• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

This really is a full service blog.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

Let’s finish the job.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

“Squeaker” McCarthy

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Military / Doing Things Right vs. Doing Things Right Now

Doing Things Right vs. Doing Things Right Now

by John Cole|  February 2, 20101:47 pm| 231 Comments

This post is in: Military, Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

I dunno, I’m an O-Bot and everything, but my judgment is that having the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs coming out in favor of repealing DADT in the first day of hearings with an accompanying media narrative that it is not “if” it will be repealed but “when” is probably a lot more helpful in attaining the long-term goal of a full repeal than Obama issuing executive orders without having his ducks in a row, causing a huge congressional and military backlash with a media narrative about nothing but Obama over-reaching his mandate and the accompanying backlash, but pleasing a small but vocal portion of the Democratic coalition.

But that is just me, and you know how much I like to punch hippies.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Is the Taliban this crazy?
Next Post: Satanic Majesties Request »

Reader Interactions

231Comments

  1. 1.

    ruemara

    February 2, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    You’re not quite a hippie puncher, just a shit-stirrer, Mr. Cole.

  2. 2.

    shortstop

    February 2, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    No bullshit injury can keep your sass down. Universe bless you.

  3. 3.

    licensed to kill time

    February 2, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    I’m a Cole-bot, and I approve this post.

  4. 4.

    demo woman

    February 2, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Earlier I had the hearings and heard my Senator, Saxby, talk about live and let live. I thought okay, I’d be willing to go along with that and then he mentioned that’s why don’t ask, don’t tell is good. Well no that just proves that it’s not working since one can now report someone as gay just to get that person kicked out of the service. There is no penalty for ratty out a fellow service person.

  5. 5.

    JR

    February 2, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    The superficial victories are going to be few and far between over the next year. Much more important will be the groundwork laid for future gains. Our goal needs to be to set the stage for progressive change, not to try and win each and every battle each and every time. If we make changes that can be reversed with the stroke of a pen, we’ve won nothing but kudos. If we make changes that endure and breed new victories, we’ve won the country back.

  6. 6.

    Max

    February 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Don’t head over to Aravosis’ place. It’s bedlam.

    I loathe those people. And by “those people” I don’t mean teh gays, I mean the ODS’ers.

    @demo woman: I believe he went on to compare being gay to alcohol abuse and being in the closet to covering up tattoo’s.

  7. 7.

    J.W. Hamner

    February 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    I agree with you John, but I also think it’s a good thing that activists continue to put the pressure on. I mean, that’s sort of what being an activist is, right?

  8. 8.

    Malron

    February 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    @Max: I wanna punch Aravosis in the neck myself, and I second John’s emotion.

  9. 9.

    Zifnab

    February 2, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs coming out in favor of repealing DADT in the first day of hearings is probably a lot more helpful in attaining the long-term goal of a full repeal than Obama issuing executive orders without having his ducks in a row

    People don’t care how DADT is repealed. They just want it done.

    If Obama gets all his ducks in a row in the House and the military, but the GOP “majority” Senate locks up the Defense Bill while running a bunch of nonsensical political ads about how Democrats don’t love the military, who the fuck cares? The Dem Senate leadership will panic and strip out the DADT provision. The “Very Serious Media” will gin up a backlash. And we’ll get another 6 month fail parade.

    If he issues an executive order and the Congress and the military backlash on him, at least the voters will see a backlash against an instituted policy rather than a lot of noise producing zero results.

    Of course, if Obama can jujitsu through DADT his way successfully, then by 2010 all will be forgiven and forgotten.

    Given the mixed bag of results we’ve seen over the last year, I honestly don’t know what we’ll get. A big fat FU from the Senate won’t win Obama any praise.

  10. 10.

    gopher2b

    February 2, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    The JC framed the issue perfectly. Most everyone is fine with gays serving in the military, the issue is whether they can be “out.” Do we want a military where everyone is running around investigating and tattling on each other and soldiers have to explicitly lie about who they are — or is it more honorable to be honest and respectful of yourself and other? Tough to argue that one. Well done, sir.

    Obviously, its better to let the JC and Defense Secretary carry the torch on this argument.

  11. 11.

    arguingwithsignposts

    February 2, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    @gopher2b:

    Do we want a military where everyone is running around investigating and tattling on each other and soldiers have to explicitly lie about who they are

    Sen. Joe McCarthy would like to have a word with you.

  12. 12.

    shortstop

    February 2, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    @ruemara

    No, he punches, but since his dominant arm is out of commish it’s more like a a Boyfight episode from Arrested Development. The flailing slap MO is only temporary, however.

  13. 13.

    mr. whipple

    February 2, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    But that is just me, and you know how much I like to punch hippies.

    Poor, poor hippies. Why, they are almost as persecuted as the poor, poor Christians.

  14. 14.

    Davis X. Machina

    February 2, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    You’ll find nearly as many real hippies as actual Christians.

