The end of the end of DADT???

by: Paul Rosenberg

Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 18:00


Adam Serwer:

The Wall Street Journal reports Democrats are ready to cave on DADT in the lame duck:

    Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it. With a repeal attached, and amid Republican complaints over the terms of the debate, the defense bill had failed to win the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate in September.

Look, if Democrats can't repeal a policy more than two thirds of the American people, including a majority of conservatives want gone then they can't expect people to vote for them. Preserving DADT is rank absurdity, even in 1993 the RAND study commissioned by the government showed that combat effectiveness would not be harmed by allowing openly gay servicemembers to serve, and the fact that DADT investigations are sometimes delayed when servicemembers are deployed undermines the notion that openly gay servicemembers harm the war effort.

The plain fact of the matter is that DADT undermines the military by forcing discharges of servicemembers with critical skills and walling off an entire section of the population from recruitment. The only remaining arguments for preserving DADT are premised on archaic cultural attitudes towards homosexuality, and Republicans' insistence on undermining the military by blocking repeal is vanity, a projection of their own superficial prejudices onto the very servicemembers they claim to respect.

This was all perfectly predictable.  The Versailles Democrats never do anything that a supermajority of Americans support.  Close down bankrupt banks? Pass the public option? End the Afghan War?  Let gays and lesbians serve in the military? That's all unthinkable. Instead, Versailles Dems lie and say it's a position of "the professional left."  Because, I guess, that's true in the cocktail party circles they run in.

Real Americans don't do Versailles cocktail parties.  Real Americans would vote Democratic by 60% margins or more...if only they could get rid of the Versailles Dems.

Versailles Dem #1 is still saying, 'I oppose ending DADT through the courts.  I want Congress to do it.'  But as of right now, any fool can see that Congress isn't going to do it.  Any more than Congress was ready to pass the Civil Rights Act in 1948, when Truman forced the military to integrate.

Fierce advocate?  Fierce chihuahua, maybe.

But I shouldn't ought to say that.  A real fierce chihuahua might take offense.  And then I'd be in real trouble.

Paul Rosenberg :: The end of the end of DADT???

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A piece at Dkos (4.00 / 2)
gives a good quick rundown of what's happened:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

First, we didn't get it in President Obama's first year, which would have unquestionably been the best time to repeal it. Then, we finally started seeing some movement on repeal and Rep. Patrick Murphy's bill gained so much traction that it was one vote short of passage without help from the president or the military. Then the goalposts moved again. The Obama administration jumped on the DADT repeal bandwagon at the last possible second, only to tell gay groups and Congress that he wanted it done his way.

Then, the antidiscrimination language was taken out of the bill. And then, the timeline was taken out of the bill. Then, 60 days was added to the implementation timeline. Then Byrd added another 60 days. Then, they forced a useless study on us that would end on December 1st, and we were told to wait til the lame duck session of Congress and pass it then, despite its almost impossible chances of passage at that point.

Everything has been pushed back, watered down, and then pushed back some more. And now, they're saying they might strip the DADT provision out of the NDAA entirely. And if they don't take it out:

The defense secretary said lawmakers should wait to vote on repeal until after Dec. 1, when a Pentagon report on how the military would end the gay ban is due to Obama.

See what they did there? And on December 1st, it will then be said that we need to wait for analysts to review the study and recommendations. Then they'll need time to start the bureaucratic processes that they'll claim are necessary before implementation can begin. We have been trying very hard to get people to notice this. We've been screaming about it only to get the same, tired pushback of "oh you just don't trust the president." It is not that. Anybody with a pulse can see what they're doing here.

I don't take Mayor Bloomberg's presidential aspirations seriously, but if he does get in, I suspect he'll get quite a bit of support from one part of the base.



well, there goes my appetite (4.00 / 1)
I guess I better decide which poor person's reservation I'd like President Bloomberg to send me to now while the getting is good

Norther Alabama is at least temperate


[ Parent ]
if Mr. Bloomtree - (0.00 / 0)
teaches me how to read and write I'm all for him!

[ Parent ]
if he can teach you to post coherently I'll welcome our new plutocrat overlords (4.00 / 2)
I can't decide if you really like drugs or what the deal is

[ Parent ]
how often do I have to tell'ya! (0.00 / 0)
you DON'T post 'coherently' in incoherent times or everybody will understand you!

[ Parent ]
and at least - (0.00 / 0)
Mr. Bloomstein understands the Zeitgeist and tries to be a walking talking contradiction!

