Nice timing, guys:
More than 100 retired U.S. military leaders — including the former head of the Naval Academy — have signed a statement calling for an end to the military’s “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy, according to a California-based think tank that supports the movement.
Retired Adm. Charles Larson, the former Naval Academy superintendent, tops the list of 104 retired general and admirals who want the government to repeal the policy, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced Monday.
“Don’t ask-don’t tell” was made law in 1993 after opposition ballooned to newly elected President Bill Clinton’s plan to lift the military’s complete ban on gay service members. The new policy stopped the practice of asking potential service members if they are gay but still required the dismissal of openly gay service members.
Gee- gays in the military- wonder when this issue last came up? Wonder who else had their first term as a Democrat ruined by this issue.
Incertus
Yeah, but a lot has changed in 16 years. Getting rid of DADT is a foregone conclusion now, and will only stir up controversy in the most wingnutty parts of the country.
John Cole
Whatever. Watch the media narrative- Obama making same mistakes as Clinton, has Clinton hands in staff, Clinton at Secretary of State, screws up gays in the military, etc., ad nauseum.
brent
I guess I get your point but the fact is that when one’s cause is controversial, it is somehow always bad timing to bring it up. There is always some time down the road that would be better when all the other crises will go away and the country will be more susceptible to your controversial issue. There is always some other worthy cause that deserves more attention now. But the simple truth is that any political movement is best served by taking advantage at their moment of maximum leverage. Change doesn’t come because activists "wait their turn."
Comrade Jake
I am, for whatever reason, absolutely not worried about this. It’s nowhere near the lightning rod it was in 93, and I bet Obama handles it about a million times better.
Incertus
Well, Obama has already said–in that very piece, as a matter of fact–that he’s not going to go the executive order route, that he wants a consensus and to work through the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, he’s not going to take the hit alone.
Ned Raggett
I’m with Jake. A LOT has changed in sixteen years. Rather than this being some sort of OMG thing, I tend to sense this more as an ‘about time’ deal.
Besides which, this isn’t the Obama team saying anything, it’s this outside group. If Obama et al choose to act on it (and frankly I think that would be nice) then hey.
eyeball
John: Repeat after me: F-U-C-K the media narrative. Lee Atwater is dead. Mark Bingham was gay. Go fucking fishing. The 20-somethings have the gay stuff under control. This country is not going backward.
Joe Beese
If Obama sticks his neck out even one millimeter on this issue, he’ll have surpassed my expectations. I emphasize the word "If".
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Not to mention Obama will have a Republican SoD (Gates) helping with the sale.
EarBucket
It’s far less controversial than it was in ’93. Hell, 75% of Americans think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. Bear in mind, in 1994, a majority of Americans didn’t approve of interracial marriage. This isn’t the same country it was when Clinton took office.
jenniebee
I finally caught on to Obama in his Rachel Maddow interview. I am now convinced that he approaches every issue, every landmine, with a careful, deliberate thought process that is all about: how do I leave the door open for people everybody who might agree with me, to agree with me?
The press right now can’t make up their minds whether he’s the second coming of FDR or the second coming of Lincoln (the fundies just think he’s a predictor of the Second Coming). Don’t worry about That One. He’s two steps ahead of everybody else, and he’s very likely to stay there.
greynoldsct00
John, I think it’s time for another pet, the real news is no fun today…
Rick Taylor
At least the pressure is coming from retired generals. Under Clinton, it was the higher ups in the military who stabbed him in the back.
Svensker
Different times.
Cyrus
DADT didn’t help Clinton’s first term, sure, but neither did Zoë Baird or a bungled health care plan or the Whitewater investigation or… of all the things to worry about, pushback on DADT seems very low on the list.
scarshapedstar
For christ’s sake, John, don’t concern troll on this one. Not only are they right on the merits, but times have changed.
There is nothing intrinsically damning about ending a stupid discriminatory policy that has directly lead to American deaths.
yet another jeff
Repeat after me, this is not 1992, this is not 1992. Sure, Rush will resurrect his old "America Held Hostage" bumper, but fuck him. Same rules as the whole "is America ready for a black president" apply to DADT…main rule being that in this economy and time of foreign entanglements/fuckups, predjudice is a luxury we can’t afford.
