’ve been waiting for forty-odd years, since the days of Vietnam, for the ban on gays and lesbians serving on the same terms and conditions as straights to come to an end. I want this done, and I do understand your impatience. But I think that it is misplaced, and I think that moving by fiat will create a catastrophe.
I don’t think that you have a full appreciation of what DADT repeal will mean for gays and lesbians and social conservatives, or how hard and bitter this fight is going to be as a result.
DADT repeal, in a political sense, the ballgame in our struggle for equality under the law. If we win this, we will, eventually, win everything. The reason I think this is that I believe that the American people will not long tolerate unwarranted discrimination against Americans who are putting their lives on the line for this country.
I believe that DADT repeal will be a game-changer because, within a relatively short period of time, open service will result in the American people seeing that gay and lesbian Americans shoulder the toughest responsibility of citizenship — military service in time of war — right alongside straight Americans, serving as courageously and honorably.
Consider this: DADT and the ban that preceded DADT both had the effect of keeping the gays and lesbians who serve off the radar of the American people. As a result, few know that 20% of gay men are veterans. The ban and DADT didn’t stop gay and lesbian Americans from serving; it merely stopped their service and their sacrifice from being recognized or acknowledged.
DADT repeal will bring the service and sacrifice of gay and lesbian Americans into the light, and once that happens, Americans will, inevitably, become less receptive to the myth that gays and lesbians are out of the mainstream of American life, seeking the benefits of citizenship without sharing the responsibilities of citizenship.
I think that social conservatives understand how critical DADT will be to the larger struggle. In contrast, I suspect that moderates and liberals see DADT repeal as a peripheral matter, a political issue of no more importance than ENDA or hate crimes legislation. I think that is a misunderstanding.
Because they understand what is at stake, social conservatives are going to fight to the last ditch on this issue, pulling out all the stops. Despite the support evidenced by the polls, this battle could be easily lost, because we know how effective the lies, fright-mongering and diversionary tactics of social conservatives can be when it comes to gays and lesbians. We saw that in the fight over Proposition 8 and in the various amendment battles. If you want, you can look back to the threads on DADT in this forum during the last month or so and you’ll see enough FUD to last a lifetime.
I believe that DADT will be repealed. But if DADT is going to be repealed, both the military and the American people are going to have to support repeal through the coming shit-storm created by social conservatives. I think that President Obama is going about this the right way, politically. When the time comes, he is going to have, I believe, an unassailable position on DADT repeal.
And, when DADT is repealed, it has to be implemented successfully.
This isn’t simple.
posted by Tom on
Sorry. Let me repost with the italics done right.
Throbert: “I think Tom’s point here needs to be stapled to the forehead of every idiotic, entitlement-minded gay activist who confuses the “Commander In Chief” title with omnipotent control over time, space, and the human mind. (“If Obama really cared about LGBTQ people, he could just do an Elizabeth Montgomery nose-wiggle and end DADT tomorrow!”)”
Jorge: “All the more reason why he *should* have started earlier.”
Throbert: “Leaving aside the point that he’s a liberal Democrat and the military skews rightward, Obama is a rather young man with no military experience. So if he had tried to push this through too fast, he’d be in the same position as a Lieutenant (i.e., a very junior commissioned officer) who tries to pull rank on a Master Sergeant (i.e., a very senior NCO). A Lieutenant outranks a Master Sergeant and is technically within his rights to order the latter around — but a Lieutenant with good leadership instincts will actually try to show deference to the Master Sergeant’s superior experience.”
Jorge, President Clinton ignored Throbert’s point, which is something that every young officer knows or, if not but competent, quickly learns.
Instead of working with senior commanders and treating the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military as military problem needing a solution, Clinton tried to impose a political solution on the military. It blew up in his face. In my view, what put the nail in Clinton’s coffin was opposition from senior military officials like then JCS Colin Powell. The result was DADT.
Notice that the situation was quite different this time around — Admiral Mullen moved with speed, clarity and deftness in the wake of the State of the Union address.
We don’t know what factored into Admiral Mullen’s readiness. A good part of it seems to be his personal conviction that DADT is harmful to military integrity, but it is obvious that the groundwork had been carefully laid by someone for the way in which the issue was handled in the weeks immediately following the State of the Union.
It is possible, as you suggest, that President Obama sat on his ass on DADT during his first year in office. But it looks to me like President Obama spent the year working with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to lay necessary groundwork.
