DADT Progress

Joe Lieberman to sponsor the bill:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) announced this morning that he will introduce legislation repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Democrats have sought to repeal the law since President Obama took office, but have been stymied by a busy legislative calendar.

Lieberman says the time is now right to pass a repeal.

“I will be proud to be a sponsor of the important effort to enable patriotic gay Americans to defend our national security and our founding values of freedom and opportunity,” Lieberman said. “To exclude one group of Americans from serving in the armed forces is contrary to our fundamental principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and weakens our defenses by denying our military the service of a large group of Americans who can help our cause.”

I know I am going to be accused of hippie punching and gay bashing, but a certain someone has been claiming for months this is how this was going to happen. Let the military get out in front and be agents of change, neutering Republican opposition, and then let the Democrat who the Republicans simply can’t attack as anti-military propose the bill. And with the public showing great support for repeal, it will pass, Ike Skelton be damned.

This wasn’t 11 dimensional chess. This was common sense, and the way to permanently repeal this crappy compromise. All of you screaming about executive orders and just words just never figured it out, and probably still haven’t. Anything other than the way they are doing this right now would lead to DADT becoming a lot like the overseas abortion ban, which is reversed almost immediately after the oath of office is administered to an incoming President.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

130 replies
  1. 1
    Persia says:

    I never thought I’d say this, but: Good for Joe Lieberman.

  2. 2
    MikeJ says:

    It’s a slap under the bus!

  3. 3
    Pangloss says:

    I guess you mean “incoming winger President.”

  4. 4
    Pangloss says:

    It’s a stab in the wastebasket!!

  5. 5
    gwangung says:

    I know I am going to be accused of hippie punching and gay bashing,

    Like you said, it’s common sense. Or, at least, a workable set of tactics with real pluses to it (some minuses, of course). I just don’t think it’s a fair thing to call it hippie punching when the endgame takes us all where we want to be anyway.

  6. 6
    Prattlehorn says:

    I was gonna be all, like, “Well, sure, some future President might reverse Obama’s executive order on DADT, but since when do we give gay people civil rights and then take them away?”

    Oh yeah. Prop. 8.

    Color me convinced.

  7. 7
    MattF says:

    Imagine… politics as a process in which policies actually get translated into stuff that happens. Amazing!?

  8. 8
    JohnR says:

    Color me confused! What I don’t understand is what’s in this for Joe? There’s no Israel connection there that I can see, it doesn’t infuriate the Democratic Party, it seems pretty meaningless in military terms (under the present circumstances). All this will do is enrage the wild-eyed right wing. Of course they’ve been viciously attacking John McCain lately; perhaps there’s the connection.

  9. 9
    Andy says:

    Prattlehorn wrote:

    I was gonna be all, like, “Well, sure, some future President might reverse Obama’s executive order on DADT, but since when do we give gay people civil rights and then take them away?”

    Or here.

  10. 10
    geg6 says:

    @JohnR:

    All this will do is enrage the wild-eyed right wing. Of course they’ve been viciously attacking John McCain lately; perhaps there’s the connection.

    Ding, ding, ding!

    If I had to guess, this is exactly where my thought processes would have gone.

  11. 11
    different church-lady says:

    Dude, common sense is the new 11 dimensional chess, in that it appears to be a game too complicated for anyone to play anymore.

    Or perhaps they just don’t have the patience to learn the rules?

  12. 12
    scott says:

    Ohh Puleeeease John! First of all neither of the only two B-J posts that you link to say shit about the military getting out in front of this thing. Secondly, the second post you link to is from this fucking month! So to say you’ve been saying this for months is just happy fucking horseshit and you know it.

    None — and I mean NONE — of this would have happened in this time were it not for Mullen saying what he said in the manner in which he said it. Even with 70% of the public polling on this thing showing people wanting DADT to be reversed there wasn’t the political will for it. And with the president effectively silent on the issue for months AND having tossed gays and lesbians under the bus repeatedly I think the response from the left was wholly appropriate and to be expected.

    And although having Mullen come out for it was, in fact, the way it happened, NOBODY could have predicted it (or even expected it frankly — let alone YOU and given the history of the military on this type of thing the exact opposite is what any sane person should have expected).

    Therefore the agitation from the hippies on the left (versus the “leave it alone, someone will eventually fix it and I’m not worried because it doesn’t have any effect on my comfortable non-gay life” from former republican shills like you John) was not just appropriate at the time but is still appropriate now — especially given the senate’s proven ability to routinely fall down on the job and not get done what an overwhelming majority of Americans seem to want.

    Oh, and as far as I can see, the only reason you felt the need to post this and to punch the (Gay, former Marine) hippies like me is because you’re an asshole. But then, you’ve always known I felt that way about you John — but it doesn’t mean I don’t love you.

    Seriously John, step away from the percocets for a while because they’ve clearly caused you some brain damage.

  13. 13
    Andy says:

    @JohnR:

    There’s no Israel connection there that I can see

    There actually is an Israel connection, of a sort. The IDF has allowed gays to serve openly for years, with little or no difficulty. (Multiple countries in Western Europe have, as well, but of course, we all know they’re pansies to begin with.) But it’s hard to see any GOPer arguing that Israel doesn’t take national security seriously, or doesn’t have a top-notch military, or challenging Lieberman’s bona fides on Israel.

  14. 14
    The Raven says:

    It’s like a gift from the lover who just beat you up.

  15. 15
    different church-lady says:

    @scott:

    You seem to have a serious problem with understanding how sarcasm is used.

  16. 16
    Mike Kay says:

    My sense is most of the blowhards on GOS and the Firebaggers weren’t politically active in 1993. They don’t have any memory of all the problems Clinton encountered by trying to lift the ban during his first week in office.

    This was always an issue of timing.

  17. 17
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Andy:

    But it’s hard to see any GOPer arguing that Israel doesn’t take national security seriously, or doesn’t have a top-notch military, or challenging Lieberman’s bona fides on Israel.

    That would be true if they cared about being consistent.

  18. 18
    Mike Kay says:

    Also a bi F.U. to the hippies like Bowers who didn’t see the angle in retaining Gates.

  19. 19

    I wonder who Lieberman is fixing to betray on this.

  20. 20
    John Cole says:

    @scott: Oh, bullshit. Obama has been very clear with his intentions to the military, and gave them ample time to get their house in order. Anyone who is even remotely surprised by Mullen’s statement, or, for that matter, Petraeus’s statement this weekend regarding torture, simply does not understand the politics of the upper echelon of the military.

    The problem in the repeal of DADT has never been the administration and the military, but Congress.