  15. 15.

    aimai

    February 2, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    I think its good strategy. You know what else would have been good strategy?–keeping your enemies close and your friends closer. The entire reason that “the hippies” have been anxious about DADT repeal isn’t that they necessarily expected that Obama et al would do it by fiat (though some did). Its that from the get go Obama and his team simply dropped the messaging to gay/straight supporters on this. I daresay that if Obama hadn’t asked Rick fucking warren to give the main invocation at the Inauguration and started rumors, that he then couldn’t tamp down, that he saw gay/women’s rights as sacrificeable and perhaps even publicly embarrassing the snowball of rumor and anger might never have gotten going and turned into an avalanche. Other things that the gay community “read” as meaning that Obama was not serious about following through were the places where the DOJ refused to enter into legal cases on the gay side, or where the administration refused to extend benefits to gay partners *when they could have done so.*

    Even if you think that the Obama administration had to do certain things, legally, which were emphatically anti-gay interests (which I’m sure is a good argument for exactly these incidents) there’s simply no reason that the gay community as a whole should be left hanging, with no explanation, no outreach, and no sense of the overall gameplan. Obama had gay supporters who looked to him to advance the ball on their issues. Now he’s doing so. That’s great–I applaud it. But why the “I told you so” attitude with a heaping dose of “stop bitching about stuff?” If Obama wanted his supporters to “stop bitching” and trust him there were literally hundreds of things he could have done to keep them on board with the program, and sweeten them up.

    Here’s the thing I don’t get: why is this even an issue? –keeping your supporters happy is, in fact, a huge part of the political game. Its great that Obama and his team have done enough quiet ground work to stage these hearings. Really great. I mean that. And I don’t personally think that a year was too long to do all that kind of work. And I don’t object at all to holding hearings–I think that’s a great strategy. But that’s no big deal. That’s actually their job.

    Its also part of their job *not to scare their own supporters* into losing faith with them. Why not have gone to the newsmakers and noisemakers in the gay community and explained this strategy up front, a year ago? Why not rallied them to get organized to further this strategy? Its just useless to keep excoriating voters/supporters who got skittish after one too many –as they saw it–delay tactic, or failed moment, or insulting speech by an admin person for losing faith. That’s what people do when their needs aren’t met and the people they are looking too are doing things too quietly, or too indirectly, to make any impression on voters who are receiving their information at a distance.

    There’s simply no question, at this point, that Obama and his team are failing to grasp the first law of politics: don’t just do right, make your supporters and your enemies know you’ve done it.. This has nothing to do with hippies, or gays, or interest groups. This is a problem the Obama admin has in communicating its goals, strategies, and timelines to its own partners in change/voters.

    aimai

  16. 16.

    rob!

    February 2, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    I’m starting to think that, much like his campaign and election, Obama’s way of doing things is going to be totally different than his predecessors.

    Instead of having a boffo “honeymoon”, and then watch things get watered down thereafter, I’m wondering if Obama didn’t have a (on the surface) so-so first year, to be followed by a kick-ass, getting-really-big-stuff-done 2010.

  17. 17.

    mr. whipple

    February 2, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Oh no. There’s lots of them out there, but they don’t congregate like they did when Phish and Dead were playing, so they aren’t as visible.

  18. 18.

    Breezeblock

    February 2, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Sorry if this has been suggested before, but can you add “punching hippies” to the lexicon?

  19. 19.

    Paula

    February 2, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Wow. This makes me feel better.

    I was not on the “Obama executive order repealing DADT” bandwagon precisely because I had no idea how the top brass @ Defense and the Pentagon were going to handle it. It doesn’t matter how many executive orders the president can sign, it was a matter of whether they would have the atmosphere of support if “out” men and women were invited back. Which would have made a catastrophic situation if, indeed, those men and women did not have the full protection and support as dictated not just by the president’s edict but by the diligence of the leaders of the military.

    Of course, that worry is based on my assumption that there will be a few bad eggs in the army who will fuck it up and who will need to be disciplined, which in itself could be wrong.

  20. 20.

    Elizabelle

    February 2, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    rob!’s comment 16 is interesting. We will see. There’s something (else!) to hope for.

    I hope the repeal will include the option of returning to service those members and linguists, etc. booted out because of their sexual orientation. Give them credit for years served, too, in seniority and calculating eventual retirement benefits. That would be just.

  21. 21.

    TWP

    February 2, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    @johncole: Have to admit, you are absolutely right about this. And I was wrong. Wanted DADT ended by executive order, but Adm Mullen’s comments today really take the wind out of the Conservative sails. It’s a long-term game…and I see it ending over time.

  22. 22.

    matt

    February 2, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Of course, if Obama were a Republican, he’d be Commander in Chief, and that’d be end of discussion.

  23. 23.

    carlos the dwarf

    February 2, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    @shortstop:

    Actually, those boyfights got pretty intense. Lots of tackling and wrestling.
    /unless you’re talking about the baby Buster scenes./

  24. 24.

    Jay C.

    February 2, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Following some liveblogging of the hearings so far, it seems like some Senators are ticked off that Adm Mullen & Secy Gates are treating DADT-repeal as a fait accompli – they seem to be miffed that it’s being presented as a “when” rather than an “if” – the only Committee member who stated flatly in favor of repeal was, oddly, Joe Lieberman.

  25. 25.

    Ash Can

    February 2, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Yet another lesson Obama learned from the Clinton Administration.

  26. 26.

    burnspbesq

    February 2, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    @Zifnab:

    You’re seriously concerned about a filibuster of a Defense appropriations bill? That seems a bit far-fetched to me.

  27. 27.

    Zifnab

    February 2, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    @aimai: This.

    @burnspbesq: Is there seriously anything the Republicans haven’t considered filibustering yet? Fuck, they’ve gotten nothing but love every time they jammed their feet in the mud and screamed “STOP! DEATH PANELS!” Why should this be different.