[ Parent ]
why did you change his last name? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I try to be an 'idiot' - (0.00 / 0)
in order not to be one - and do you know what's the most fascinating thing about 'politics' in general and American 'politics' im 'besonderen?
It's the 'contradictions'!
Or to be more precise - in order to say something is 'up' - you sometimes have to say it's 'down'! And it seems to be that progressives have a very hard time understanding that (contemporary) concept - because they are so 'true'? and focused on facts and then they are constantly surprised that idiots like Limbaugh get away with it and as digby 'phrased' it - "millions of people believe him because he's telling them a story that makes sense to them".
So if somebody hits me with the c-word ('coherence") - I have to prove that I'm not!
(or is that just a 'generational' thing?)

[ Parent ]
With Friends Like These... (4.00 / 3)
That's why God made courts.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yes, (4.00 / 2)
But I shouldn't ought to say that.  A real fierce chihuahua might take offense.  And then I'd be in real trouble.

quite possibly.  Because even dogs have a sense of "fairness."

This whole issue is so simple, so costless, so morally correct, so timeless...  It literally raises my blood pressure to the kinds of stratospheric levels that I have to reach quickly to hug my own dog who surely has a sounder moral compass.

Maybe it's time for Obama to really consider what it would be like for him to live in the world the Tea Party would wish for him...  It wasn't that long ago that he'd be in the "back of the bus," which makes his throwing others "under the bus" so untenable.  

Obama had best pray there ain't no hell as he swears there ain't no heaven.  Surely, this level of rank hypocrisy is a grievous sin for those who claim to "believe."


Pander (4.00 / 1)
Obama has spent years pandering to the Donnie McClurkin wing of the Democratic party.  It got him nominated and he's sticking to it.  Why black "church" people neeed to be virulently anti-gay (or at least a vocal segment thereof) I don't know.

Part of it is clearly pride of place.  In their world there is one civil rights movement and there will never be room for another.  Not for gays.  Not for women.  Not for mental health.  And certainly not for Hispanics.  They don't get that this does not water down Martin Luther King it completes his vision (and MLK was never racist unlike these fools).  Special place in hell?  Maybe the McClurkins are heading there.


[ Parent ]
Church (0.00 / 0)
Why do church people need to be anti-gay?  Seriously?  Where else does anti-gay sentiment come from?  There isn't a single non-religious reason in this world to discriminate against gay people.

[ Parent ]
that's what we had to do to get the votes (4.00 / 2)
we now have the votes for a december 2012 repeal

- biden


This is Weird (0.00 / 0)
I mean this is something that the administration could have given the 'left' and dialed down the shrill liberals for the duration. Doing so would have made carrying out the rest of their disgraceful program so much easier.


They Are Mush WORSE Politicians Than They Are Anti-Left Politicians (4.00 / 1)
Obviously this is an incident that once and for all gives us a valuable piece of data.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
How long? (0.00 / 0)
How much longer can the pretense, that the Democratic Party stands for anything at all, be maintained?  And who would believe it?

It's Not A Pretense. (4.00 / 2)
We're not talking about the Democratic Party as a whole.  We're talking about a specific leadership faction.  As I've said many, many times before, the Democratic Party is a site of struggle.

It's not a clubhouse--at least not for the likes of us.  But if we want to win battles, then there's a very strong strategic advantage to having a presence there vs. having none.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Ok, sorry. (0.00 / 0)
I know from past experience (only since 1979, but still) that the Democratic Party is a site of struggle.  And I fully agree with the advantage of having a presence there.  The struggle for deep change, as you've noted, never starts at the top.  So, time to get back to work on trying to reform the Party at the local level first--and focusing more on issue advocacy.

[ Parent ]
Ironically (4.00 / 3)
That's all unthinkable. Instead, Versailles Dems lie and say it's a position of "the professional left."  Because, I guess, that's true in the cocktail party circles they run in.

Ironically, the Versailles themselves all have gay friends and just assume end DADT.  But the know -- absolutely know -- Real Americans are completely against the idea.  

Facts be damned.

Man, does the extreme right ever have these guys by the leash...  connected to a nose ring.


Village (0.00 / 0)
Sure, the Versailles creatures all have gay friends.  But how many of them know someone who is in the military?

[ Parent ]
a contrarian perspective (0.00 / 0)
DADT is obviously immoral (in addition to being anti-lgbt, anti-human rights, anti-labor, anti-free speech, and anti-sex).  However, the list of things that fall in that category are extensive.