  21. 21
    gwangung says:

    @Mike Kay: I dunno; I think it’s more of a byproduct of coalition politics, where you have two distinct factions that share some, but not all, values, who are working together, trying to get things done.

    Everyone is trying to get the same goal done; there are disagreements on how to get it done. I just don’t think “hippie punching” is an appropriate term, since there’s no repudiation of values or goals on either side.

  22. 22
  23. 23
    gbear says:

    I know I am going to be accused of hippie punching and gay bashing, but a certain someone has been claiming for months this is how this was going to happen.

    You know what this means? It means that your byline about being consistently wrong since 2002 is wrong!! How can we believe anything you say anymore?

  24. 24
  25. 25
    soonergrunt says:

    @gbear:

    It means that your byline about being consistently wrong since 2002 is wrong!! How can we believe anything you say anymore?

    Oh, no. The byline is still good, because he’s only been “inconsistently right.”

  26. 26

    @The Raven: LOL.
    Next comes the stab in the back during make up sex.

  27. 27
    Mike Kay says:

    What’s AmericaBlog gonna commit self-immolation over now?

  28. 28
    gwangung says:

    By the way, I thoroughly believe that we have no right to complain if we don’t call our Senators and Reps about this once the legislation is introduced. That’s an area where we DO have influence, and if even the wingnut Congresscritters get a tidal wave of support for DADT repeal, then that’s a good thing. Either they mute their criticism, or it’s a cudgel to batter them when re-election occurs.

  29. 29
    Wannabe Speechwriter says:

    @scott:

    Woa, chill. It’s not like John is personally making policy or forcing the Democrats to stall repealing DADT.

    I largely agree with John that this is the best strategy for repealing this horrid policy. However, it doesn’t come without a price. While Obama waited to get the military on board, many men and women who serve this country honorably were kicked out because of DADT. While I think that a hasty executive order to end the policy would have caused more harm than good (the military would have resented it, Obama would get the same harmful relationship Clinton got with the military his first term, a Republican President would have reinstated the ban in 2013 or 2017 or whenever, etc.), there was a price to be paid for this. For those kicked out of the military in 2009 because of DADT, the slow methodical approach to repeal is very much a cold comfort.

    The one thing I never like about the FDL crowd is they never seem to get change is a long and messy process. They love to scream about how Democrats fail on this or that but never seem to realize most of our nation’s biggest changes took many years to achieve results. Also, many of the sacred acts of change (the Emancipation Proclamation, Social Security, etc.) were viewed at the time as half-measures and cop-outs. Change takes time, it’s never perfect, and often times leads to a new set of problems. If at every bump in the road you want to scream how the Democrats have totally failed and how nothing is getting done, I suggest being an activist isn’t for you. Go to TMZ or Gawker or some other entertainment site and yell on their boards.

    As for me, I know only this:

    The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

  30. 30
    Fergus Wooster says:

    @Persia:

    I never thought I’d say this, but: Good for Joe Lieberman.

    I wouldn’t be too quick to say that. $10 says he’ll about-face and oppose cloture on his own friggin bill, just because the liberals seemed too happy about it.

  31. 31
    ricky says:

    That Joe will betray just about everybody, won’t he?

  32. 32
    lol says:

    @Mike Kay:

    Most Nutrooters weren’t politically active before 2003.

    The ones that do remember the 1990s usually remember through the patchouli-stained lenses of Clinton the Sellout or the PUMAce colored lenses of Greatest President Evar.

    Thus they can never remember his successes and are incapable of remembering why he failed.

  33. 33
    Punchy says:

    And with the public showing great support for repeal, it will pass, Ike Skelton be damned.

    Holy shit are you niave about the fecklessness and scared-shitlessness of Democrats.

    Declaring victory already, eh? You’ll never learn……

  34. 34
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @gbear:

    You know what this means? It means that your byline about being consistently wrong since 2002 is wrong!! How can we believe anything you say anymore?

    New byline:
    a political Epimenides Paradox since 2002.

  35. 35
    different church-lady says:

    @Wannabe Speechwriter:

    The one thing I never like about the FDL crowd is they never seem to get change is a long and messy process. They love to scream about how Democrats fail on this or that but never seem to realize most of our nation’s biggest changes took many years to achieve results.

    Change is a long process, but the need for dramatic self-validating screeching is usually immediate.

  36. 36
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Fergus Wooster:

    I wouldn’t be too quick to say that. $10 says he’ll about-face and oppose cloture on his own friggin bill, just because the liberals seemed too happy about it.

    Normally I wouldn’t take that bet, but in this case it’s Joe’s best opportunity to give a giant F.U. to the GOP socialcons – the very same people who sank his chance at being Johnnie Walnuts VP pick. I don’t think he’s going to pass that up. This cold served dish of revenge is too sweet, and there will be plenty of other hippy punching opportunities further down the road.

  37. 37
    ricky says:

    Leave the 11th Dimensional Chess Meme alone. I have it on
    firm authority from unnamed sources that Jake Tapper saw the blisters on Obama’s fingers and they are consistent with only the eighth or at best ninth level. Or they resulted from smoking the Kools right down to the filter.

  38. 38
    drosophilo melanogaster III says:

    lieberman’s not a democrat, he’s a connecticut for lieberman

  39. 39
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Wannabe Speechwriter:

    That is all fine and well…except that Obama badly fumbled relations with the GLBT community on his first day in office (homophobe preacher up front on the dais, GLBT preacher hastily recruited to pray at minor event not even shown on TV) as well as the horrible legal brief the DOJ put out to defend DOMA (which brought up the good old ghey secks is like beastiality and raping children tropes!)

    Small wonder we have been suspicious of him since then. I will not spend one dime, nor volunteer one hour of my time to help his re-election until I see something actually get accomplished wrt GLBT issues. Those of you who are not in our community never seem to really understand the dissconnect between us and this President, and especially since we had originally walked precincts, made phone calls and donated money when he said he would be a “fierce advocate”.

    I haven’t seen the fierce yet. Aside from his SOTU speech, we hadn’t even seen the advocate part. Color me unimpressed.

  40. 40
    Fergus Wooster says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
    Hmm. I see your point. But still, come crunch time, I bet he’d rather punch a hippie than a social con.

    I’m happy to be proven wrong.

  41. 41
    Rick Massimo says:

    One hole in your calculus, John: There is NO ONE “the Republicans simply can’t attack as being anti-military.”

    Those hippies at the Pentagon have been poisoned by Washington insiders’ disease, and they have to be set straight by the clear-thinking GOP, who bring a fresh outside perspective, never having served themselves.

  42. 42
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Wannabe Speechwriter:

    The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

    By what metric? I see evidence in the historical record to justify that claim. It is nothing more than a feel good platitude. The arc of history is bloody and littered with forgotten dead whose killers were never brought to account.