I wish that this were moving faster. You are impatient. I am too. I’ve been waiting for forty-odd years, since the days of Vietnam, for the ban on gays and lesbians serving on the same terms and conditions as straights to come to an end. I want this done, and I do understand your impatience. But I think that it is misplaced, and I think that moving by fiat will create a catastrophe.
I don’t think that you have a full appreciation of what DADT repeal will mean for gays and lesbians and social conservatives, or how hard and bitter this fight is going to be as a result.
DADT repeal, in a political sense, the ballgame in our struggle for equality under the law. If we win this, we will, eventually, win everything. The reason I think this is that I believe that the American people will not long tolerate unwarranted discrimination against Americans who are putting their lives on the line for this country.
I believe that DADT repeal will be a game-changer because, within a relatively short period of time, open service will result in the American people seeing that gay and lesbian Americans shoulder the toughest responsibility of citizenship — military service in time of war — right alongside straight Americans, serving as courageously and honorably.
Consider this: DADT and the ban that preceded DADT both had the effect of keeping the gays and lesbians who serve off the radar of the American people. As a result, few know that 20% of gay men are veterans. The ban and DADT didn’t stop gay and lesbian Americans from serving; it merely stopped their service and their sacrifice from being recognized or acknowledged.
DADT repeal will bring the service and sacrifice of gay and lesbian Americans into the light, and once that happens, Americans will, inevitably, become less receptive to the myth that gays and lesbians are out of the mainstream of American life, seeking the benefits of citizenship without sharing the responsibilities of citizenship.
I think that social conservatives understand how critical DADT will be to the larger struggle. In contrast, I suspect that moderates and liberals see DADT repeal as a peripheral matter, a political issue of no more importance than ENDA or hate crimes legislation. I think that is a misunderstanding.
Because they understand what is at stake, social conservatives are going to fight to the last ditch on this issue, pulling out all the stops. Despite the support evidenced by the polls, this battle could be easily lost, because we know how effective the lies, fright-mongering and diversionary tactics of social conservatives can be when it comes to gays and lesbians. We saw that in the fight over Proposition 8 and in the various amendment battles. If you want, you can look back to the threads on DADT in this forum during the last month or so and you’ll see enough FUD to last a lifetime.
I believe that DADT will be repealed. But if DADT is going to be repealed, both the military and the American people are going to have to support repeal through the coming shit-storm created by social conservatives. I think that President Obama is going about this the right way, politically. When the time comes, he is going to have, I believe, an unassailable position on DADT repeal.
And, when DADT is repealed, it has to be implemented successfully.
This isn’t simple.
posted by Jorge on
….We don’t know what factored into Admiral Mullen’s readiness. A good part of it seems to be his personal conviction that DADT is harmful to military integrity, but it is obvious that the groundwork had been carefully laid by someone for the way in which the issue was handled in the weeks immediately following the State of the Union….
Your argument is possible, but your evidence strikes me as internally inconsistent. I think it is more likely that the gay community’s impatience was the deciding factor, such as during the March on Washington.
And you are not reading me right. I just don’t suffer fools gladly. President Obama had enough stupidity and moral conviction to squander his early political capital on the terrorists and Taliban locked up at Guantanamo Bay. Why not us? He did not show more than cursory support for the gay community for many months. So if anyone ever asks me, I’m going to tell the truth about him, which is he’s either an idiot or he doesn’t really care. He does not deserve the gay community’s patience.
posted by Jorge on
That first came out wrong. I mean to suggest that Obama did not start to act until the gay community expressed its impatience with him.
posted by Tom on
Jorge: “I mean to suggest that Obama did not start to act until the gay community expressed its impatience with him.”
I think you are right on that score, at least to the extent that President Obama and his political advisers needed a fire lit under their collective asses before they got off the dime, Barney Frank’s political apologia notwithstanding. I have no doubt that DADT repeal would have lingered on the back burner even longer if gays and lesbians hadn’t raised hell about it.
Jorge: “So if anyone ever asks me, I’m going to tell the truth about him, which is he’s either an idiot or he doesn’t really care.”
I live at the far northern end of Tammy Baldwin’s district, and I’ve had a couple of short conversations with her about my own impatience with the Obama administration. Tammy’s discrete, but what I’m reading from those conversations is that Obama and his close advisers were running too scared of the meat-grinder that Clinton got himself into over failed health care reform and the DADT debacle in the earliest days of his administration.
Obama is, by nature, a cautious man, I think. I studied his career in the Illinois State Senate, and his style was too move carefully, lining up his ducks before moving in public, looking for, as he puts it, “things we can agree on”. That worked for him in the Illinois State Senate, and probably worked in the US Senate, as well, but it doesn’t work when you are President. When you are President, you have to wade into the brawl and take your lumps on divisive issues.
When it comes to gay and lesbian issues, that means a ditch-fight. Social conservatives are uncompromising on the issue of equal treatment under the law. Social conservatives want us invisible, and if that is not possible, set apart as an unprotected class of moral lepers. Social conservatives don’t want us visible in the schools, in the churches, in the community. They certainly to not want us treated as Americans, free and equal. So when it comes to gay and lesbian issues, everything is going to be a ditch-fight.
I don’t think Obama’s had much experience with ditch-fighting, which is what gay and lesbian issues seem to create in our current political environment, or the need for it.
I don’t think that Obama “really cares”. I agree with you on that score.
I think that few any straight politician “really care”, because they haven’t lived it, and don’t have a clue. To them, gay and lesbian issues are just another set of chess moves to be considered in the political mix.
Obama’s lack of gut understanding is best evidenced, in my view, by his insistence, which seems genuine and based on personal conviction, that “legally equivalent civil unions” are the solution to the question of marriage equality. He ought to know better, both because he taught constitutional law and because he, of all people, should have some understanding that “separate but equal” isn’t and can’t be. But he seems to believe it, and it shows how clueless he is at gut level.
But “idiot”? No.
However deep my frustration with the administration, I think that the Obama administration has been handling DADT repeal adeptly. The administration seems to have laid the groundwork for buy-in from the top, first, and then charted a course that is going to give DADT repeal its best shot, both by creating an political environment in which DADT repeal is going to put the “Never!” crowd like McCain into a politically impossible position, opposing the military and/or questioning its competence in order to appease social conservatives, and, at the same time, by giving Admiral Mullen (who I admire and believe is genuine when he talks about DADT’s negative impact on “military integrity” as being the heart of the issue) the time and tools he needs to successfully obtain lower-echelon buy-in and implement repeal.
Jorge: “He does not deserve the gay community’s patience.”
You’ve got that right. No politician deserves the gay community’s patience. We can’t look to politicians to fight our battles, or wait for them to get around to it. We need to fight our own battles, as we always have, and hold their feet to the fire.
Politicians want to get re-elected, and that means avoiding the ditch-fights whenever the fights can be avoided. Obama is no exception.
posted by Tom on
Christ, I screwed up the italics yet again. Sorry.
Jorge: “I mean to suggest that Obama did not start to act until the gay community expressed its impatience with him.”
I think you are right on that score, at least to the extent that President Obama and his political advisers needed a fire lit under their collective asses before they got off the dime, Barney Frank’s political apologia notwithstanding. I have no doubt that DADT repeal would have lingered on the back burner even longer if gays and lesbians hadn’t raised hell about it.
Jorge: “So if anyone ever asks me, I’m going to tell the truth about him, which is he’s either an idiot or he doesn’t really care.”
I live at the far northern end of Tammy Baldwin’s district, and I’ve had a couple of short conversations with her about my own impatience with the Obama administration. Tammy’s discrete, but what I’m reading from those conversations is that Obama and his close advisers were running too scared of the meat-grinder that Clinton got himself into over failed health care reform and the DADT debacle in the earliest days of his administration.
Obama is, by nature, a cautious man, I think. I studied his career in the Illinois State Senate, and his style was too move carefully, lining up his ducks before moving in public, looking for, as he puts it, “things we can agree on”. That worked for him in the Illinois State Senate, and probably worked in the US Senate, as well, but it doesn’t work when you are President. When you are President, you have to wade into the brawl and take your lumps on divisive issues.
When it comes to gay and lesbian issues, that means a ditch-fight. Social conservatives are uncompromising on the issue of equal treatment under the law. Social conservatives want us invisible, and if that is not possible, set apart as an unprotected class of moral lepers. Social conservatives don’t want us visible in the schools, in the churches, in the community. They certainly to not want us treated as Americans, free and equal. So when it comes to gay and lesbian issues, everything is going to be a ditch-fight.