    We all know the Defense Bill is going to pass. It always passes. It’s just a matter of how many Senate Democrats the GOP can get to stick knives in their buddies backs. This is a sweet and beautiful game. Watch Lieberman gut the Public Option. Watch Ben Nelson sell out for a $100 million subsidy he’ll never see, so the GOP has a talking point to run around beating Democrats up with in fucking Ohio.

    I’ve yet to see a filibuster the GOP has sustained that they’ve managed to regret.

  28. 28.

    paradox

    February 2, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    Instead of having a boffo “honeymoon”, and then watch things get watered down thereafter, I’m wondering if Obama didn’t have a (on the surface) so-so first year, to be followed by a kick-ass, getting-really-big-stuff-done 2010.

    Yes, and when I turn fifty fairly soon I’ll become a chick magnet with a quarter million a year career on Coronado Island. Oh yes.

  29. 29.

    John Cole

    February 2, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Its also part of their job not to scare their own supporters into losing faith with them. Why not have gone to the newsmakers and noisemakers in the gay community and explained this strategy up front, a year ago? Why not rallied them to get organized to further this strategy?

    That is nonsense. I read the Advocate and used to read the Blade and the Advocate has constantly had information about the WH coordinating with gay advocates. Hell, the Advocate had stories about Lieberman working on DADT. Additionally, they worked closely with HRC, and even had Obama speak at an Obama dinner restating his desire to repeal DADT. I’ve been linking stories for months that have quotes about the movement on these issues from folks who are with SLDN. That is the truth, although you will not hear about it on Americablog or in DKOS diaries.

    You are simply wrong- they have been reaching out. The problem is that there is a select group of WATB who dominate the discourse on gay issues, and they have completely ignored all the evidence that doesn’t give them an opportunity to have an immediate outrage binge. Do you want me to dig up to the reactions to Obama speaking at the HRC event? “Just words, etc.”

    A lot of what is going on with gay rights mirrors what is going on with health care. With health care, there is a proxy fight between the internet activists and the DNC/DLC that goes back to Lamont and the Deaniacs, and with gay rights, it is the up and comers in the blogospheric activism fighting against HRC.

    Lost in the poutrage and screaming hissy fits on the internet is that the WH has had a coherent position that they have advocated steadily and consistently all along, all while reaching out to gay rights groups and laying the foundation for the repeal within Congress and the military. They reached out. They just didn’t give Aravosis a tongue kiss in the green room.

    I’m not sure many of you realize how much contempt I have developed for our self-serving activists over the past year. But hey- it is good for fund raising.

  30. 30.

    Joe Beese

    February 2, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    I see…. “groundwork laid for future gains”.

    Only…

    … what happens if we lose the Senate or the House in the November elections? What happens if we hold our majorities but lose significant numbers of members in each body? What happens if the Presidential election season starts next year, which it will? What happens if we don’t finish working on this until 2012, another congressional election year? What happens if we’re still not out of Iraq and Afghanistan next year and the military says “too soon to lift DADT”? What happens if we’re then at war with Iran? … This thing got dragged out in 1993, and it destroyed us. I was there, volunteering for Senator Kennedy’s office, working with his staffer on DADT repeal. The Pentagon has the same game plan today that they had then. Delay, study, and all the while sow misinformation, scare the public, rile up the right-wing. The longer this gets drawn out, the harder it will get to win. It’s health care reform all over again. A weak, hands-off president endorses a long drawn out process run by his political enemies. And he thinks that this time they won’t run circles around him and make a fool of him, again.

    http://gay.americablog.com/2010/02/surprise-white-house-is-on-board-with.html

  31. 31.

    Ash

    February 2, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    @Joe Beese:

    What happens if we’re still not out of Iraq and Afghanistan next year and the military says “too soon to lift DADT”? What happens if we’re then at war with Iran? … This thing got dragged out in 1993, and it destroyed us. I was there, volunteering for Senator Kennedy’s office, working with his staffer on DADT repeal. The Pentagon has the same game plan today that they had then. Delay, study, and all the while sow misinformation, scare the public, rile up the right-wing.

    I think it’s pretty obvious that the people in the higher ranks today (I doubt it’s just Mullen) are going to act like that. That whole thing is emitting a neon glow of paranoia.

  32. 32.

    Davis X. Machina

    February 2, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    I think the chances of a DoD appropriations filibuster are small, but defintely non-zero. In fact, it would be a good first-approximation measure of how crazy the GOP has become, insofar as the only way to make the case that such a step isn’t rank obstructionism, and Harming the Troops, is to go full-bore “”DADT repeal spells the end of our armed forces” and hope patriotism (as presently defined, the love of blowing shit up, and machines that blow shit up) does the rest.

    They didn’t go there when Truman desegregated the services, but opposition to that measure, while localized in the Democratic party, wasn’t limited to it, so there was no whip operation, party infrastructure to support such a move.

  33. 33.

    Joel

    February 2, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    @Joe Beese: The likelihood of the Democrats, even in their current dire situation, of losing the Senate and House outright, when they have such large majorities, is very low. The way to raise those stakes is to commit to something that will backlash during the electoral season.

    Building a consensus is the way to elicit longterm change. It’s the right way. Fuck those who would do it otherwise.

  34. 34.