    Sorry, but I see no honest reading of history that leads to any other conclusion.

  43. 43
    gwangung says:

    @celticdragonchick: Then force the issue. Get a bill in front of him. This is an issue where you don’t have to go through the President. You can influence directly.

  44. 44
    Mike Kay says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    exactly! who cares about DADT!

  45. 45
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @celticdragonchick: In the long run, we’re all dead.

    Might as well have just said that.

  46. 46
    Nellcote says:

    Is Joe proposing this as a stand alone bill? I thought the plan was to attach repeal to the can’t fillibuster defense bill. If a stand alone bill doesn’t pass can it still be attached to a defense bill as a plan-b?

    Joe’s ratfucking someone on this deal. Gillibrand?

  47. 47
    tc125231 says:

    You are probably right. Your point? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Bush boy.

  48. 48
    Mike Kay says:

    @Rick Massimo:

    That goes back 60 years, when Joe McCarthy accused the army of being full of commies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....y_hearings

  49. 49
    Fergus Wooster says:

    @Sentient Puddle:
    I don’t think that’s what she meant. Just that the “arc of history” bromide often doesn’t stand up to historical analysis. As often as not there is backsliding, or the persecuted go on to persecute, etc.

    I don’t think she was arguing the futility of change, just the idea of believing that the wind is always at your back. Which can lead to complacency.

    Or as someone smarter than I put it, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”

  50. 50
    Paris says:

    It doesn’t hurt that Cheeney has voiced public support for its repeal. The wingers at CPAC weren’t sure who they were supposed to bash after that so they throttled each other.

  51. 51
    kay says:

    If the polling is accurate, I would think the debate in Congress would itself be enormously valuable for both repeal of DADT and the larger equality issue.
    DADT is an easily understandable and very sympathetic example of a larger inequality. It’s a beautiful lead issue.
    That last round of testimony went pretty damn well. I have no idea why any advocate in the gay community would want to bypass debate and do anything by executive order.
    When your witnesses are really persuasive, let them speak.

  52. 52
    Mnemosyne says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    as well as the horrible legal brief the DOJ put out to defend DOMA (which brought up the good old ghey secks is like beastiality and raping children tropes!)

    Actually, it didn’t. You probably should have read the brief for yourself instead of going by what John Aravosis claimed it said.

    What the brief actually said is that right now states are not required to recognize marriages that do not conform to their state’s laws so therefore gay marriage should be treated the same as, say, cousin marriage. Personally, I disagree with that legal opinion, but it’s ridiculous and inflammatory to claim that cousin marriage is tantamount to child rape so therefore the DOJ was comparing gay marriage to child rape.

  53. 53
    jayjaybear says:

    Since this is Lieberman, I’m still waiting for the sucker punch. This is the first time he’s “voted with us on everything but the war” since he was re-elected without having to be lovingly bj’ed and erotic massaged to do it.

  54. 54
    middlewest says:

    You really have to marvel at the fact that Obama is going to accomplish one of the greatest, most transformational achievements in the history of gay civil rights, and many self-appointed mouthpieces of the gay rights movement bashed him every step of the way. Seems like there should be some consequences for that! But it’s OK, a gay-integrated military will lead to more and better gay leadership, and make the John Aravosises of the left even more irrelevant.

  55. 55
    brantl says:

    Lieberman was good for something! Who knew?

  56. 56
    Nellcote says:

    @Paris:

    It doesn’t hurt that Cheeney has voiced public support for its repeal.

    Oh, Cheney approved. I guess that explains Joe’s “brave” stance!

  57. 57
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Lieberman is introducing the legislation? But Johnny Mac opposes…

    Uh-oh…could it be that repealing the ban on gays in the military will break up one of DC’s longest running MM relationships?

  58. 58
    Keith G says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    Good golly, how self important some gay boys and girls have gotten.

    …except that Obama badly fumbled relations with the GLBT community on his first day in office (homophobe preacher up front on the dais…

    As a guy who happens to by gay (and agnostic, for that matter) I never gave a fuck who mumble-jumbled to the great cosmic emotional crutch. And I am quite frankly very tired of self-centered piss ants telling this veteran of 1970s Gay Rights demonstrations what the ill-defined Gay community thinks about Obama’s efforts in this arena. Please stop.

  59. 59
    EriktheRed says:

    As a former soldier who saw how a lot of good soldiers have a problem with gays (not that I ever agredd, mind you), I hope times have changed enough since I was in the service that it won’t hurt morale, like I think it would have done back then.

  60. 60
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I did read it. I noticed the comparisons.

  61. 61
    Cerberus says:

    To John’s analysis: Yes. I’ve always felt the executive action pleas and “it could be done quicklies” were kind of inane and based more in “a cursory glance of history says” rather than any sane analysis of our broken political process.

    Regarding Lieberman: It could be simple self-preservation. He just got finished taking an epic level dump on over 70% of his constituency of liberals and moderates for the narrow concerns of his wife’s paycheck and his psychological need to revenge himself on democrats for not voting for him, but he’s also a lazy S.O.B. who would be happy taking the DC retirement into lobbying, but that would involve moving his things, so if he can throw enough bones to squeak through into staying in his congress job after his betrayals that would be great too.

    And DADT is one of those nice softball bones that looks to be pretty solid for passage, has massive support from Americans and not enough rich lobbyists willing to go to bat against it.

  62. 62
    Jay C says:

    Much as I hate to cheer on anything Holy Joe Lieberman is the front-runner on, in this case, he is (for a well-deserved change) on the right side: so here’s hoping some Joementum can push DADT repeal over the edge into reality: and, yes, not a minute before time.

    And FWIW, I’ll second John (Cole’s) opinion: as much I would have preferred President Obama to deal with the issue well before now, the methodology he (Obama) has used is, IMO, correct. By getting the military brass (DoD and JCS) on the record as confirming what most people have know for years (i.e. that very few in the services outside of religious nuts and the hypermacho Rambos really gives a shit if their comrades are gay or not), the Administration has knocked one huge prop out from under the rickety DADT “rationale”. And once the requisite “study” is complete (mainly for form’s sake), Congress will sign on, and Obama will sign off. Though as celticdragonchick points out, it will be little consolation for the already-discharged.

  63. 63
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Keith G:

    Good golly, how self important some gay boys and girls have gotten.

    Excuse the fuck out of me for having interests as a voter and noticing when my brothers and sisters have been slighted. I’ll go back to my subservient status like a good little queer now. Thank you for reminding me of my place.