There’s a reason that Oral Roberts, Focus on the Family, etc are laying off people…hate songs and goose steps aren’t selling this year.
MattF
There’s a lot of stupidity that occurred over the past, um, 15 years, and Obama is just going to have to deal with it systematically, each issue on it’s own merits, one issue at a time. As far as I can tell, that’s what he’s doing. No drama.
Napoleon
Obama would have to be a complete moron to touch this with even a ten foot stick anytime before he addresses the economy, his energy proposals and health care. Most of the posts above (and this is typical of dems) just don’t get how and why this hurts the Dems.
In part it is the issue itself, but the larger damage it does is that it cements a certain negative view of the Dems. Bill Clinton campaigned as a new type Democrat that was for the middle class and workers, etc. etc. What was one of the first things he addressed when sworn in, but an issue near and dear to a small "fringe" group of supporters, gays in the military. What did he follow it up with? NAFTA, a policy designed to p— all over the core of the Democratic party, workers. By the time he got around to health care he was f—-ed and shortly afterward the Dems got creamed in the Midterms. If he would have done welfare reform, some kind of job training program (or something explicitly designed for working people), then NAFTA and maybe gays in the military I am convinced that things would have been much different for him.
Obama should actively ignore anyone asking for any movement on gay issues and move forward with the 3 issues above. If he makes substantial progress on those issues and builds up good will with the public nobody will care about allowing gays in the military, doing away with that federal gay marriage law or for that matter if Obama himself gay marries a marine. But the worse thing he could do is reinforce a view that the most important thing to the Dems is the "special interest" at the expense of the working stiff (and in that I include the upper middle class professional who suddenly doesn’t feel so hot in this economy).
chopper
besides which, back in 93 we weren’t exactly hurtin’ for soldiers, were we.
methinks the fact that our military is stretched to the breaking point doesn’t really help the forces which intend to keep interested parties out of the military over arbitrary sexual reasons.
Dusty
The transition website lists the repeal of DADT as part of his civil rights agenda, so the decision’s already been made.
NonyNony
@Incertus:
DING! Obama has learned the lessons the Clinton Administration. The very first lesson is "don’t throw your weight around just because you can." Clinton failed in so many things his first few years because he thought that just because he was the President he could just do things rather than building a consensus. That works for Republican presidents, but it doesn’t work for Democratic ones – at least not Democratic presidents since LBJ was in power.
I doubt we’ll see Obama make the same mistakes as Clinton did. He’s going to get the Joint Chiefs on his side first. He’s going to have Congress hold hearings and call in the folks who will cluck and say "we’re turning out good men and women from positions where we need their skills just because of their orientation". And Congress will get the loons who try to defend keeping gays out and they’ll sound even more loony now than they did in the early 90s because, well, the country has shifted and gay people just aren’t that scary anymore. And the idea that you should kick people out of the military in the middle of a war just because they’re gay sounds increasingly ridiculous.
Obama won’t make these mistakes. He’ll make new ones that are all his own, but he won’t make the same ones Clinton did. I may not be ready to declare him some kind of political super-genius, but he’s actually fairly smart. And smart people learn from the mistakes of others instead of making them themselves. (This also plays into pulling Clinton into the State Department. Giving her a high profile position where her success is also Obama’s success is a very good move. Bringing people who could be in mild opposition to you into a place where they only succeed if you succeed is usually always a good idea. I’m not going to say that it’s on the level of Ankh-Morpork’s Patrician in the area of political jujitsu, but it’s a good one. So long as Bill Clinton’s fundraising and outside interests doesn’t end up derailing her ability to do good work at State that is).
Napoleon
@Dusty:
And I hope he does it, after he appears like he has actually done things that the average man or woman in the street would say "this guy really has my concerns in mind".
Its called "prioritizing".
John Cole
I am not concern trolling. Well, maybe I am. I just see land mines all over the place, and wonder how much of the issues being pushed are people who want Obama to fail chucking shit out there.
Maybe I had too much coffee this morning, but what bothers me is everywhere I look I see gays being set up for hits. Prop 8, with Newt Gingrich prattling about gay fascism, the anti-adoption crap, and then this.