    Paula

    February 2, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Also, IMHO, Obama doesn’t deserve any credit at all, although I never thought that he deserved the kind of blame that’s been heaped on him about this, either …

    This is, for the moment, about how the Pentagon wants to handle it. And given their support for the repeal I imagine that all Obama has to do is say “I’m following what my generals tell me” and anyone who objects is leaving themselves open to criticisms about ignoring advice directly from the military.

    Off-topic:

    I re-viewed the Rick Warren/Joseph Lowery prayers @ the inaugural a few days ago. Lowery’s is just beautiful to listen to from time to time.

    As a person who dislikes fundamentalist/evangelical types of Xianity, I was glad that Warren had such a large venue in which to show the public outside the megachurches that he was neither a graceful sermonizer and nor a particularly generous spirit.

    A pastor’s take on why rick warren sucked:

    “Warren, by contrast, fumbled through a recitation of variations on the name of Jesus, followed by a clumsy transition to the Lord’s Prayer. Any pastor worth his salt knows that you only drag that out when

    1. you want to conclude with participation from the congregation, and/or

    2. when you don’t know what else to say.

    I’m guessing that Warren was going for 1., and didn’t quite realize that it would fall flat with a very public crowd made up of all faiths and none, leaving him to appear as if 2. were the case.

    But again as any good pastor knows, if you try to please everybody, you will inevitably wind up pleasing nobody. Joseph Lowery made no pretenses about being “America’s pastor.” He just said what he had to say and claimed his specificity. That’s why his calls for tolerance and inclusion stuck, and why his universal vision made sense. Warren’s? It felt like he scribbled down some notes in the margins of his How To Pray in Public textbook on the way to the Capitol. If I had been his homiletics instructor, I would have sent it back for more work.

    Pee Ess: As a Facebook friend says, “Rev. Lowrey is to Rick Warren as Mavis Staples is to Britney Spears.” Yep, pretty much.”

    Whether Obama intended it or not, that stage revealed Warren as a charlatan and we haven’t seen hide nor hair of him since (at least in political life).

  35. 35.

    Max

    February 2, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    @John Cole: You’re friends with these people, aren’t you? Do you ever have a dialog with them offline to determine what their ultimate objective is and if they really believe their own hype?

  36. 36.

    Svensker

    February 2, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    I would just like to compliment John on that paragraph-long sentence. Now, inhale!

  37. 37.

    Pangloss

    February 2, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    @arguingwithsignposts: And especially Sen. McCarthy’s aide, Mr. Cohn.

  38. 38.

    Tim I

    February 2, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    DADT repeal is a done deal. Gates, and especially Mullen hit it out of the park. Gates said it’s not a question of whether it gets changed, but how.

    And Mullen was very moving,

    It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve, and serve openly is the right thing to do.

    No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.

    For me, personally, it all comes down to integrity. Theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.

  39. 39.

    scav

    February 2, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    might just be me but I’m getting whiffs of sneaky non-grandstanding bastard about the place but I have hallucinated before…

  40. 40.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Boy, doing this, and now meeting with the Dalai Lama. Yeah, Obama is totally just like Bush, totally selling out his party…

    This is, for the moment, about how the Pentagon wants to handle it.

    Yeah, because they just thought of it from a year ago. Obama had nothing to do with it at all. [sigh]

  41. 41.

    ruemara

    February 2, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    @aimai:

    I’ll have to disagree with you there. From the first, all I saw was a bunch who was very, very quick to declare themselves tossed beneath a conveyance. There’s been small legislative victories which have gone ignored. Even DADT was brought up by Gillibrand, to no real rallying support by the community. Instead there was a lot of weeping and wailing. About Obama. It seemed to me that most didn’t want to know the how of repealing and the why of strategy. They just wanted ACTION, even as they had been dealt a crushing blow with Prop. 8, the outcome of action without strategy. I can’t get into the magical thinking of the electorate, this was never going to happen right away with no fight.

  42. 42.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    @John Cole: But… Obama hatez teh gheys! Donnie McClurkin! Obama hatez them!!

  43. 43.

    Keith G

    February 2, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    @John Cole: I think you are essentially right on this.

    One thing I have been wondering about for at least a year, is why the activist base (both with DADT *and* HCR) spent so much focus on the West Wing? Using the 1955-1964 Civil Rights campaign as a quasi model, it seems to me that what is missing and was is a stellar weakness in the pony-quest of these activists, is their lack of fucking effort to step away from the key boards and organize the folks in their neighborhoods.

    Sorry Aravosis, but posting orchid pics and snide commentary is not enough to be relevant. Getting getting real, not virtual, people to show up and talk about what’s important to them is how it gets done. It worked for MLK and these days it sure seems to work for the conservatives.

  44. 44.

    Paula

    February 2, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    *sigh* back @ you, Martin.

    The Executive Order thing is debatable. As aimai says that could have been done pretty quickly and that it wasn’t is properly suspicious.

    Truman integrated the military by EO.

    However, in practice it seems only a few African Americans were promoted under that law and it took 2 years to fully implement.

    It’s a crapshoot in terms of effectiveness if you are looking at a military brass that isn’t supportive, but maybe the symbolism alone would have been worth it to give people some relief.

    I really don’t know who’s right here.

  45. 45.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    The Executive Order thing is debatable. As aimai says that could have been done pretty quickly and that it wasn’t is properly suspicious.