    /s

  64. 64
    Jay C says:

    @Cerberus:

    And DADT is one of those nice softball bones that looks to be pretty solid for passage, has massive support from Americans and not enough rich lobbyists willing to go to bat against it.

    Actually, it’s probably more a case of DADT Repeal being a fairly foregone conclusion, its opponents (the usual wingnuts, fag-bashers and Jump-for Jesus crowd) will likely prefer it to go through, so that they can exploit the ginned-up “outrage” of their “base” for their main priority: i.e., fundraising.

  65. 65
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Sentient Puddle:

    In the long run, we’re all dead.
    Might as well have just said that.

    I think most people here might argue that there is a difference between dieing at home with loved ones or at least of natural causes…and being raped and bayoneted to death by Japanese soldiers at Nanking, or butchered by Hannoverians at Culloden, gassed at Dauchau, shot at Wounded Knee, captured by slave traders as a child and succombing to small pox on the middle passage, run down by the Khan’s horsemen or being burned at the stake by (take your Pick of Romans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Church of England, Puritans, Calvanists, irate Native Americans, Hutus with gasoline and some tires…).

    Most of the time, the guilty go free and write the history books later. It appears to be the exception to the rule if the opposite happens. All too often, both sides commit the atrocities.

  66. 66
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Jay C:

    Actually, it’s probably more a case of DADT Repeal being a fairly foregone conclusion, its opponents (the usual wingnuts, fag-bashers and Jump-for Jesus crowd) will likely prefer it to go through, so that they can exploit the ginned-up “outrage” of their “base” for their main priority: i.e., fundraising.

    Likely correct.

  67. 67
    Dr.BDH says:

    Now Mr. Cole can add Lieberman to Ronald Reagan on the list of assholes he kinda likes.

  68. 68
    Keith G says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    …noticing when my brothers and sisters have been slighted

    You are just noticing this? And just as substantial, most likely permanent, change is developing, you become hostile to the agent of that change.

    You are not, nor should you be, subservient. You should, however, try for logical.

  69. 69
    IM says:

    and then let the Democrat who the Republicans simply can’t attack as anti-military propose the bill.

    I expected that democrat to be Webb.

    Lieberman is probably doing this because he thinks it is right.

    After all, he was once a liberal. And while he is terribly warped now, some remnants of his liberal positions still float around.

    As for me, I know only this:

    The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

    And I do know this:

    Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

    and

    Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right.

    Now all is well that ends well.

    But I think the Obama administration overlearned the lessons of the Clinton administration and was overly cautious on this issue.

  70. 70
    parksideq says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    By what metric?

    For starters, I sat in the front of the bus this morning, something strapping young bucks as myself could get arrested for some 50 years ago.

    You seriously can’t think of anything that’s changed for the better in this country’s history? Please hang up and try your call again.

  71. 71
    Mnemosyne says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    I did read it. I noticed the comparisons.

    So you think that cousin marriage and child rape are both equally reprehensible?

  72. 72
    Wag says:

    Has anyone given consideration to the possiblity that allowing this to be a Lieberman bill could give some semblance of cover and allow a (admitedly, small) number of GOP’ers to vote for this?

  73. 73
    parksideq says:

    @parksideq: Since I missed the edit time, let me add that while I understand the point about empty platitudes, that doesn’t take away from the fact that progress happens, albeit slowly. /rant

  74. 74
    Fair Economist says:

    DADT includes an emergency suspension clause. Obama could have invoked that clause his first day in office in view of two ongoing wars. Indeed, since we’ve been sending National Guardsmen (who are only supposed to be called up for emergencies) not just to serve domestically but to serve multiple extended tours on the other side of the world, I’d say he was failing to execute his existing statutory duty under DADT by allowing the policy to continue.

    There would be no grounds to argue with this policy within the military. The immediate result that the absence of problems (there never is with repealing this discrimination in the military) would have built as much momentum for repeal as anything Mullen said – not that Mullen would have likely been any less eloquent and to the point when the repeal hearings came up, as they would have.

    On top of the other benefits (fairness for currently affected dischargees, momentum for repeal), an immediate suspension would have driven a nice wedge between the neocons pushing for endless war and some homophobic righties, who would probably have flipped to an antiwar posture just to have ground for restoring DADT.

    On top of everything else, the one year study gives repeal opponents an excuse to delay repeal until next year, when a more conservative Senate will make it much harder to pass. Indeed, if the Republicans get the Senate back (not out of the question) they will probably kill it in committee. There’s a nontrivial chance this “commonsense strategy” will let repeal languish until the next time the Democrats get both houses of Congress – maybe 2020? That’s a very poor outcome for an eminently sensible straightforward reform with overwhelming popular support.

  75. 75
    gwangung says:

    There’s a nontrivial chance this “commonsense strategy” will let repeal languish until the next time the Democrats get both houses of Congress – maybe 2020?

    Then it’s incumbent on YOU to make sure this doesn’t happen, neh?

  76. 76
    petesmom says:

    I wonder who Lieberman is fixing to betray on this.

    When Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates were being interviewed in the Senate, ole Joe noted that “of course, ending DADT would require 60 votes…” Sen. Leahy quickly corrected him. “Not if it is attached to the Military Appropriations bill. Then it would take 60 votes to remove it.”

    So Ole Joe sez to himself he sez, “I’ll just sponsor a bill to ensure that it takes 60 votes!”

  77. 77
    fraught says:

    @Mnemosyne: You and I might not agree on Pauline Kael but we’re on the same page about Aravosis. That screed on his site (nameless and unlinked) was just bullshit and misinterpreted the DOJ memo. You might have noticed that Aravosis stopped using the words “child rape” two days after this crap first appeared on his site.
    I hope John is not concerned at all that Aravosis will accuse him of gay bashing. That Aravosis deserves bashing is right and just and has nothing to do with his sexual orientation. It’s for permitting the endless stream of Obama hated and vituperation and ignorance about how things work to find a home on his miserable blog.

  78. 78
    celticdragonchick says:

    @parksideq:

    For starters, I sat in the front of the bus this morning, something strapping young bucks as myself could get arrested for some 50 years ago.
    You seriously can’t think of anything that’s changed for the better in this country’s history? Please hang up and try your call again.

    It is absolutely fantastic that we have had progress towards social equality in this country. I can point out examples in Sudan, Rwanda, Pakistan, Somalia and so on that break that trend, however. There is no historical evidence of a determinant that arcs towards justice. Justice appears to be historically anomalous, in fact. Moreover, progress can always be reversed, depending on changes in social conditions.

    It is phrase that sounds nice, but makes about as much sense as the Gaia hypothesis in evolution. Saying that history arcs towards justice assumes that some sort of external agency or deity must be there to make it happen.