I would not be surprised to see gay-bashing and anti-gay assaults go up dramatically in the short term.
The Other Steve
I don’t see this coming up until 2013. Sorry guys, but it’s low on the totem pole.
There’s going to be a bigger battle waged between the administration and the defense industry over spending. That bullshit article yesterday in defense news pointing out that the defense industry was trying to setup a big fight accusing Obama of cutting spending.
Although it irritates me, I’m still pretty confident that Obama is going to prevail and this idea of politicizing the defense budget is going to be a big FAIL.
ed
Whatever. Watch the media narrative- Obama making same mistakes as Clinton, has Clinton hands in staff, Clinton at Secretary of State, screws up gays in the military, etc., ad nauseum.
This is a political winner for Obama if he doesn’ t hem and haw and bring in some dickweed like Sam Nunn to Third Way it. Just end DADT and be done with it. The media, apart from Fox, Papa Bear et al, will be OK with it. It’ll show real leadership, and be perceived as getting in front of the right side of history. Will and Grace hadn’t even premiered back in 19 and 93. The world has changed. Arabic translators were dismissed because they preferred the company of men to the company of women. Anyone think the policy which got them booted made us any safer? Because of President Cheney’s godawful management and decisions, the military has continuously lowered its recruiting standards, but those Arabic translators had to go. As with Obama’s election itself, the nation’s military is finally in such dire straits for social progress.
Obama does this early, with surgical precision (i.e., unlike Clinton), and come 2012, no moderate Republican or self-proclaimed libertarian will want to associate with the religious lunatics and right wing jackasses still shrieking about it. Obama can make another awesome speech, as he did about race during the election, sign it, and move on to the business of setting (more) things a-right.
liberal
@NonyNony:
I thought one of the problems with the way Clinton went about it was that instead of just putting the issue off, or going all the way with an order in his role as C-in-C, he went some middle route, which allowed all sorts of people who were against it time and opportunity to do so.
Incertus
@John Cole:
They probably will go up in the short term, but as we saw in the Castro recently, gays aren’t going to just take it anymore. And the movement is toward greater acceptance of gays in the US, not less.
liberal
@ed:
Yeah, this is my recollection from Clinton’s attempt, as per my comment above.
Napoleon
@John Cole:
You are not, it would be an epic mistake for him to say anything on the issue (and if he does say something like "I am in favor of that issue, but I have many things on my plate and the first thing we need to address is the economy, then health care and energy) until he really does cement the view that in fact he and the Democratic majorities really intend to help (and do help) the broad number of Americans.
This appears to me to be an attempt to change the media focus off of those subjects that the Dems are perceived at better at (healthcare, economy, environment/renewable energy) on to things that they do not have those advantages. Remember, if Joe "Redneck"/"Ethinic Working Class Catholic"/"White Working Class" perceives that the Dems don’t care about them but instead about the Dems gay friends, they vote Republican. If they have the perception that the Dems are the party of the average person, they they are not going to care about the gays in the military issue.
Prioritize.
ed
ehh, perhaps earlyl in 2013, as TOS said.
libarbarian
Things are different now. The fact that we’re arguing over gay marriage means that gays in the military just won’t seem like a huge threat anymore … the front has already moved past that point.
I think it may get repealed, which would just be FAB-U-LOUS!!!!!!
Dusty
One priority that Obama has is getting more people into the military, particularly people with specialized skills like Arabic translators. Repealing DADT would theoretically help with that.
I don’t see how "work(ing) with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals" would negatively affect his efforts in your stated priorities (the economy, his energy proposals and health care). DADT doesn’t really have anything to do with any of those things.
Gus
This is gonna be hilarious to watch. All during the campaign, there was a lot of hand-wringing and giving of (wrong) advice to Obama. He did it his way and won a resounding victory. Now that he’s president elect, there’s lots of hand-wringing and giving of advice. Remember the graphic, "chill the fuck out, I got this," and relax.
Napoleon
@Dusty:
So that is going to be his number one priority, adding maybe 10 Arabic translators? Or maybe a couple hundred soldiers (remember, it has been widely reported that people being kicked out for being gay, as in past wars, has dropped dramatically)?
What Obama does first, second, third and in the early part of his administration sets a media narrative, and it is better that the narrative is that every day he goes to work thinking of how he can help YOUR LIFE. If he sidetracks early on (no earlier then at least getting one of the 2 priorities I list in an earlier post and be on the way with the 3rd) he sidetracks the media coverage to some side issue, that makes the Dems more concerned about side issues then what most people are dealing with in their lives.
Prioritize.
Dusty
I never said it should be his number-one priority. His number-one priority is probably going to be reversing a bunch of Bush executive orders and signing statements.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff aren’t going to be working on energy policy. Or healthcare. Or fixing the economy. All of which aren’t going to be fixed any time soon anyway. I’m not sure how giving them directive to start working on getting rid of DADT affects any of those things.
The Other Steve
Focus on the Family get’s hit by sluggish economy!
http://www.gazette.com/news/focus_43586___article.html/lays_eliminationg.html
demimondian
@John Cole: Homophobia is clearly the new victim card of the right; there’s no question about that. Yes, evilhomolibrulf*ggots in the military is their current instance.
Hey, guess what? That’s their MO — they find some bogus issue, and they make themselves the victims. Sometimes, the right way to handle a serial victim is to say "I understand what you’re saying, and understand that this will upset you, but adults sometimes have to make choices between imperfect alternatives."
Now *that* would be change I would believe in.
Napoleon
@Dusty:
Here is an idea, give the Joint Chiefs as the thing they can work on since they can’t work on energy policy coming up with a plan to get us the f— out of Iraq, then make sure, as mentioned by The Other Steve @ 26, that they get beat down on what is being reported as being all but a pseudo-coup attempt to screw the civilian control out of oversight of the budget process (and also use the military budget to starve any attempt at health care reform), maybe have them do something with Gitmo, and then when they are all done on those issues, maybe then get around to the hugely pressing issue of gays in the military.
But apparently for you that is not the order they should address issues facing the military.
There is a reason the Dems spent years in the wilderness and IMO the number one has long been a failure to prioritize properly, and picking issues that impact a small part of their coalition, or worst yet negatively impacting a significant part of their coalition, and running with it as what is perceived as a high priority for the party.
gbear
@John Cole:
Just like we’re not surprised to see racist grafitti and threats go up due to the election of a black president. The haters are going to get upset when hate isn’t the rule of law anymore and there isn’t much we can do to ease their ‘pain’ at seeing people that they don’t like become equals. There isn’t anything we can do to make them give up their victimhood.
& Napoleon: Please switch to decaf. Obama’s going to have a large enough staff that he can multi-task. He won’t have to put the economy and jobs on hold in order to work on civil rights issues, and he doesn’t have to stand on a soapbox about every issue he pursues. If he’s for equal rights for GLBT folks and he’s working towards equal rights fo GLBT folks, I don’t care if he doesn’t take the time to make major public policy statements about GLBT issues.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I saw another comment some time back which pointed out that there is a term for this approach: "deliberative", as in to deliberate. It is what you might expect from somebody who taught constitutional law and was a community organizer.
On the merits of prioritizing overturning DATD, I suspect that if handled well per what others above have suggested it would be a small net loss politically for about as long as it takes to start filling up military cemetaries with headstones of soldiers who were openly gay and made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. See Colin Powell and soldiers who happen to be muslim for details. A photograph is a powerful thing, it reaches a different part of the brain where mere words cannot go.
This is not to imply that I want to see more of that sort of thing (I’d just as soon we didn’t have to put up any more headstones for anybody), just saying that given a choice between homophobia and getting all misty eyed about the sacrifices made by our troops, I think the vast majority of Americans will opt for the latter.
It is also worth noting that African Americans serving in defense of their country during WW1 and WW2 and Korea formed part of the backdrop for the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. It is harder to keep somebody down or stigmatize them as a lesser kind of person after they’ve worn the uniform, because it is hard to dis the person without dissing the uniform.
Dusty
@Napoleon
My initial post was just pointing out that Obama was already on the record with his position on DADT. I never said that repealing DADT should be the number-one priority of the Joint Chiefs either. Or DOD. Where did I say that? Can these departments only work on one thing at a time? Can they only work on six things at a time? Can they spare not one person to work on figuring out how to get rid of DADT? ‘Cause they seem like large organizations.