So I have to ask, why is so much political capital being expended on this?  I can imagine there will be tangible benefits from it in terms of the consequences (military changes often predate social changes) but it's still amazing to me how much energy gets put into a repeal.  Why not sneak in 19 different laws that will accomplish something rather than focus on a public battle with the president for largely symbolic gains?  What happened to ENDA?   There are other more substantive policies that one could focus on in fighting a battle.  

Anyway, i know that different people have different priorities and no one has sat down and decided 'this will be the lgbt legislative agenda'  (I hope!).  I also know that it's how $hitty the situation is that necessitates this kind of basic basic step, but even so, i wish our social structures worked more rationally.  


DADT Was Supposed To Be Easy (4.00 / 1)
ENDA was supposed to be the fight.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Easy (0.00 / 0)
Absolutely right.  This is one of the easiest, simplest ways Obama could make a difference.  Just sign a document and the armed forces stop discharging people for being homosexual.  Yes, a future president could reverse that with another executive order, but Obama's shameful unwillingness to make a difference makes such a president more likely each day.

[ Parent ]
the president refuses to lead... (0.00 / 0)
...this issue is so easy for him to display all types of leadership on- moral, decisive, strong, courageous- and he refuses to do it.

As commander-in-chief he just needs to end the policy by executive order- and dare them to take him to court about it.


This Is Backward (0.00 / 0)
All he needs to do is not appeal the ruling that DADT is unconstitutional.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
that would work... (0.00 / 0)
...but he would be saying- "oh, the courts think it is wrong- so it is over."

For him to display leadership, it would be much more effective for him to just end it by ordering it to end irregardless of what the courts have said.


[ Parent ]
Yes, But That Would Be Stupid, Lawless Leadership (0.00 / 0)
And it would set him up to be over-ruled.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? (0.00 / 0)
- Obama could have issued an EO ahead of the court decision.
- Obama could choose not to appeal the court's decision.
- Obama could issue an EO using the court's decision for support.

Instead, Obama is appealing the court's decision, and is forcing the court to make the decision for him, by taking the responsibility for the decision totally out of his hands.

Any notion of "leadership" is truly missing in action.  However, one could reasonably argue that leaving this issue in the hands of the courts is the "right" way to deal with a civil rights/constitutional issue, and this not an issue over which Obama should exert executive authority.  I have some sympathy for that view.

What captures my attention is our desperate desire to find an opportunity - any opportunity - for Obama to exert "leadership."  And, if not "leadership," then at least a bit of "benign neglect" that would - one time - support the preferences of his base, if not the majority of the country.  We search in vain.

Way back during the primaries, Andrew Sullivan quoted someone who asserted that Obama would use an "African Model" of leadership which would seek always to arrive at a decision by searching for consensus (very much like it is described at that link).  I wish I could find that blog item; I've been unsuccessful in my many search attempts.  I remember thinking at the time, I hope not.  Because, there is that bit about the resolution or mitigation of minority objections and being primarily concerned with the process by which consensus is achieved.  Given the deep resistance of the minority - with respect to this issue - it's doubtful that any consensus can be achieved, and what we'll get from Obama is a whole lot of process - as david mizner's DKos cite suggests - until there is no more "process" to be had.


[ Parent ]
#4 of "The Eight Stupidest Management Fads of All Time" (4.00 / 1)
One person's (Geoffrey James @ bnet.com) business management perspective.  There is a bit of cross-application to political leadership/management, but the following excerpt [my bold] is presented here with tongue in cheek.

Full post here:
http://www.bnet.com/blog/sales...

Management by Consensus

# The theory: Important decisions should be made with the agreement of everybody in the group.  Proposals are  collaboratively developed, and full agreement is a primary objective.  Consensus management is usually seen as an alternative to "top-down" decision making common inside hierarchical organizations.

# The reality: Since everybody has a say in the decision, anybody can effectively veto any decision.  As a result, only decisions that are completely innocuous and support the status quo are ever made.  Difficult decisions - ones that might ruffle feathers - get quietly shunted aside.

# The result: Forget the wisdom of crowds.  Crowds are so stupid they can't even figure out what the crowd is thinking.

# My opinion of the fad: Management by consensus like swimming in a pool of quicksand.  Because important decisions never get made, the entire organizations flounders and sinks.  BTW, consensus management sometimes happens accidentally when groups have managers who are afraid to make decisions because somebody who works for them might be offended.



[ Parent ]
Oh, Gordon. (0.00 / 0)
Difficult decisions - ones that might ruffle feathers - get quietly shunted aside.

Indeed, they do.


[ Parent ]




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS