Adding to the posts below by Dale and David, it doesn't appear to me that Obama deserves any credit for being forced to move ahead on repealing "don't ask, don't tell." The movers here are those Democrats in Congress who are, finally, standing up to the president.
As the AP reports, under the proposal Congress would overturn the Clinton-era law barring gays from serving openly in the military, but would "allow the Pentagon time-perhaps even years-to implement new policies" following completion of a comprehensive study. At that time, implementation would require approval of the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And tellingly, according to the AP:
"The White House had hoped lawmakers would delay action until Pentagon officials had completed their study so fellow Democrats would not face criticism that they moved too quickly or too far ahead of public opinion in this election year. Instead, administration officials recognized it could not stop Congress in its effort to repeal the 1993 ban and joined the negotiations."
In other words, Obama's hope was to sacrifice his commitment to gay equality in the military for electoral expediency. But at least some congressional Democrats, who may or may not have the votes to put this across, aren't letting him get away with it. Good for them.
More:
"A lukewarm endorsement from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and opposition among some lawmakers cast doubt Tuesday on whether Congress this week would lift a 17-year-old ban on gays serving openly in the military....
"I see no reason for the political process to pre-empt it," Sen. Jim Webb, a conservative Democrat from Virginia, said of the military study."
By the way, the Human Rights Campaign's website is still bragging about the group's support for Webb.
ADDED: With House passage, all eyes will be on the Senate, which isn't expected to vote until later this summer. At issue: will the Senate Republicanbs mount a filibuster?
Also, it should be noted the despite the characterization in the excerpt above, Sen. Jim Webb is no "conservative Democrat." He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Obama mega-billion pork-barrel "stimulus" and of so-called health care reform. He's a big spending, government expanding Democrat who thinks he can placate Virginia conservatives by opposing equality for gays. Nice. Let's all send our checks to HRC to keep him in office.
Benefits of bipartisanship. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine backs repeal, giving conservative Democrats some wiggle room.
17 Comments for “DADT: Resistance and Movement (Possibly)”
posted by Casey on
And yet, he had the gall to say the following to a heckler, tonight, who challenged him on DADT: “C’mon, man, I’m dealing with Congress here,” Obama said to laughter. “It takes a little bit of time.” As though he deserves any credit at all. Fierce advocate my ass.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/25/obama.heckler/
posted by Mark on
Obama’s basic indifference to this issue is revealing, especially coming from our “fierce advocate.” But surely the bigger scandal is the overwhelming opposition of the Senate Republicans–even among so-called “moderates” like Scott Brown–to a proposal that has 80% popular support. Steve talks a lot about Democratic shortcomings on issues of equality, but the villains in this case are disproportionately not on the Democratic side of the aisle.
posted by Debrah on
Both Casey and Mark have highlighted a few interesting points.
“C’mon, man, I’m dealing with Congress here.”
“It takes a little bit of time.”
*****************************************
Obama’s habit of pulling out the “streetwise” black lingo and inflection when it’s convenient and when he thinks he can get a laugh is becoming stale and tiresome.
If the issues of DADT and SSM were on his list, he could have already moved substantively. What is it now?……..2010 ?
And as I’ve stated many times before, I am in agreement with him on the civil unions issue; however, the gay community, in general, supports him and makes excuses for him as if he’s a huge SSM proponent.
“Obama’s basic indifference to this issue is revealing, especially coming from our ‘fierce advocate’.”
“…….but the villains in this case are disproportionately not on the Democratic side of the aisle.”
*****************************************
Who’s in charge right now?
Who’s the majority?
As a side bar, Mark Steyn recently wrote:
“Like a lot of guys whoâve been told theyâre brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesnât always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the ‘Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act’.”
Let’s hope that Obama doesn’t wander away from his teleprompter too often.
Daniel Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002.
This is what the president of the United States said:
“Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the worldâs imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
Heâs talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceasedâs family was standing all around him.
This is truly sick.
If anyone has forgotten about Daniel Pearl, go back and do some reading.
It seems that Obama will turn his own azz inside out rather than tell the truth about radical Islam.
posted by Jorge on
You and Dale Carpenter *did* read the part of the proposed Amendment that states it would have NO IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON CURRENT POLICY, right? It does not strike out the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy (that is what the section 654 the amdendment refers to, right?) until and unless the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff agree in writing that (in brief) the military is ready for it.
It would not overturn the law until that time, and it would not turn back the clock to the pre-Clinton years. It would stop the clock exactly where it is now. There are two or three possibilities from there:
1) The president authorizes a repeal of DADT at the same time a an anti-discrimination policy is implemented.
2) The president authorizes a repeal of DADT at the same time a stronger discriminatory policy is implemented.
3) The Defense Department bill in which the amendment is contained expires, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell remains in place.
posted by Tom on
Looking back, I suppose it was inevitable, given the political pressures and the large majority of the populace in favor or DADT repeal, that we would end up with this “compromise” or something like it.
Although I can live with it, so long as the military retains control of implementation, I don’t think that it is the best course, for reasons I’ve stated in other threads. It seems to me that the amendment puts the cart before the horse, and that the President’s original plan for repeal was the better course, despite the risk that Democrats would lose big in November.
Repealing DADT is a political decision, but implementation is going to be complicated, as a look at the Amendment would suggest:
before Congressional action was twofold:
(1) to create a political case for repeal (we should do this, we can do this, we are ready to do this) that was clear and persuasive; and
(2) to increase “buy in” at lower levels of the military to ensure that implementation was successful.