Napoleon
@demimondian:
So here is an idea, do not give them the rope to hang the Dems with that issue, at least until the Dems prove to the vast majority of the public that the most important issues for them are the same issues that are most important to the wider public. As soon as something like gays in the military becomes something that the administration is moving on every cable channel is going to run with it 24/7 and that is going to be a major time consuming subject on the Sunday programs, all to the determent of having people like say, to pick a name out of the air, booking people like Ezra Klien, Senator Backus (sp), or like people regarding proposed health care reforms or T Boone Pickens on why America needs a comprehensive energy plan, but instead we will get people like that cross eyed freak Ron Christie (sp) explaining why gays in the military thing is a bad thing and how it proves the Dems are beholden to their fringe members.
Yeah, that is a brilliant strategy.
August J. Pollak
This is only a landmine if Obama does anything other than simply sign the damn order ending it.
The difference between 1993 and now, as if it actually needed pointing out or something, is that we’re in the middle of a war. Are conservative pundits REALLY going to go on TV and start screaming that we need to restrict the number of people who can join the army?
yet another jeff
@Napoleon:
Remember how Obama nailed McCain on the "postpone the debate" stunt…how he said he can walk and chew gum at the same time? Do you really think that prioritizing means working on only one thing at a time? Too many things are fucked up and that approach would be a disaster, no matter what is done first. Obama is all about being a liberal in the John Stuart Mill sense of the word.
Vincent
Napoleon,
I think you should chill out a bit. As far as I can tell, nobody’s asking Obama to repeal DADT within five minutes of taking office (though I wouldn’t be against it). People are just throwing out a wishlist of things they would eventually like to have done. Is that so wrong?
It is extremely unlikely that Obama would make this a top priority and you’re right there’s a bunch of crap he has to clean up first. And because you’re right and nobody has any special mind control powers to make Obama do their bidding, what the fuck are you so mad about?
Dusty
The vast majority of the public, something like 75%, favors the repeal of DADT. The bulk of remaining 25% are probably never gonna vote Democratic anyway. It’s not exactly a nuclear issue for Obama.
misterarthur
I’ve spoken with a couple of Navy Captains who say that the current generation of sailors really doesn’t care if you’re gay or not.
Napoleon
@Dusty:
I never said that repealing DADT should be the number-one priority of the Joint Chiefs either.
No you didn’t, but since the post is of an effort taking place NOW, prior to Obama being sworn in, and not a single person other then John Cole or me, have stated that the timing of this effort is really bad, and instead everyone is in favor of it with no apparent qaulifications, I do think it is safe to imply that the majority of the posters here are in fact in favor of the effort which is taking place right now and would end up as one of the first things being pushed in front of Obama.
joe from Lowell
Barack Obama is better at politics than you or I, John.
I’m going to default to "Chill, I got this" mode until I see a reason not to.
Zifnab
@Dusty: Cheers to that. If this is a landmine, it can easily be laid out for the Republicans. People still have a certain belief that Republicans are strong on national security, but one major dent in this theory is the hair twisting girly screams the homophobic wing of the GOP emits every time they hear about uniformed gays.
If Obama wants to repel DADT (which gets to arbitrarily deployed that its almost laughable) he’ll have a line out the door of gay ex-military Arabic translators and medics and intelligence officers and engineers – all desperately needed by our currently understaffed armed forces – who will attest to the ridiculousness of this policy. Put them up against a cross-eyed wingnut draft-dodging fringe "preacher man" any day. I’d love to turn this into Big Jesus versus National Security.
Scott H
Obama strikes me as guy who can prioritize. DADT is dead in its traces, anyway.
That was Clinton’s utter failure. "Weak as water!" to quote Mrs Slocum. In ’93, a lot of stars should have left Capitol Hill wearing bars, Powell included.
gex
I agree with a lot of you that our society’s attitude has changed a lot since ’93, but has it in the military? What about the super Christianist, evangelical Air Force? It’s not as though McCain only brought in 28% of the vote… I think that might be a good estimate of how much support retaining DADT might get if this does come up.