  79. 79
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Fair Economist:

    Well, John Cole can always punch some more hippies and say the GLBT whiners undermined him if that is the case. (which I think is likely.)

  80. 80
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Keith G:

    And just as substantial, most likely permanent, change is developing, you become hostile to the agent of that change.

    Hostility is not the same thing as suspicion and demanding results.

  81. 81
    Michael D. says:

    I, for one, would personally like to thank the hundreds of high profile gay people out there who shouted their heads off, and screamed until this got done – who wrote column after column and gave speech after speech until this happened (and will continue to do so until it is done.)

    I know John only posted this – as he regularly does when he scours the news for info in DADT – as another in a long series of “I told you so… I was smart enough to know that it would play out exactly this way and gays weren’t…” posts. But we all know that if gay people had shut up and not caused a commotion and held Barack Obama’s and Congress’s feet to the fire, they’d have had no interest in getting rid of DADT until “they had less on their plate than they do now.”

    Gay people and their allies who wrote those columns and gave those speeches heard the rationales for “putting it off” – excuses a lot of people here were giving (“the economy!”, “we’re at war”, “the President has enough to do!”, “jobs”) – and said to themselves, “Wait, what? These people can’t handle more than one things at a time? We didn’t elect stupid people! They should be able to handle more than one thing at a time. No deal!” So they held the President’s and Congress’s collective feet to the fire.

    If this gets done, it will be largely because of them – not, as the conventional wisdom here seems to be, because we just sat back and waited for Congress and Obama to do what was right – or because “this was our amazing plan all along that we shared with John Cole, also!”

    I appreciate the arguments. I do. But there is a reason “The squeaky wheel gets the grease” is a saying that’s been around for decades and decades. It’s because it’s largely true. If the so-called DFH’s weren’t protesting every day, if the big-mouth lefty blogs weren’t constantly screaming about Bush/Cheney war crimes and the stupidity of tax cuts without spending cuts, and if people weren’t marching in city streets across America protesting the Iraq war or the lack of immigration reform, do you REALLY believe we’d have a Democrat in the Oval Office right now? Dream on.

    Perhaps it would have been better if we had all just shut up back then. The electorate, after all, always planned on a Democratic Administration in 2009. It was going to happen. It just needed time.

    You people who lobbed bombs at Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Rice, et al… waste of your time.

    Back from Sept, 2001 to about 2003, I was calling those people things like “fifth column” and “terror apologists.” I regret that more than anything I have ever said or done politically.

    In retrospect, I should have been very proud of those people. Just as I am with most of the people writing those columns and shouting their asses off to get DADT repealed.

  82. 82
  83. 83
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Michael D.:

    Word.

  84. 84
    gwangung says:

    I know John only posted this – as he regularly does when he scours the news for info in DADT – as another in a long series of “I told you so… I was smart enough to know that it would play out exactly this way and gays weren’t…” posts. But we all know that if gay people had shut up and not caused a commotion and held Barack Obama’s and Congress’s feet to the fire, they’d have had no interest in getting rid of DADT until “they had less on their plate than they do now.”

    I will point that what I said was that screaming about betrayal and getting stabbed in the back was not useful. Maintaining pressure WAS useful. And John has said so in the past (remember the post on the members of the Congressional committee to be contacted?).

    More focus on where it’s useful, please.

  85. 85
    sparky says:

    our host has more common sense than i do, so i am willing to concede his point as to his use of the term, whatever it may actually mean.

    that said, i am sorry that i have to be the person to point this out here: a much more likely reason for this proposal is that the US is now at the point where it cannot afford to lose any more active military members. this is not about equality; it’s about needing more bodies for the machine. no doubt this will also redound to Lieberman’s benefit in CT, but this isn’t about that. it’s about needing bodies when the US attacks Iran.

    and as for the “arc of history” perhaps you might want to ask the people who died as a consequence of two world wars and other atrocities about that. AFAIK the only arc that seems to be bending is the perspective of the average US citizen, and that arc is contracting.

  86. 86
    Mnemosyne says:

    @fraught:

    You and I might not agree on Pauline Kael but we’re on the same page about Aravosis.

    I also don’t like Stanley Kubrick’s films, so you should probably take what I say about movies with a grain of salt. ;-)

  87. 87
    Tsulagi says:

    a certain someone has been claiming for months

    A certain someone is smug.

    Let the military get out in front and be agents of change, neutering Republican opposition

    Definitely the better path as opposed to an executive order. However, would have been fine with an executive order. Any order that applies common sense giving rights to a minority already enjoyed by the majority is good with me.

    Either way, by repealing DADT or issuing an order, a future R-prez (presumably it would be a god-botherer R) could issue an executive order reinstating DADT. They’d dust off Yoo to provide the legal opinion. But once something becomes institutionalized and part of the military culture for some years, it’s pretty much done. See desegregation.
    __

    And although having Mullen come out for it was, in fact, the way it happened, NOBODY could have predicted it

    Actually you could for senior military leadership if some pressure were applied. Or at least they’d likely be quiet with any opposition. Not only because of deference to the CIC or common sense telling them when you’re fighting multiple wars with the Army stretched extremely thin you need every able bodied troop. Also for their own self interest. SecDef makes promotion recommendations to the President. If those two guys are on board, plus JCS chairman speaking for the military, wouldn’t be a career builder to then appear on Fox saying openly allowing gays in the military will bring Sodom and Gomorrah in uniform. Might not get that shiny new star, plus sure they’re acquainted with “up or out.” Do you feel lucky Obama will be booted out next election before you’re passed over twice?

    let the Democrat who the Republicans simply can’t attack as anti-military propose the bill.

    Yeah, you really want to entrust your eggs in a basket, or whatever, with Lieberman. Medicare buy-in ring a bell? How could you possibly go wrong?

    Or to be fair with the Ds in general. During the DADT repeal debate, look forward to the comedy of the bipartisan support seeking capitulations negotiations. Four years from now, Snowe will be saying it’s moving too fast. Starting point for the god botherers in Congress will be active duty gays will be required to wear chartreuse letter Gs on their uniforms. Maybe Ds will hold the line against requiring Jesus re-education for gay recruits during Basic training. Maybe not.

  88. 88
    Gwangung says:

    I might also add getting the military on board (or letting them come to the same conclusions you already have) is an equally important factor, ifnot more important. And that’s not particularly amenable to outside forces.

  89. 89
    Michael D. says:

    Prediction: After months of protests by students and others, the Mullahs of Iran will announce that it was their plan to democratize the nation all along. In fact, they’ve been meeting about it for months! MONTHS, I tell ya!