    Truman integrated the military by EO.

    However, in practice it seems only a few African Americans were promoted under that law and it took 2 years to fully implement.

    That’s a kind of a relevant “However”, doncha folks think? The fact that it took years of groundwork and working with the military, and that it was a last resort after Congress refused to do it is a relevant parralelism, ain’t it?

    Also….

    Don’t you think calling your congress critter is helpful here as well?

  46. 46.

    Brien Jackson

    February 2, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    @Zifnab:

    People don’t care how DADT is repealed. They just want it done.

    But there’s only one way DADT can be repealed. Obama can’t issue an executive order repealing the policy, he can only issue a stop-loss order preventing the discharge of people who have been found guilty of being gay. I chose to be a heterosexual, so I admit to lacking perspective, but that seems like an even worse situation from a social justice standpoint to me.

  47. 47.

    Michael D.

    February 2, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    @J.W. Hamner:

    I agree with you John, but I also think it’s a good thing that activists continue to put the pressure on. I mean, that’s sort of what being an activist is, right?

    John actually believes that “this was a strategy Obama had in his back pocket alllllll along” and that it had nothing to do with the fact that gay people (and their straight allies) were threatening to pull support, finances, and all that.

    Just like people probably believe that “activists” yelling and screaming about torture, the horrible economy, no WMDs, warantless wiretapping, the PATRIOT Act, etc, etc, etc had nothing to do with McCain not winning the presidency. Those people were just unhelpful noise – counterproductive. America would have elected Obama – and by BIGGER margins – if we had all just shut up!

    @aimai: Also.

  48. 48.

    Tom Hilton

    February 2, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    @John Cole: This. Exactly.

  49. 49.

    eastriver

    February 2, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    But what if you’re the hippy, JC? Gonna punch the mirror?

  50. 50.

    Paula

    February 2, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    gwangung, that’s why I posted that tidbit.

    Also, my family’s the kinda family that knows gays of all types but who still manage to spout off bullshit about the traditional family. I know that people have conflicting feelings about “individuals” that they like vs. “groups” that they have been taught to fear.

    America appears to be in the same throes, and I don’t imagine the military to be any different, so I am all for a careful approach.

    But I do recognize that this angers people who don’t want to wait anymore. It’s a bullshit thing to hear constantly.

  51. 51.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    John actually believes that “this was a strategy Obama had in his back pocket alllllll along” and that it had nothing to do with the fact that gay people (and their straight allies) were threatening to pull support, finances, and all that.

    Only an idiot would not believe that. You need time to bring the military brass on board and you don’t spring this during the health care debate.

  52. 52.

    cat48

    February 2, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    O in NH townhall–has received 3 standing O’s for HCR–he is selling it today along with jobs program.

  53. 53.

    Comrade Kevin

    February 2, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Some people apparently long for the days of “The Decider”, or at least to have a Democratic version.

  54. 54.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    @Paula: Yeah, I think people don’t have it in their heads that Truman took a long time to get desegregation done. In fact, a time longer than Obama’s been in office.

    Hm. Something to think about there.

  55. 55.

    Michael D.

    February 2, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    @gwangung: Throughout history, it seems to me all you had to do to get the military brass on board was to give them an order.

    I’m sure President Bush didn’t give a whole lot of vetoes to military brass when it came to Iraq.

  56. 56.

    aimai

    February 2, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    I’d like to see some actual hard poll numbers out there about how many of the Obama gay supporters lost faith/are shrill and how many were assured that Obama was going to carry out his promises and are satisfied that he’s doing it as sensibly as necessary? Isn’t that the question?

    There’s no doubt that Aravoisis went off the deep end but if he *doesn’t* represent the majority, or even a plurality, of Obama’s supporters then there’s simply no problem and why keep acting as though Aravoisis matters?

    To me this is the problem with the continued rhetorical hippie punching. I mean, I get that its fun and lots of people like to do it, rhetorically speaking they like to make jokes about how the democratic voters are idiots, or progressives are hysterical, or whatever. But if we take seriously the notion that some democrats are dissatisfied (and I do take that notion seriously as a serious problem) then we are simultaneously told that those dissatisfied voters are too small in number to matter, or that they were properly handled by Obama and the dems are are just acting out of some kind of crazy superneedy hysteria, some kind of puma-esque psychodrama.

    I just don’t agree. I mean, in particular cases I definitely see that there are (very small) groups of bloggers or individuals who have flipped out. And I see that there is agitation, at least in the bloggosphere, that is counterproductive or turning anti democrat. If that’s some kind of psychological nuttiness that grows out of the personalities or experiences of those bloggers there’s nothing for Obama and the dems to do. Those people aren’t reliable supporters and they aren’t even reliably in touch with reality so why bother to pay any attention? They won’t do much harm, because their complaints and their feelings about Obama and the dems are too arcane, or too detached from reality, to affect real voters/donors/activists.

    On the other hand, if those people (some of them) are reflecting problems or issues larger voting blocks are having with the Obama administration and the particular way they are handling massively important legislation we might want to stop and pay attention to what they are saying and figure out some what to approach them, or to help them, get with the program.

    In neither case do I think that continuing to bash named and unnamed bloggers for lack of faith is a good strategy. Again, I get that its fun. I love to make fun of people. But as I survey the larger playing field for Democratic initiatives and policies and look at how utterly cowardly and confused the Democrats appear to be as a party I tend to think that we don’t, as a party, have a single vote to waste. I’m sorry that it comes down to it but retail politics involves a ton of having your political leaders show up at your house and mow your damned lawn. Unseemly? Unnecessary? People should grow the fuck up and just grasp that the grownups are doing the right thing and will take care of stuff in their own time? Sure. But that’s not politics. That’s as utopian a wish as any gay rights activist who is pissed off that they didn’t sign an EO. Any political leader who thinks he is excused, by the brilliance of his future plans from a whole lot of anxiety from people whose lives are being ruined while careful votes are taken is just mistaken.

    aimai

  57. 57.

    Tom Hilton

    February 2, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    @gwangung: The unspoken ‘however’ is even more to the point: Truman wasn’t reversing an Act of Congress.

  58. 58.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    @Michael D.: I think that this is Obama’s tactic not his strategy.

  59. 59.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Throughout history, it seems to me all you had to do to get the military brass on board was to give them an order.

    You’re not military, are you?

    And you certainly don’t know history. I just alluded to a very close parallel.

  60. 60.

    Paula

    February 2, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    @ Michael D.

    Um, sorry, Obama was elected for many reasons, and it’s debatable whether any of your reasons were as influential as you say they were …

    People still don’t know much about civil liberties issues, they still don’t care about the treatment of captured combatants, many of them forgot about Iraq since much of the debate in 2008 centered on the economy, etc., etc.

  61. 61.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    @Tom Hilton: Um. Yes, true, which makes the current task a little harder.

  62. 62.

    scav

    February 2, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    @Michael D.: really, the military is the only part of the known world that has failed to master the foot-drag? or is managing that and the snappy salute akin to patting your head and rubbing your stomach?

  63. 63.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    @Michael D.: Depends on what they were saying. [cough]Shinseki[/cough]

  64. 64.

    aimai

    February 2, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Oh, I’d like to add that I have no opinion on the EO option. I’m not faulting Obama for not choosing the EO. I have no problem with Obama’s timeline, or holding hearings, or anything else. I just think that while Obama was getting his ducks in a row with the much more important military stakeholders (and I do think they were much more important than voters) he simply also needed to be able to reassure his interested party gay voters that he was choosing the best option. Again, just a question of messaging. This is not the opposite of politics, or some nice form of langniappe, its just politics.

    aimai

  65. 65.

    Woodbuster

    February 2, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    “I really don’t know who’s right here.”

    It really doesn’t matter, does it?

    SHOULD HAVE DONE IT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER!!

    NO!! NEEDS TO DO IT THE DELIBERATIVE WAY!!

    It is going to get done, and once it is, it won’t matter how it happened anymore than it matters who was right and who was wrong. Long term view, people. Long term view.

  66. 66.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    I do believe it will take a 2/3 vote in both chambers to repeal DADT or any Public Law.

  67. 67.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    @Tom Hilton: Bingo!

  68. 68.

    gopher2b

    February 2, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    @Michael D.:

    That’s kind of naive.

  69. 69.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    @aimai: I punch hippies because they are usually wrong and intellectually lazy and favor half truths because they would rather sling shit and pout.

  70. 70.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    @aimai: This is a good point that’s getting obscured in the rhetoric. I think it’s debatable on how communicative Obama can be (will it allow foes to deflect his strategy and tactics better if he’s more open), but it’s a pertinent observation that this Administration is leaving its grassroots supporter hanging and twisting in the wind more than it should.

  71. 71.

    tootiredoftheright

    February 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    @Paula:

    Five years and the Korean War forced them to do it.

    Sorry but the EO was just words and Truman admitted it cost him another term to do so. Without the Korean War the next president would have repealed the EO.

  72. 72.

    tootiredoftheright

    February 2, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    @Michael D.:

    I think the leaders in countries that were overthrown by their military thought the exact same thing till they were thrown against a wall and then shot by the same soliders they were ordering around the prior day.

  73. 73.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    I blame Bill Clinton for signing the damn DADT law in the first place, codifying bigotry into law/

  74. 74.

    tootiredoftheright

    February 2, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    @gwangung:

    Course not they have heard about the mythical Executive Order that desegreated the army in a single night from gay leaders and gay spokespeople.

    The crap argument about that all Obama needs to do get rid of DADT in a month by doing an Executive Order comes from people in the gay community.

    DADT was a steeping stone and a test for gays. if the gays could keep their mouths shut and report those in the military who asked if they were gay, therby showing they could obey both parts of the order then their miltiary fitness would show. Sadly gays have failed both the first and second parts therby showing them to be unfit to many in the old school military.

  75. 75.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    February 2, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    @Paula:

    Also, IMHO, Obama doesn’t deserve any credit at all, although I never thought that he deserved the kind of blame that’s been heaped on him about this, either …

    Obama’s signature method is to slowly build consensus behind a policy until the point comes when doing the right thing seems so boring and obvious that only a moran would think anything else. And then move on to the next topic. This means he will never get credit for anything, because everything he does will seem (retroactively) to all but the most bitter dead-enders to be something anybody in his shoes would have done.

    Then he will leave office and we will wonder why it is that his successor can’t get anything done because nobody will agree on what to do.

  76. 76.

    Cat Lady

    February 2, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    … and declare their holier than thou purity while they snark about how their negativity is making a difference. Don’t forget that part.

