The Washington Blade reports:
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) maintained this week that pro-LGBT legislation could see progress in the Democratic-controlled Senate during the 112th Congress as prospects of movement are unlikely in the Republican-controlled House.
Well, yes. So, why weren’t these measures brought forward during the 111th Congress, when Democrats enjoyed large majorities in the House and Senate (with a filibuster-proof party majority in the latter for a year and a half, lost only with the election of moderate Republican Scott Brown)? It’s only now, when these bills are certain to die in the GOP House that the Democrats are making them an issue with an eye on rousing LGBT donors and support for 2012.
It’s the same old, same old. As I’ve previously argued, even repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) was shoved off to the last possible moment last year, and then initially brought to the floor by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid in a way that ensured maximum GOP opposition (i.e., with no debate allowed on amendments to the military appropriations bill). It was only when left-wing bloggers and activists began to turn on the Democrats over these shenanigans that a clean DADT repeal bill was brought to the floor and then passed with the support of six GOP Senators (including Scott Brown).
Anyone remember Bill Clinton’s first two years, with majorities in both Houses?
Gay voters are like Charlie Brown and congressional Democrats are Lucy, jerking the football away so that Charlie Brown trips and falls as he runs up and is just about to kick it. Again, and again, and again.
12 Comments for “Party Tricks”
posted by Jimmy on
“It was only when left-wing bloggers and activists began to turn on the Democrats over these shenanigans that a clean DADT repeal bill was brought to the floor and then passed with the support of six GOP Senators (including Scott Brown).”
Because Republicans never listen to their base.
DADT has been repealed, last time I checked. When you add it up, the ugly wins are still wins.
posted by Houndentenor on
Your criticism of the Democratic leadership is fair, but it ignores the strength of the Republican opposition and the fear that moderate Democrats facing close elections have of dealing with the gay issue. If the Republican challenger wasn’t going to use this issue against them in the next election, would this be a problem?
But I think we have a bigger issue. No Congress or white house has ever done anything that needed to be done without real and constant pressure from voters. So where is HRC in all of this? 70% of Americans were in favor of repealing DADT. Why were we playing defense when we have the majority? We have overpaid, incompetent leadership and the entire movement is run from the top down which just doesn’t work. We only got the DADT repeal passed because some activists and bloggers took matters into their own hands and started applying the pressure themselves. And it worked. Lesson learned.
I wish we could just vote and then expect elected officials to keep their promises. That doesn’t work on any issue for either party. If you want results you have to hound them until they do what they promised. It shouldn’t be this hard but it is, always was and probably always will be.
posted by Jorge on
Obama gave a nice shout-out on the anti DADT bill in his State of the Union, though.
You have most Democrats in Congress supportive of gay rights, but they calculate about it, and you don’t get to see what those calculations are. Yes, it’s annoying. But you know what, that’s just another example of how social changes comes from the bottom up and not the top down.
posted by Tom on
If you don’t think that the Democratic politicians are doing enough, fast enough, then get active in Republican politics and and put the pressure on and keep it on.
Stephen, your writing over the last couple of years reflects a curious dependency on Democrats, which strikes me as out-of-sync with conservative principles of self-reliance and self-responsibility. Gays and lesbians are not dependent children, and Democratic politicians (or employers or the straight majority or the so-called LGBT “leadership”, for that matter) are not parents with the power to dispense or withhold.
We stand on our own as free adults, and we get what we make happen through our own hard work. That is how it has always been, how it is now, and how it will be in the future. If you haven’t figured that out from the forty years of post-Stonewall history, then you haven’t figured out much of anything.
Conservative gays and lesbians who complain that the Democrats aren’t doing enough when they won’t demand that conservative politicians do anything at all are ridiculous and embarrassing. Where the hell was your outrage about Republican massive resistance to DADT? What we got here was not a peep about that, but a constant stream of complaints that the Democrats weren’t advancing DADT to your satisfaction.
The Democrats do what they do because those of us who became active in Democratic politics changed the political calculus for Democrats. It isn’t enough, and we have to keep the pressure on all the time in order to get them to do anything. But they do, at least, do something. And they do enough that you have the opportunity to complain that they aren’t doing what suits you.
But that doesn’t mean that the Democrats alone responsible for what happens or doesn’t, or that gays and lesbians who are active within Democratic politics should be expected to carry all the water while conservative gays and lesbians sit back, count their tax breaks, and complain.
If you want equality, then pick a forum within the Republican Party, and get in the fight.
posted by Houndentenor on
In fact, what we see from gay conservatives is the opposite of that. They consistently support openly anti-gay politicians. Moderates who would support gay rights are considered RINOs and therefore unworthy of support.
posted by Tom on
In fact, what we see from gay conservatives is the opposite of that. They consistently support openly anti-gay politicians.
I know. I couldn’t decide whether to laugh or snort last year when Stephen was furious at President Obama for ordering the RAND study before Congress voted on DADT repeal. Stephen’s opinion, which was correct, was that that DADT repeal wouldn’t stand a fart’s chance in a hurricane in a Republican Congress, and if Republicans prevailed in the November elections, we’d have our ass in a crack.
But that didn’t stop Stephen from chiding those of us who are Democrats because we refuse to vote for ant-gay Republicans.
It is just plain nonsense. I don’t understand why conservative gays and lesbians think that they can vote for anti-gay Republican politicians and then complain that the Democrats aren’t doing enough to overcome anti-gay resistance from the Republican anti-gay politicians they help vote into office.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too!
posted by grendel on
Testify, Brother! Testify!
posted by SStocky on
Missing in Stephen’s otherwise excellent analysis is the impact of court victory won by Log Cabin Republicans striking down DADT. As much as anything this focused both the administration, particularly the White House and the Pentagon, and the Congress on doing something their way or else the courts were going to do it for them. Most of the media and all of the professional gay establishment have totally missed or intentionally buried this big accomplishment. To understand this, one only has to look at the fact that the administration is still continuing an all out fight to delay/overturn the Log Cabin decision on DADT while they’ve taken a very public walk on defending DOMA.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, kudos to Log Cabin for this.
and while we are congratulating conservatives who are making progress on gay rights, we should throw Ted Olson a parade. If we win in front of SCOTUS it will be because Olson knows how to translate fairness and equal rights into conservative language.
posted by Tom on
… we should throw Ted Olson a parade …
Agreed. Olson is a consummate appellate lawyer who will, if it is possible, win Kennedy’s vote should Perry make it to SCOTUS on the merits. I don’t think it will — I think that the 9th Circuit will decide on standing, letting the District Court decision stand without review on the merits, and SCOTUS will deny cert to defer a decision on the merits to a later date — but Olson is a hero.
But instead of throwing a parade, how about chipping in on the legal costs?
posted by Houndentenor on
I meant the parade metaphorically, but yes, a donation is a much better idea.
posted by BobN on
Same old, same old. I don’t mean Dems. I mean Miller.
I’m curious what I’m supposed to remember about Clinton’s first two years. The near destruction of his presidency for taking on gays in the military?