Dusty
What’s the "effort" exactly? A bunch of people unaffiliated with the new administration signed a statement? Unless and until Obama announces that nothing in the federal government can move forward until DADT is history, I’m not gonna freak out about it.
In fact, in the linked article, he states he won’t just rush it through with an executive order:
gex
@NonyNony:
Funny, I think I’m scarier now than I was 15 years ago.
gbear
@Napoleon:
Yea, that worked out so well when they went Reverend Wright 24/7 and Elitist 24/7 and all the other Chicken Little crap they tried. That stuff only works if Obama runs from it in fear, and he’s shown that he’s willing to fight against it. Cable and network news’ credibility took a big hit over the last year because they kept getting stuff wrong. I don’t see Obama’s crew letting that trend reversing over the next four years.
Dusty
Obama can’t control what nonsense the chattering class decides to run with. The overwhelming electoral success of the Democratic Party can’t even get the Sunday bookers to stop overweighting Republicans. If the 24-hour news networks decide to dedicate a week to a panda bear stuck in a tree, there’s not much anybody can do about it. Obama can’t make governing decisions based on trying to dictate the news cycle.
Zifnab
@gex:
That’s cause you’re both gay AND old. Gay old dudes are creepy.
Napoleon
Right, he will not need to only walk and chew gum but, in no particular order, he will be handed this on day one:
1) run the war in Afganistan (and handle Bin Lauden)
2) end war in Iraq
3) handle an economic meltdown
4) close Gitmo
5) end torture
6) address a blatently illegal spying campaign by the government against its citizens
7) reform healthcare
8) come up with the first comprehensive energy plan since Jimmy Carter
9) address a reported attempt by the military brass to weaken civilian oversight and say in the military budget
10) almost certainly at least one S. Ct. nomination very early in his administration.
There is so much going on I am sure I must be missing something (Iran, Pakistan, what else could go wrong or is wrong?).
If Obama or anyone in his administration spends any time on the gays in the military/marrage issue it will by the very nature of the issue, and of our broken media, be treated as the most important issue ever and as such unless when it comes up the public perception is that Obama’s greatest concerns are truely most of those issues listed above then all Obama will be doing is feeding to the perception that the Dems care more about issues that really don’t help most people in there day to day lives, then those that do.
gex
@Zifnab: Well, I’m 35 and female. But close! ;)
gex
@Napoleon:
This is a very smart point. It’s not the most important issue, but it is very emotional for people on both sides. So it will drive the media in ways that topics people are bored with won’t.
Dusty
Presumably the first thing that will happen with DADT is that some mid-level task force will be formed to look into it and write a report of some kind. That task force probably won’t be formed on Day One either. While I have a fair amount of contempt for the priorities of the traditional media, I’m not quite cynical enough to assume they’ll ignore pressing issues like the economic meltdown to obsess over an issue that the vast majority of the public doesn’t give a shit about anyway. If nothing else, it hardly seems like a ratings grabber.
If the media obsesses over anything related to LGBT community, it’s gonna be Prop 8 and gay marriage. It’s not gonna be DADT.
Napoleon
And as he fights against it he is burning political capital that he could be using on an issue of greater general concern, which is my whole point.
I saw poll results 6 – 9 months ago the while there was a huge shift in a "pro" gay view in the enlisted ranks there was still a huge "anti" view in the mid to higher ranks.
If memory serves, it was a bunch of unaffiliated people who pushed it at the beginning of the Clinton administration, but unless Obama is stupid enough to pay any attention at this time then it does not matter. BTW, for what is it worth, and this is based on general comments Obama has made in the past, I don’t think he will touch it for some time (but likely before the midterms).
gbear
Napoleon, how long have you been so afraid of gay issues that you think they need to be separated and prioritized below every other issue we face? You’re arguments are starting to sound a bit desperate. Explain to me why we’re the ultimate political poison. Is it because absolutely everybody hates us so much?
Michael D.
@John Cole:
Count me among those who’s not afraid to take a few lumps if it means getting this horrible law repealed.
And if anyone got in my face and threatened me over it, they would be the one hitting the ground first – not me.
Gays threaten unit cohesion? Please… If that’s the case, then why would the military brass in the U.S. allow our troops to fight beside British and Canadian service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I’ve always wanted someone to ask Bush and McCain that question.