  77. 77.

    tootiredoftheright

    February 2, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    So you also blame Colin Powell who wrote DADT and the Republicans who were against gay people for not blocking the passage the DADT?

  78. 78.

    Tom Hilton

    February 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    @aimai: the President has been giving a lot more reassurance to liberals than Bush ever gave to (say) evangelical conservatives. The difference is that where the evangelical conservatives heard the dog whistles and ignored the rest, ‘progressives’ are doing the opposite–ignoring the message directed to them, and throwing a hissy about anything directed to anyone in the middle. Which would be merely laughable if it didn’t actually impede action on progressive goals (hence the scare quotes around ‘progressives’).

  79. 79.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    @tootiredoftheright: Powell and the wingnuts didn’t have a veto pen.

  80. 80.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    @aimai:

    he simply also needed to be able to reassure his interested party gay voters that he was choosing the best option.

    Some of the online LGBT presences showed themselves to be ironclad Obama detractors long ago, dating back to McClurkin at least, and IMHO were never going to be able to be “reassured.”

    (And, frankly, I think the whole reason McClurkin was sustained as some kind of major issue to begin with was to provide a piece of evidence that Obama had a problem with tone-deafness to a liberal constituency that could cancel out Hillary Clinton’s alleged tone-deafness on race. As for Rick Warren, I think he’s loathsome and would never invite him to my inauguration, but I’m not a black man who has to allay the paranoia of millions of insecure conservative racists.)

    The strategy, whatever it was, was always going to be wrong, or suspect, or only words, or no-credit-for-common-sense.

  81. 81.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Definitely in the hippie punching mode is this post. Why you enjoy doing it is for you to say.

    Now, if you believe legislation will result from Admiral Mullen’s testimony, then GREAT! I seriously doubt it.

    Does this give political cover for an executive order on the issue? Most certainly.

    And in the end, right now, that’s the best you can expect.

    I do not mind accpeting the “political realities.” It does bother me that people decide to punch hippies for fighting against the “political realities.”

    Weak post.

  82. 82.

    shortstop

    February 2, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @carlos the dwarf: Hmmm, I suppose I was thinking about those three painters at Lucille’s imitating the Boyfights. Of course I can’t find a clip of it.

    I shall have to review other episodes to refresh my Boyfight memory. How I do miss that show.

  83. 83.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @tootiredoftheright:

    Was that order “mythical?” Maybe I am wrong but I understood that in fact that is how it happened – Truman issued an Executive Order.

  84. 84.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 2, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @gwangung:

    it’s a pertinent observation that this Administration is leaving its grassroots supporter hanging and twisting in the wind more than it should.

    Meh. I think some of those grassroots supporters get off on feeling like they’ve been made to hang and twist in the wind–when many times they’ve just climbed up there themselves.

  85. 85.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    Obama’s signature method is to slowly build consensus behind a policy until the point comes when doing the right thing seems so boring and obvious that only a moran would think anything else.

    Like Health care reform . . .

  86. 86.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @BTD: So, do we have the seeds for an informal wager on this point – DADT gets addressed within 18 months by executive order (your best case) or legislation (John’s expected case)?

  87. 87.

    Sasha

    February 2, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @Davis X. Machina:

    You’ll find nearly as many real hippies as actual Christians.

    Funny, since the original Christian was a hippie.

  88. 88.

    Tom Hilton

    February 2, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @BTD: which wasn’t actually reversing an Act of Congress. Entirely different situation.

  89. 89.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    @aimai:

    What aimai said.

  90. 90.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    @BTD:

    I do not mind accpeting the “political realities.”

    No you don’t. I call bullshit.

  91. 91.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Meh. I think some of those grassroots supporters get off on feeling like they’ve been made to hang and twist in the wind—when many times they’ve just climbed up there themselves.

    There’s some of that, too, but I think there are some progressives who aren’t drama queens who feel a bit out of the loop (we’ve seen both types on this thread).

  92. 92.

    Joel

    February 2, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    The whingenut brigade is out in force!

  93. 93.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    @Tom Hilton:

    True dat. But the question of what Obama CAN do is a bit different than what Obama is willing to do (for political reasons, which, imo, can be a perfectly valid reason to not do something.)

    I think Obama has the power to do more via EO, and I think John’s post assumes so too.

    But I also think John assumes THIS strategy will lead to legislation. I personally do not believe that is true.

    More likely, this will provide cover for an EO.

    I am not sure I disagree with John on the substance, I do strongly disagree with his glee in punching hippies.

  94. 94.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    I guess you are right. I do MIND it.

    I understand why we must.

    For example, there is a political reality that has had some trouble registering with Ballon Juice commenters – that the House will not pass the Stand Alone Senate health bill without a reconciliation fix.

    The “Pass the Damn Bill” contingent does not accept the political realities.

    I for one do not condemn them for pushing for their desired result. It just is not going to happen.

  95. 95.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    @Martin:

    I think that sounds right.

    BTW, I actually agree with John that Obama was right to do it the way he is doing. Whatever the result, pols have to deal with the political consequences of their actions.

    But “hippies” or activists or whatever you want to call them are not so constrained. More importantly, they should NOT act in a way that excuses pols.

    This is why I take such exception to John’s penchant for hippie punching.

  96. 96.

    Paula

    February 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Ugh, outside of health care and the stimulus, A LOT of issues have been left hanging.