I don’t think Obama’s had much experience with ditch-fighting, which is what gay and lesbian issues seem to create in our current political environment, or the need for it.
I don’t think that Obama “really cares”. I agree with you on that score.
I think that few any straight politician “really care”, because they haven’t lived it, and don’t have a clue. To them, gay and lesbian issues are just another set of chess moves to be considered in the political mix.
Obama’s lack of gut understanding is best evidenced, in my view, by his insistence, which seems genuine and based on personal conviction, that “legally equivalent civil unions” are the solution to the question of marriage equality. He ought to know better, both because he taught constitutional law and because he, of all people, should have some understanding that “separate but equal” isn’t and can’t be. But he seems to believe it, and it shows how clueless he is at gut level.
But “idiot”? No.
However deep my frustration with the administration, I think that the Obama administration has been handling DADT repeal adeptly. The administration seems to have laid the groundwork for buy-in from the top, first, and then charted a course that is going to give DADT repeal its best shot, both by creating an political environment in which DADT repeal is going to put the “Never!” crowd like McCain into a politically impossible position, opposing the military and/or questioning its competence in order to appease social conservatives, and, at the same time, by giving Admiral Mullen (who I admire and believe is genuine when he talks about DADT’s negative impact on “military integrity” as being the heart of the issue) the time and tools he needs to successfully obtain lower-echelon buy-in and implement repeal.
Jorge: “He does not deserve the gay community’s patience.”
You’ve got that right. No politician deserves the gay community’s patience. We can’t look to politicians to fight our battles, or wait for them to get around to it. We need to fight our own battles, as we always have, and hold their feet to the fire.
Politicians want to get re-elected, and that means avoiding the ditch-fights whenever the fights can be avoided. Obama is no exception.
posted by Jorge on
Well, I’ll tell you one thing.
Since I’m not voting for Obama in 2012 anyway, once Obama started to move on the issue, he has little to gain with me by moving in a different way than he is now. And under a different president with a different community I have said that moving slowly but surely is doing the right thing. Having said that I’m very happy my Senator is co-sponsoring a repeal. I’ll keep open-minded enough to see some benefit to a complete study that lands in Congress DOA.
posted by Bobby on
I’m sick of Obama, I’m sick of the progressives who support him. Today I was talking to some guy on facebook about the oil spill, when he heard my views he said I was nuts. That’s how progressives see the world, if you don’t agree with us, then you’re nuts. Those motherfuckers deserve to lose, they deserve to be the minority party, then instead of calling us nuts they will have to beg us to vote their way in congress.
posted by Jimmy on
“…..he said I was nuts.”
Well, if it quacks like a duck…..
posted by Jorge on
Okay, so you’re nuts. What’s the other guy’s excuse?
posted by Bobby on
“Okay, so you’re nuts. What’s the other guy’s excuse?”
—I’m not nuts, my ideas make sense, millions of people think like I do. As for my ex-friend, he’s the typical progressive, the kind of person who refers to Michelle Malkin as a “gook” but then screams racism if Rush Limbaugh plays “Barrack the Magic Negro” on the radio.
So, I removed him from my facebook friends, I’ve come to the realization that progressives make terrible friends, they are intolerant, they engage in personal attacks, they demean those who disagree with them, they have no class, no manners, so I’m done with them. Frankly, I’m glad indegayforum.com attracts people with ideological diversity, because I don’t mind debating a liberal, a centrist, but I’m done with the progressive nazis, done!
posted by Jimmy on
“… because I don’t mind debating a liberal, a centrist, but I’m done with the progressive nazis, done!”
Liberal/Progressive – Progressive/Liberal – This is an interesting take.
posted by Jorge on
Well, I can’t get around the conclusion that if it’s about something as cut and dried as the oil spill, your views probably make sense. Unless you happened to channel the spirit of Sean Hannity’s reaction to the event (just another hundred excuses to bash Obama), in which case I’d have to diagnose you with Obama Derangement Syndrome.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jorge. My views are simply that 1. We need cheap gas because not everyone makes $100k a year, $7 a gallon means Joe Taxpayer is gonna buy less food, watch less movies, buy less clothes and be more thrifty with his money since driving is not a luxury but a necessity, specially if you commute. 2. Oil spills are extremely rare, car crashes are common, yet we don’t stop driving every-time someone crashes their car. 3. Green solutions to replace oil are not practical yet.
I think my views were logical. I also provided examples of how if every agricultural field was dedicated to growing bio-diesel it would only replace 10% of our gasoline use. Moreover, electric cars aren’t entirely green since electricity often comes from coal, electric cars are also expensive (the Tesla roadster costs over $70,000 and only sits two people). Solar panels are expensive to, the same with wind turbines… In conclusion, every “green energy alternative” fails to be as practical as oil, gasoline and coal.
Think about this, I would love to put solar panels in my condo and never face an electric bill again, but at what price? I would probably have to spend $20,000 I don’t have on the endeavor. My electric bill is between $60 to $150 a month, so it would take my more than 10 years just to get back my $20k. Frankly, it’s not worth it.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm. Yes that’s logical.
I’ll follow the idea that free market economics will lead to the most efficient solutions, to a point, and you make the case pretty well about why. I think more research needs to be done to make green industries more efficient.
I also believe that green industries, being unlikely to be advanced by the free market, should be encouraged by the goverment. Why should you have to pay the $20,000 on your own. Still, there is the question about when will we be ready to do it most efficiently.
posted by Bobby on
“I also believe that green industries, being unlikely to be advanced by the free market, should be encouraged by the goverment. Why should you have to pay the $20,000 on your own. ”
—It’s like the airline industry, they’ve gotten government bailouts so they’re under no pressure to improve their services. Government subsidies are anti-capitalist because the government is promoting one industry against another with money that belongs to all of us. Subsidies also encourage high prices, John Stossel for example bought a golf car for $0. How? The government subsidy was of $6,500 so the golf car salesman sold his car for that amount, the subsidy in question had to do with “alternative energy” by the way.
If an idea is great money will find it’s way to that idea, but when an idea isn’t so great that’s when you’ll find corporations begging for money. Besides, the more we get from the government the more we are expected to give back, it’s not a good deal.
posted by Jorge on
It’s like the airline industry, they’ve gotten government bailouts so they’re under no pressure to improve their services. Government subsidies are anti-capitalist because the government is promoting one industry against another with money that belongs to all of us.
I’m not talking about companies. I’m talking about actions taken by companies. Green industry is by its very nature *not* good money.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m not talking about companies. I’m talking about actions taken by companies. Green industry is by its very nature *not* good money.”
—I don’t know what you mean by “not good money.” I do know green companies enjoy lots of publicity from the media and they have a built in market of treehuggers willing to pay top dollar for their products. I don’t think they need bailouts, they simply need to realize that if they want to expand their market share they will have to lower prices, God help us if the government were to ban all gasoline cars and forced everyone of us to buy hybrids.
posted by Debrah on
Ha!
Bill Maher got shut down for his hyperbole this past week.
Great vids
I agree that they could increase their Sunday ratings with such a debate on a regular basis.
Bill Maher stammers like hell!
posted by Throbert McGee on
I haven’t seen a tool as big as Maher since that time I dropped acid and gave a Clydesdale stallion a handjo– oh, never mind.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
I hope you don’t have that one on video.
You might scare the anal sex masters among us.
On second thought, scare them!
:>)
posted by Debrah on
A quote for the day:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
–C.S. Lewis
posted by Tom on
With emphasis on “omnipotent moral busibodies”. The quote is from “God in the Dock” (1948). Lewis was talking about the propensity of some Christians to impose their morality on the rest of us “for our own good”. Lewis would, no doubt, have a similar and priceless observation about the moralistic, hypocritical social conservatives of modern America, sixty years later.
posted by Debrah on
“Lewis would, no doubt, have a similar and priceless observation about the moralistic, hypocritical social conservatives of modern America, sixty years later.”
****************************************************
No doubt, Tom.
But coming in ahead, I believe, and from my experience, would be the tyranny of the loony Left…….embroidered with all the appropriate lachrymal sounds of fury for “those in need” or “the least among us”.
But it’s always THEY who end up benefiting, personally, from such “concerns”.
As WFB once said: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
posted by Jimmy on
“…under omnipotent moral busybodies.”
When did Lewis made that declaration, before or after his conversion?
posted by Jorge on
All right, let me explain my point then.
In general, the free market system of capitalism allows goods and services that people want and need to be offered to the public in the most efficient and inexpensive way possible compared to other economic systems. Businesses and consumers respond to the law of supply and demand.
The free market system is not good at preserving our natural resources or protecting our environment. Public goods like air and water do not respond to pure free market forces. I do not remember the entire explanation why, but part of it is that it is very expensive for an industry to go green. There is very little economic benefit to it; businesses that choose not to protect the environment will produce their goods more cheaply, and people will buy the cheaper goods.
This is the theory behind emmissions trading, which the Obama administration is a proponent of.
I do know green companies enjoy lots of publicity from the media and they have a built in market of treehuggers willing to pay top dollar for their products. I don’t think they need bailouts, they simply need to realize that if they want to expand their market share they will have to lower prices, God help us if the government were to ban all gasoline cars and forced everyone of us to buy hybrids.
I find this unacceptable. A niche green industry with a niche consumer base of treehuggers does not protect the environment. If the free market system will not or cannot protect the environment, it is the government’s responsibility to find a way to do so while also balancing our freeddom and economic needs.
posted by Jimmy on
“…if they want to expand their market share they will have to lower prices, God help us if the government were to ban all gasoline cars and forced everyone of us to buy hybrids.”
As with most emerging technologies, pervasiveness drives down cost, look at DVD players.
The government will never ban gasoline cars because the government is a subsidiary of Big Oil.
Now, I like muscle cars, so gas and horsepower are dear things to me. Y’all should been with me, in the passenger seat, on the windy, hilly roads of southern Indiana yesterday! Yee-ha!
posted by Tom on
Bobby: “…under omnipotent moral busybodies.” When did Lewis made that declaration, before or after his conversion?
The quote is from “God in the Dock” (1948), a Christian apologia. Lewis converted to Christianity in 1931, seventeen years before he wrote “God in the Dock”. The quote is not surprising; Lewis was strongly influenced by George MacDonald, who held similar views.
posted by Bobby on
“As with most emerging technologies, pervasiveness drives down cost, look at DVD players.”
—True, but with the DVD player it was the people who decided “hey, maybe I need a DVD player.” So with hybrids, electric vehicles, ethanol, it must be the people and not the government that decides “hey, we need this.”
Have you heard of the new Nissan Leaf? It’s electric, costs $35,000, and then you have to spend an additional $3,000 for a special outlet to plug in your car (there might be a tax rebate, but it’s still expensive). In a country where the average salary is $50,000, a $35k vehicle is still too expensive for most people. So my point is, don’t expect most Americans to embrace green alternatives until those alternatives make financial sense.
“The government will never ban gasoline cars because the government is a subsidiary of Big Oil.”
—You’d be surprised, the government will ban things even when they are profitable, all illegal drugs today were legal drugs at one point in history, ephedra was legal, Diet Coke is legal but they are being taken out of schools… when it comes to political correctness, the government knows no limits. Even if Uncle Sam doesn’t ban gas cars, what happens if they invent expensive fuel taxes that rise the price of a gallon to $10?
“Now, I like muscle cars, so gas and horsepower are dear things to me.”
—A $10 a gallon they would become a luxury few people could afford. And let us remember something else, virtually everything we consume is driven by trucks, so if the price of gasoline goes up, the price of everything will go up as well. The scary thing about green economics is how little regard they have for individual needs, environmentalism is not about humans, it’s about the planet at large, we are expendable, our needs are secondary.
A lot of things we take for granted simply make sense. Preservatives keep our food fresh longer, SUV’s help families travel in comfort, traveling by Cruise is a bargain compared to eco-travel. Yet environmentalists hate all the things we love, so instead of developing electric SUV’s or cheap organic food, they tell us to ride public transport or have a nice vacation is Costa Rica for $1,000 to $3,000 when a cheap Carnival cruise only costs about $300-$600 per person.
posted by Jimmy on
As the price of gasoline goes up, more impetus is placed, at long last, on finally developing the alternative energy that currently does, in reality, get an over abundance of lip service, even by Gore (Al – not VidAL), and is currently seen as trend item, not a necessity. Every individual has the ability to live off of the grid, from a design perspective, if he or she chooses to do so, even to the point of making home grown bio-fuel. It can be done.
But on a macro level, the impetus will be driven by the pain felt by the masses due to fossil fuel prices. Even ethanol is a chimera, IMO. It’s has driven food prices – which for me means beef – to uncomfortable levels.
But, nature abhors a vacuum, and something always gives. And, people who want to drive a high horse power, performance vehicle will still do so…Just not every day.