It seems to me that we’ve now got this ass-backward on both scores, with less than predictable results. It seems to me that all we’ve accomplished is to give the social conservatives “cover” for the FUD machine.
posted by Tom on
The following seems to have gotten lopped of my response above:
The point of the planning process (the RAND study and developing a complete implementation plan) before Congressional action was twofold:
(1) to create a political case for repeal (we should do this, we can do this, we are ready to do this) that was clear and persuasive; and
(2) to increase “buy in” at lower levels of the military to ensure that implementation was successful.
It seems to me that we’ve now got this ass-backward on both scores, with less than predictable results, other than that we’ve given “cover” to the social conservative FUD machine to operate during the implementation process.
posted by BobN on
And don’t forget the biggest buy-in that would have been possible after the election: Republicans.
Would a lot of them have signed on to a popular change, with an implementation plan produced by the military in hand? No. Not a lot. But more than enough.
Instead, we have them digging in their heals, with hypocrites like McCain leading the way to failure.
posted by Jeremy on
If this compromise repeal goes through (I am having my doubts), how will this affect Log Cabin Republicans v. USA? I personally believe that lawsuit is our best hope for ending the law, and getting an immediate injunction against further discharges. The trial is supposed to start June 14th (just in time!).
posted by Jimmy on
President Obama has stated from the beginning of this effort at repealing DADT that the onus was on the Congress to act and that he was prepared to sign legislation the moment it hit his desk. So, to say he is due no credit is incredulous, to say the least.
posted by Jorge on
Would a lot of them have signed on to a popular change, with an implementation plan produced by the military in hand? No. Not a lot. But more than enough.
Instead, we have them digging in their heals, with hypocrites like McCain leading the way to failure.
Humph. I see that they’re characterizing it as an actual repeal, too. I wonder if McCain’s read the amendment.
Still, that is why I am worried about burning bridges. For now, though, it looks like there’s enough bluffable centrist weight behind the amendment so that if it fails, maybe we can do better.
posted by Jorge on
President Obama has stated from the beginning of this effort at repealing DADT that the onus was on the Congress to act and that he was prepared to sign legislation the moment it hit his desk. So, to say he is due no credit is incredulous, to say the least.
If one believes Obama deserves no credit, then, in a partisan split, one is obligated to attack the side that decides to give Obama credit, because they are being delusional and are promoting delusion. I’ll pass on that. I’ll only attack the side that places hope in him. It was Barack Obama’s decision, long ago, to put himself in a position to be pressured and stood up to by promising to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. I do not believe he lied.
posted by Tom on
Well, here are five Republicans who stood up against Republican orthodoxy and voting for the amendment:
California – Brian Bilbray
Florida – Ilena Ros-Lehtinen
Hawaii – Charles Djou
Illinois – Judy Biggert
Louisiana – Joe Cao
I’ve posted a link to the contribution pages of each of their reelection campaigns for Stephen and others who berate gays and lesbians for not supporting pro-gay Republicans.
I sent each an e-mail this morning thanking them for their vote and made a contribution to their reelection campaigns.
I hope that Stephen and the others in the “gays and lesbians should support pro-gay Republicans” will do likewise.
Its an honor system, but I’m asking Stephen not to say another word about how the Democrats are selling us down the river until he’s made a contribution to each of these incumbent, pro-gay Republicans.
posted by Tom on
Well, as it turned out, I screwed up. When I checked the official House count, it turned out that Brian Bilbay did not vote for the amendment, but Ron Paul did. I wasted some money and a “thank you” on Bilbay, but I thanked Ron Paul and contributed to his campaign as soon as I realized my mistake.
So here is the corrected list of the five Republican members of the House who voted for the amendment: Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, Charles Djou, Judy Biggert, Joe Cao and Ron Paul.
Again, its an honor system, but I’m hoping that Stephen and the others who are so insistent the gays and lesbians should support Republicans who vote pro-gay will contribute to each of the campaigns before discoursing further on the subject.
posted by Jorge on
Sorry, but I can’t stand Ron Paul, and none of those are mine.
Maybe if one of the others goes on camera and gives an affirmation of their vote. I’ll consider giving to my Senator’s campaign, though.
posted by Tom on
Well, I don’t think much of several of the five, including Ron Paul, who I think is a fraud, and none of them are mine, either.
But I decided that Stephen has a point when he says that the Republican Party will not change unless and until gays and lesbians act as a counter to social conservatives, so I decided to contribute to the re-election campaigns of incumbent Republicans who vote pro-gay this election cycle. In a sense, I’m putting my money where Stephen’s mouth is … and it is my hope that those of like mind with Stephen, who are so quick to criticize Democrats for not doing enough and who berate those of us who have been giving to Democrats to do likewise.
Is your Senator a Republican who you expect to vote for DADT repeal when it comes up in the Senate next month?
posted by Jorge on
Oh, no. Mine is the freshman Senator Kirsten Gillebrand (D-NY), who was one of the first to support or propose a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. She doesn’t really have a reputation for being liberal and is considered somewhat vulnerable… although I’ve never heard of anyone announcing an intent to run against her.
Now, I did thank her for her support a long time ago, but to be honest I didn’t even think about contributing to her campaign. Let’s see, I think I said I’d vote for the Republican s/he both supports repealing DADT and opposes health care reform, or… I forgot the other part.
posted by Jorge on
I mean I’d support the Republican *if* they’d both support repealing DADT and oppose health care reform.
The other possibility must have been some combination of support health care reform and being better than Gillebrand on gay rights.