  90. 90
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Tsulagi:

    Either way, by repealing DADT or issuing an order, a future R-prez (presumably it would be a god-botherer R) could issue an executive order reinstating DADT.

    I know this came up in another thread, but, actually, s/he couldn’t. The president cannot issue an executive order that contravenes legislation passed by Congress. That Truman example that everyone loves to quote was overturned by the Supreme Court. Clinton was also slapped down by the Supreme Court for trying the same thing. An executive order can be overturned by an executive order, but legislation cannot be overturned by an executive order.

    Call me overly optimistic, but I don’t think that even Scalia would sign on to making an entire branch of the government completely powerless. He actually stood up for habeus corpus, so some things are so basic that even he can’t discount them.

  91. 91
    kay says:

    @Gwangung:

    I just think, very simply, that this is a good issue for equality advocates, and so more debate and news coverage is probably to their advantage. They’re winning a debate on this.
    I don’t know that Obama repealing something unilaterally has anywhere near the same value as a public debate where they’re winning.
    Repeal by executive order is almost an admission that he’s acting because there is no congressional or public support for repeal. Since that is not true, I have no idea why any competent advocate would want to advance that impression, because it actively harms the larger cause.

  92. 92
    Tsulagi says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    That Truman example that everyone loves to quote was overturned by the Supreme Court.

    Truman’s desegregation executive order was overturned by the SCOTUS? You sure? Even if so, did the military then re-segregate? Nope. As I mentioned, once something like that has been in place, it’s not going to be rolled back.

    I know this came up in another thread, but, actually, s/he couldn’t. The president cannot issue an executive order that contravenes legislation passed by Congress.

    For sure. No instances of that ever occurring during the previous administration. Anyway, not to worry, if future-R were tagged on it, I’m sure Ds would move for retroactive immunity in the overriding national interest of bipartisan comity.

  93. 93
    Tony J says:

    @petesmom:

    So Ole Joe sez to himself he sez, “I’ll just sponsor a bill to ensure that it takes 60 votes!”

    So it’s less that Joe is finally doing something other than posing as a moderate supporter of reform in order to strip any bill of genuine progressive legislation, and more that he’s looking for a way to strip any bill of genuine progressive legislation by posing as a moderate supporter of reform?

    Sounds like something he’d do. Apparently it’s just in his nature.

  94. 94
    morzer says:

    @drosophilo melanogaster III:

    More precisely, he’s a Liebercratcan.

  95. 95
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Tsulagi:

    Truman’s desegregation executive order was overturned by the SCOTUS? You sure?

    No, his 1952 executive order nationalizing steel mills was overturned:

    A 1950s Supreme Court decision overturning a Harry Truman executive order offers the sharpest guide to what constitutes a legitimate executive order. The court invalidated the Truman order on the grounds that it attempted to make law. The court further ruled that an executive order is valid only when the president is acting pursuant to an act of Congress or to the Constitution itself. (emphasis mine)

    Please explain which act of Congress Obama would be upholding if he used an executive order to nullify the act of Congress that created DADT.

    For sure. No instances of that ever occurring during the previous administration.

    Please look up the difference between an executive order and a signing statement. They are not the same thing.

  96. 96
    Mnemosyne says:

    @kay:

    Repeal by executive order is almost an admission that he’s acting because there is no congressional or public support for repeal. Since that is not true, I have no idea why any competent advocate would want to advance that impression, because it actively harms the larger cause.

    Some people just can’t take “yes” for an answer.

  97. 97
    JPK says:

    I am hoping for the best, as always, but like so many here I can’t help looking at Joe Lieberman and seeing Lucy holding a football for me. And I’m going to kick it so hard.

  98. 98
    AxelFoley says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor:

    LOL.
    Next comes the stab in the back during make up sex.

    Donkeypunch?

  99. 99
    AxelFoley says:

    @Wannabe Speechwriter@27:

    This. So much this. And add the GOS to the list of folks on the left who don’t recognize that social progress takes time.

  100. 100

    @brantl:

    Lieberman was good for something! Who knew?

    To be fair to Useless Joe, he’s been vocal about being in favor of this for quite a while. That he is the primary sponsor of the bill is not at all surprising to me.

  101. 101
    kay says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I love that you’re willing to wade into the dreaded steel mill decision.
    Jesus. That thing….I read it as many times as I had to to write the exam, and I’m not going back there. You can’t make me!
    Who knew it was going to be part of nearly every political argument for the rest of my life?

  102. 102
    AxelFoley says:

    @middlewest:

    You really have to marvel at the fact that Obama is going to accomplish one of the greatest, most transformational achievements in the history of gay civil rights, and many self-appointed mouthpieces of the gay rights movement bashed him every step of the way. Seems like there should be some consequences for that! But it’s OK, a gay-integrated military will lead to more and better gay leadership, and make the John Aravosises of the left even more irrelevant.

    Ain’t that sad?

    Many of these same self-appointed mouthpieces of the gay rights movement love the Clintons, even though Bill signed DADT into law, but they hate Obama because he hasn’t stopped it by executive order. Or they hate on him because of Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren. Or really because he beat Hillary in the primaries.

    Fuck that he’s gonna get DADT overturned, they’re still pissed at him and nothing’s ever gonna change that.

  103. 103
    Fergus Wooster says:

    @AxelFoley:
    I never did understand that preference in some GLBT circles for the Clintons, provided that not only did Bill put DADT into place, he passed DOMA for Chrissakes.

    On the other hand, selecting Rev. Saddleback for the inauguration in the immediate wake of Prop 8 was beyond tone-deaf. After McClurkin, I can understand why the crowd would have been at least suspicious.

    But still, here he is actively making a pro-gay-rights push. If they kvetched before, they should show their support now.

  104. 104
    TruthOfAngels says:

    Huh. Well, I can’t say I saw that one coming.

  105. 105
    Blue Raven says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    Aside from his SOTU speech, we hadn’t even seen the advocate part. Color me unimpressed.

    Three words: Matthew Shepard Act.

    Other point: He spoke at a GLBT charity dinner. Name me another president who has while in office.

    Third point: That legal brief you are being hand-to-forehead about was written by a Bush appointee. Blame the right POTUS.

    You are too fucking blind to give a shit while you’re being indignant. This queer activist is pleased overall with what I see, but I am doing something called paying attention instead of treating Obama like he’s supposed to be Morgan Freeman. Try it.

  106. 106
    Tsulagi says:

    Please look up the difference between an executive order and a signing statement. They are not the same thing.

    Sanctimonious much? As well as an obviously overinflated sense of knowledge.

    Let’s see, as just a single instance you may have heard of in which the previous administration nullified the intent as well as the letter of the law in an act of Congress by an executive order, not signing statement. Well, one of them would be the famous Executive Order 13292. I’m sure you agree.