Dusty
I can’t seem to get the Edit to work, but I don’t see the media getting all hopped up to cover gays in the military when Prop 8 and gay marriage is sucking up all the LGBT air in the press right now. Gay marriage is still controversial; DADT is not.
bago
I think John is mostly suspicious about the timing. There could be bad actors who decided to release this now in an attempt to cripple the incoming elect with a wedge issue right as he starts office, just like last time. Republicans are not known for creativity.
In other words, if McCain won, do you think we’d be seeing this now?
John Cole
@bago: Exactly. And to answer your question about McCain, the answer is no, but that is probably because if McCain won, there would be no chance it would be overturned.
Dusty
The question I’d ask is whether repealing DADT is a good wedge issue. Polling data suggests it’s not. If this statement is a political ploy, it’d maybe be a dog whistle to the base, but it’s hard to see how it’s going to splinter the Dem-friendly portions of the electorate to try to force Obama to pursue a policy he’s already said he’s going to pursue. Forcing Obama to take up gay marriage as a top priority would be a good wedge issue.
Napoleon
@gbear:
Good God I spent 20 minutes typing a reply to you and lost it like an idiot (I ussually type it seperatly in word but did not). I have to do something else and can not recreate it now.
Short answer is that it has nothing to do with gay issues but on issues of narrow focus (to the extent gay has anything to do with it its because the media is more likely to focus on it, like they are about anything dealing with sex or gender, which makes it an easier thing to use as a distracting issue with the electorate. I think if you read my post with an open mind my objection is basically to using the opening days of an administration for anything other then the broad programs that the mass number of people who voted for you were likely voting for you on and not burn your political capital on other stuff. If you are sucessful with that I think if buys you a well of support to do otherthings. Bill C is a perfect example of someone who did it exactly opposite and as a result to the extent his presidency is know for any positive achievements it was of things your average Republican would be proud of. To this day I am convinced if Clinton was smarter that when he left office in 2000 we would have national healthcare and gays serving openly in the military.
Dusty
I don’t think anybody would argue that Obama should focus his time and attention on DADT in the early days of his administration and there’s no reason to believe he has any intention to, no matter how many retired military officers sign statements. The most likely scenario is that, at some point in the first few months or first year, he’ll appoint a group somewhere to look into the matter and make recommendations about how to phase it out. Given that the public seems to be on board with the idea, I don’t see how that’s going to generate the kind of controversy that would derail the Obama administration going forward.
Nellcote
If Obama really wanted to push the issue, wouldn’t he get Pelosi to start (relevant) committee hearings and build some sort of consensus? I don’t see why he would have to give it all that much attention until the issue worked it’s way through the process. He actually seems to see the congress as a seperate arm of the government rather than a rubber stamp.
ed
Gays threaten unit cohesion? Please… If that’s the case, then why would the military brass in the U.S. allow our troops to fight beside British and Canadian service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Right. And in his awesome speech that Obama should do when right before he signs the order and moves on, he should challenge the best dadgum military to act as professionals. Anyone who has a problem with it shouldn’t be in the military in the first place (as with a racially integrated military).
Gay Veteran
Napoleon is like a dog with a bone, he just can’t let it go. Hell, this isn’t my first priority (which IS the employment non-discrimination act).
jeebus, this is a minor issue that can be solved with an amendment to the Pentagon appropriations bill
Ian
Isn’t that an argument for supplying gay people with guns and military training?
Fun facts: the Canadian Armed Forces allow same-sex marriages on military bases and actively recruit at gay pride parades. This is as it should be.
Indylib
@misterarthur:
I can vouch for that. My husband is a Navy Master Chief and most sailors could care less. A good portion of gays in the Navy are pretty open about it, just not overt.
Some of the older males, 40 and over, still bitch and moan about it, mostly due to their own religious blindspots, (damned christianist wingnuts are in the Navy too, though less than in the Army or USAF).
Most of the young kids coming in really don’t care. And if they do care they learn to control their mouths and actions really quick. The Navy is really good about enforcing their non-discrimination policies.
Will Hunting
@Napoleon: "This appears to me to be an attempt to change the media focus off of those subjects that the Dems are perceived at better at (healthcare, economy, environment/renewable energy) on to things that they do not have those advantages. Remember, if Joe "Redneck"/"Ethinic Working Class Catholic"/"White Working Class" perceives that the Dems don’t care about them but instead about the Dems gay friends, they vote Republican."
By this logic, if Obama wants to eliminate DADT, now’s the time to do it, right? We’re not anywhere near the midterm elections; if he gets rid of DADT early on, the military has more time to recruit more people — especially valuable personnel like Arabic translators — and by the next round of elections, the issue will have receded somewhat. And if the opposition wants to bring it up and make it an issue all over again for the midterms, by then the Administration can point to increased recruiting, more translators, etc.
Siryn
I think that the landscape has changed a lot in 16 years and the rest of the population is ready for it. Particularly, when you throw away your intelligence assets just because they are gay, you have to wonder what the hell is going on up there. That, more than anything else, will be the clincher. We are more egalitarian, except for Appalachia, and we understand that winning a war is more important than who’s sticking whose private parts where.
Hob
@Napoleon: "So that is going to be his number one priority, adding maybe 10 Arabic translators? Or maybe a couple hundred soldiers (remember, it has been widely reported that people being kicked out for being gay, as in past wars, has dropped dramatically)?"
"A couple hundred" = between 600 and 1200 every year since 1993, according to this summary (yes, Wikipedia, but sources are given).
That doesn’t take into account people who accepted a discharge where the reason wasn’t revealed — not to mention people who stay in the service and manage to stay out of trouble, at the cost of having to live secretively or lie to their superiors.
And, if we’re talking about trying to get more people into the military — not a goal I support, but I understand the premise — it should be obvious that we’re not just talking about gay soldiers who have been kicked out, but gay people who never joined up in the first place because of the current policy.
So, feel free to go on arguing about whether it’s wise for Obama to make this a priority, but don’t claim to be basing your argument on any kind of data. Your idea of what’s been "widely reported" is just wrong.
Hob
Related reports from obscure news sources:
Washington Post, 2006: Costs of DADT discharges. When you train someone and then kick them out, you’re losing more than a pair of boots.
New York Times, 2008: The numbers dropped compared to 2001, but are now rising. Lesbians are being disproportionately targeted, which is entirely consistent with the way military witch-hunts were done prior to DADT.
mvr
@Dusty: Following up on and agreeing with Dusty’s correct remark that the military folks can work this one out while other focus on other issues without detriment to the priority of those other issues:
Remember that Obama partly beat McCain by showing he could multitask while the economy was tanking. While the probably should not be his first initiative, doing it soon and calmly in whatever way looks like it creates the least drama would likely not get in the way of doing the many other things he needs to do.
It has the advantage of making sense on the merits and the folks who want to block it are the ones who will look hysterical this time around. (Hell, they looked hysterical to me last time around, but I seem to be out of the mainstream in my take on politicians, except recently.)
Marshall
Bill Clinton’s troubles with "Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell" came largely from his unwillingness to fire any Generals for opposing his measures. He appeared weak, largely because he was weak, and that is a culture that does not respect weakness.
I have a feeling that Obama will not fall into that particular trap.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
Idea for a TV spot:
"This is Sergeant Jose Zuniga. Medic during the first Gulf War. Named as the Sixth Army’s Soldier of the Year. A Republican. A patriot. A soldier whose commanding officer said could "justifiably be proud" of his service.
16 years ago we threw him out of the Army because he was gay. And we still throw people, good people, good *soldiers* out because they are gay.
And we are now recruiting felons and gang members because we don’t have anyone else to take their place.
Support our troops. Support {name of initiative}. Equality AND security.
tavella
Which means, of course, that it won’t happen; the military brass generally hate Democrats and will view any effort to end DADT as ‘pushing the fags on us again’. They will achieve the consensus of no.
As I said elsewhere, nothing much progressive is going to happen with this administration; it will always be ‘too controversial’, ‘too politically expensive’, etc. I think there’s a vague hope that some kind of health care reform might get in, but only because segments of business are coming around to the view that they can’t afford it any more. And I expect it to be a massive hack, more aimed toward cossetting the insurance companies and health care industry than achieving quality healthcare for all.