    Oh, don’t recall that one? That would be the one that authorized agencies like NSA to circumvent and supercede the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

    They did try to keep that one quiet for a while didn’t they? Thought the minority Democrats might take some counter action such as calling for investigation. Needless worry. They needed only wait until the Ds were in the majority control of Congress so they could fix that by helping gut FISA and grant immunity.

    It was a stand against the far left.

  107. 107
    fraught says:

    @Blue Raven:
    word.
    @celticdragonchick:

    Oh, STFU about Rick Warren and Donnie McGurkin. Why aren’t you screaming about Vince Foster’s murder?

  108. 108
    Wannabe Speechwriter says:

    @Michael D.:

    I agree wholeheartedly: keep the pressure on. Don’t let up. I still stand behind the idea that Obama’s strategy is the right one-let the military take the lead on this-however, I agree Obama will only pressure the military to do this if he feel pressure himself. I don’t see these things as mutually exclusive. LBJ worked behind the scenes to get civil rights legislation passed while MLK marched in the streets to raise awareness.

    What my objection is MLK was marching in the streets, not yelling on a blog. I fail to see how calling John Cole or any of us sell-outs is going to help. Nor do I see yelling that Obama secretly is anti-gay and will not lift a finger for the gay community.

    There is a sad reality in all of this: Obama never put the gay rights agenda at the top of his priority list. I don’t mean this disparagingly. It’s just the facts. In the second debate with McCain, if memory serves me correct, he was asked what his three domestic priorities were. He said: environment, then health care, then education. He would mention ending DADT or saying he wanted more rights for homosexuals but this wasn’t the core of his campaign to get elected. The sad reality is there isn’t much political traction to be gained in supporting gay rights. It’s like gun control: the majority of the population supports giving homosexuals more civil rights but the people who oppose it are much louder, much more organized, and, therefore, have much greater political sway.

    Am I saying gay rights advocates need to shut up and take what scraps Obama gives them? No. I think actions like the ones Dan Choi and Anthony Woods are doing are incredibly important for this reason. They’re raising awareness, putting a human face to this issue. They’re forcing society at large to either accept they have a right to serve and therefore must immediately remove the ban or do nothing and accept discrimination in our society. Also, as I said before, Obama’s course of action is not without consequences: as the military gets on board with permanently ending DADT, a lot of patriotic men and women are getting kicked out for no good reason.

    If you want to take action on ending the ban, there are a lot of things you can do: call your senators and your congressperson. Donate money and time to groups like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund:

    http://www.sldn.org/

    Get your friends to get involved as well. The more noise, the more there will be pressure to change this policy. However, going to Balloon Juice and yelling that Obama is secretly a homophobe and John Cole and his minions are lackeys doesn’t do shit!

  109. 109
    Thoroughly Pizzled says:

    @Michael D.: This analogy only works if you assume that Obama has never been for gay rights and is only working to repeal DADT out of fear, instead of actually wanting to help.

  110. 110
    celticdragonchick says:

    @fraught:

    Why aren’t you screaming about Vince Foster’s murder?

    What the fuck are you clutching your pearls about now??

  111. 111
    fraught says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    After 10+ plus hysterical posts on this thread today, you would seem to be the pearl clutcher here, butch as you try to appear to be. Underneath the bluster is a very nervous Nelly who just does Aravosis, Pam House Blend talking points.

  112. 112
    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    He badly fumbled relations with the more hyperbolic shreiking parts of the LGBT community. I’m a lesbian, and I expected that an on-the-verge-of-the-Great-Depression meltdown would take presidence over DADT. I wasn’t happy about the DOMA brief, but I do know that DOMA is the law and will be until the legislature (and only the legislature) does something about it. I didn’t care that he invited an anti-gay preacher, considering that the preacher was invited to pray, not invited to comment on gay issues. I thought the wailing and rending of garments over this was utterly ridiculous and, frankly, embarrassing.

    This type of attitude is why I stopped spending time with LGBT activists. They spend all their time trying to build a perfect group (Did we recruit enough people from x,y, and z so that we have the proper diverse mix? Have we told all the people who don’t agree with us on a,b, and c that we don’t want to work with them? Etc). They don’t spend enough time doing productive and pragmatic things to improve the actual lives of LGBT people. Lucky for us, more and more people have come out in their private and professional lives which has made far more progress in advancing the cause of gay rights than decades of (mostly) useless activist posturing.

    In the real world, if you want to get stuff done, you have to be willing to work with people you don’t agree with on important issues. Period.

  113. 113
    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony says:

    @Blue Raven:

    Blue Raven is teh awesomes.

  114. 114
    celticdragonchick says:

    @fraught:

    After 10+ plus hysterical postsposts I just can’t stand and make me want to cast meaningless ad hominum and non sequiter attacks about Vince Foster on this thread today…

    Fixed that for ya…

  115. 115
    fraught says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    Fixed that for ya…

    Thanks. That clears up everything. Except … maybe you should read it again and tell me who’s been posting nonsense all day. I really appreciated the “meaningless…non sequiter” part, and the thing about casting attacks.

  116. 116
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:

    I appreciate the thoughtful reply, which seems to be in short supply here these days.

    I happen top believe in pattern recognition, which is a useful trait selected-for by evolution. I also happen to believe that there is a pattern of, ahem, benign neglect with respect to the GLBT community. Rick Warren by himself is not a determining data point. Rick Warren in conjunction with the continuing failure to spend any resource or capital on GLBT needs in elections or even publicly mention it outside of a single fund rasing dinner at HRC does not build confidence. That doesn’t even include the risible DOMA brief or the insulting situation with the “replacement preacher” at an inaugural event that wasn’t even broadcast on television.

    The usual response at this site is always “STFU” and “Don’t you know how good you have it now?”

    I am not going to shut up, and I know that my marriage is in jeopardy from emboldened fundamentalist activists who are running roughshod over us in state elections. I notice that DNC, actblue and other agencies refuse to contribute or help in any way.

    You mention we may need to cooperate with people we don’t really like? I am fine with that. Realpolitik has a place. I note that nobody until this last month seems to cooperated with us at all on anything that improves anything for GLBT people. (The Matthew Sheppard Act might be useful if I am murdered, I suppose)

    So sorry for harshing the vibe here, as JSFH might say. If anybody else (Not directed at Sister Machine Gun) is just that put out by my annoyance, then don’t read my comments. I won’t be offended.

  117. 117
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Joe Lieberman is with us on everything except the war.. on gay people.

  118. 118
    celticdragonchick says:

    @fraught:

    If I am upsetting you that much, please don’t read what I have to say. I don’t care about Vince Foster of whoever McGlurkin, and I see relevance to the topic at hand. You did not bother to rebut my remarks, but went for insult instead. I am persuadable by well reasoned arguments, and I welcome proof in this case that I am wrong. ( I would really appreciate it, in fact, since I feel like a damned tool for having believed in the guy to begin with right now)

    What absolutely will not impress me is “STFU” lines and echo chamber shout fests. I have seen that tendency here just as I have seen it at wingnut sites like Townhall. If you want to play games, I will treat you accordingly or just ignore you. You think my POV is wrong? You think I do not have reason to be suspicious of the President right now and to doubt his good faith in dealing with us?

    Prove it. Show me something.

  119. 119
    celticdragonchick says:

    No relevance to the topic at hand…

    *sigh*

    I hate not having a preview button.

  120. 120
    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony says:

    I also happen to believe that there is a pattern of, ahem, benign neglect with respect to the GLBT community.

    I notice that DNC, actblue and other agencies refuse to contribute or help in any way.

    I note that nobody until this last month seems to cooperated with us at all on anything that improves anything for GLBT people.

    This is how Democrats are, though. This is how they have been for decades. They have never been our advocates. Sure, they talk like they will be, but they never really mean it. The one thing they do that makes me vote for them is either benignly neglect us (which is better than the Republicans actively persecuting us) or sometimes actively block Republican persecution. That is really it. I am genuinely surprised that Obama has put any energy at all toward DADT this early in his presidency. I figured it would be in the last year of his last term.

  121. 121
    fraught says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    Show me something.

    um…no.

  122. 122
    celticdragonchick says:

    @fraught:

    um…no.

    Sadly, that is all I really expected from you.

  123. 123
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:

    Comments like yours are the only reason I keep coming back. Thanks.

  124. 124
    Admiral_Komack says:

    Keith G

    @celticdragonchick:

    Good golly, how self important some gay boys and girls have gotten.

    …except that Obama badly fumbled relations with the GLBT community on his first day in office (homophobe preacher up front on the dais…

    As a guy who happens to by gay (and agnostic, for that matter) I never gave a fuck who mumble-jumbled to the great cosmic emotional crutch. And I am quite frankly very tired of self-centered piss ants telling this veteran of 1970s Gay Rights demonstrations what the ill-defined Gay community thinks about Obama’s efforts in this arena. Please stop.

    -Thank you for this.

  125. 125
    lawguy says:

    I’d suggest that no matter how DADT is removed it would be very hard to put that back in the bottle. The next republican president would have to throw out thousands of military personel, just when they were gearing up for their next colonial war.

    We will see what will happen in congress a couple of old sayings come to mind: There’s many a slip twix the cup and the lip, and as far as Obama is concerned there is that blind pig one about finding an acorn.

  126. 126

    […] Joe Lieberman (I-ConU) wants so he can fuck off out of the way of the DADT repeal? Thanks (via Balloon Juice): Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) announced this morning that he will introduce legislation repealing […]

  127. 127
    Rarely Posts says:

    Since Obama was elected, I always predicted that the repeal of DADT would happen exactly this way. Obama would send signals to the military, but he would also “let” the military make its own decision. The strategy avoided an unnecessary turf war. Moreover, this is EXACTLY the LGBT issue that should be front-and-center in an election year. With over 70% of the Country supporting repeal, this is the issue you want Republicans ranting about (as opposed to gay marriage, etc.).

    Despite all of that, I criticized Obama for not doing it earlier, I volunteered to help out at gay rights events, and I did what I could to keep the pressure on. I don’t regret that at all. Obama, as a community organizer, has urged the Left to keep the pressure on. Now, I never used “stabbed us in the back language,” etc., but I certainly think it was GOOD that we talked about his failure to deliver on his prior promises, etc.

    “Other point: He spoke at a GLBT charity dinner. Name me another president who has while in office.”

    Sure, he spoke at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. Now, it’s possible he partially felt pressured to do that because leftist LGBT activists organized the National Equality March to criticize his lack of action and to criticize the HRC’s failure to be more critical and demand faster change.

    Progress requires that leftists be realistic and support savvy, moderate-left politicians like Obama. It also requires organizing savvy-moderate organizations like the Human Rights Campaign. And it also requires organizing farther left, more demanding and critical left-wing groups like the National Equality March.

    I don’t regret supporting Obama, and I don’t regret support HRC. But, I’m also glad that I volunteered and helped out at the National Equality March, which was critical of both. We need to keep that pressure on.

    Personally, I’m annoyed that some people don’t seem to understand that many of us more critical leftists understand the common sense and 11 dimensional chess, and we understand that we need to be pushing to shift the center of debate. Obama needs criticism from the Left, or we’ll never get anywhere. We all have roles to play, and some of us understand that our role requires criticism of reasonable, moderate approaches to shift the Overton window and create space for them to happen.

  128. 128
    onceler says:

    There’s this weird misconception among right-wing Dems that issuing an Executive Order and overturning a law are mutually exclusive things. I wonder how this silly rumor got started? Probably the same way the rumor that the administration has to fully oppose repealing the DOMA no matter what as a matter of law got started. In the brains of right-wing Dems just looking to take shots at anyone to their left.

    LGBTQ activists have had reason to be skeptical of Obama since before he was elected, what with the whole Donnie McLurkin episode, and then at the inauguration with the hateful Rick Warren giving his ‘blessings’ to the proceedings, then watching as no stop loss order was forthcoming while people were still, in large numbers, being kicked out of the military. In some fantasy world, people were supposed to just be OK with all of this because everyone should have known that Joe Lieberman would come save us all on the issue. Right. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

  129. 129
    John says:

    @jayjaybear:

    It’s actually not. Firstly, on the stimulus, it’s pretty clear that Lieberman helped sell it to the moderate Republicans (Snowe, Collins, Specter at the time) and people like Nelson. I don’t recall any grandstanding from Lieberman at the time.

    Secondly, there are tons of everyday votes that happen all the time where Lieberman has voted with the party. All the appropriations bills, for example, raising the debt limit, confirming nominees, that kind of thing.

    Lieberman’s an ass, but it really is true that he votes with the Democrats most of the time.

  130. 130
    Ron says:

    @Prattlehorn: Not just prop 8. In VA, the new governor rescinded one EO and replaced it with a similar one. The difference? The new one doesn’t protect sexual orientation from job discrimination by the state gov’t.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Joe Lieberman (I-ConU) wants so he can fuck off out of the way of the DADT repeal? Thanks (via Balloon Juice): Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) announced this morning that he will introduce legislation repealing […]

Comments are closed.