    Seriously, have the a-list blogospherians taken a gander at the mixed messaging on immigration enforcement/reform coming from the administration? Should I immediately conclude that they’re against pushing for reform just because they “put it on the back burner” against the other issues they cover?

  97. 97.

    tootiredoftheright

    February 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    @BTD:

    And was ignored for years till the Korean War came along forcing the army to intergrate to get enough troops for the meat grinder. If MacArthur hadn’t gone into North Korea then the Army would never have seen the need to intergrate. The next president would have repealed the EO.

    Truman had already considered his run for a second term to be nonexistant due to the EO.

    The EO like I said was ignored and could have been easily overturned if certain circumstances hadn’t happened.

    So yeah it is mythical because the people who promote the EO think the intergration happened overnight. Note that black soldiers still faced the death penalty for disobeying a white officer and despite racist remarks being made illegal they still happen in the military today.

  98. 98.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    @BTD:

    I don’t think they will either and have said so several times here, and that I won’t blame the House if they didn’t. I have also said from day one back in the summer, a PO would never pass by regular order, only thru reconcialation.

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, and you and I could be wrong in the end. That is why people say “pass the bill” . It is proper use of activist actions to at least do everything we can to prove you and I wrong.

    And I commend TimF for his efforts in rallying BJ’ers to call their reps. Double commend for sticking to it despite the odds against success.

  99. 99.

    BR

    February 2, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    I fully expect that once DADT is repealed, we will hear whining about how it wasn’t repealed quickly enough, and that whining will drown out the achievement of getting it repealed.

  100. 100.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    February 2, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    I am a lesbian Obama supporter and I think he is going about it the right way. I was never one of the ones, in the midst of a huge economic meltdown and two wars, who went into shreiking hysterics over why he didn’t immediately issue an executive order. DADT was an act of congress. Presidents have no business arbitrarily overturning legislation, even if I think the legislation is wrong. This has to be fixed by the legislative branch. It will. We are winning the culture war.

  101. 101.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    I think they would be better off whipping the Senate.

    But one thing I will not do is punch the “Pass the Damn Bill” hippies.

  102. 102.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @BTD: I think that the hippies being punched are those who equate building the momentum to change this idiotic policy with flinging under chariots. I mean Ross Doutauth, or however its spelt, is ashamed to argue against gay marriage in public. When forced to defend DADT US senators show why:

    “In my opinion,” he said, “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards.”

    Why, if gays are allowed into the military, Chambliss said, soon the armed forces will allow all sorts of other things.

    Like what?

    “Alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art,” said Chambliss.

  103. 103.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    February 2, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    This.

  104. 104.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    @BTD:

    But one thing I will not do is punch the “Pass the Damn Bill” hippies.

    I think you already did and it’s cool by me, because politics ain’t bean bags and if any of us can’t take a punch now and then without whining, maybe we should take up underwater basket weaving instead, or something safe like that.

  105. 105.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    For example, there is a political reality that has had some trouble registering with Ballon Juice commenters – that the House will not pass the Stand Alone Senate health bill without a reconciliation fix.
    The “Pass the Damn Bill” contingent does not accept the political realities.

    Um, yeah, we do accept the realities. The idea of a reconciliation fix is part of Pass the Damn Bill. Otherwise we were facing having the House send the bill back to the Senate (which we all recognized was a non-starter) or having the bill broken up and voted on separately (which we all recognized was a non starter) or not passing a bill at all (which we all recognized was suicide). The reconciliation idea rose to the top after those three were bandied about, and actually does get the damn bill passed. Who here is opposing a reconciliation fix or calling it unrealistic? I’ve not seen a single comment along those lines.

    And what did the left propose? Killing the bill and starting over with something more progressive, because obviously that was more realistic to get passed in the Senate.

  106. 106.

    Tom Hilton

    February 2, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    @BTD: I too strongly disagree with John’s glee in punching hippies.

    I don’t think he’s nearly gleeful enough.

  107. 107.

    John S.

    February 2, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    The “Pass the Damn Bill” contingent does not accept the political realities.

    Is there a difference between the “political reality” of A) the House not passing a bill because Andy Stern and Richard Trumka made angry calls to enough people to tip the scales in their favor and B) there not being enough votes in the Senate to pass a robust healthcare bill because big Pharma and Insurance made angry calls to enough people to tip the scales in their favor? Or is the “political reality” that special interests of all kinds are really just burning our country down if they don’t get their way?

    You make the call!

  108. 108.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 2, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    @BTD:

    BTW, I actually agree with John that Obama was right to do it the way he is doing. Whatever the result, pols have to deal with the political consequences of their actions.

    @BTD:

    Now, if you believe legislation will result from Admiral Mullen’s testimony, then GREAT! I seriously doubt it.

    I’m sorry. What?

  109. 109.

    Paula

    February 2, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Count me in on the hippie-punching bandwagon. Cole’s easy on you because he actually thinks you guys have a coherent POV and that it’s just a matter of seeing different things.

    I think that much of the a-list blogs are incoherent and subject to the same “oooh shiny ball!” tendencies about which they castigate the MSM.

    It’s not an expression of “left” ideology, nor is it an exploration of the nuance of politics as it pertains to “left” strategy. If it was these things, then we could have a real argument about ideals vs. compromise.

    As it’s happening right now, though, it’s all just fandom wank.

  110. 110.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    @Paula:

    fandom wank.

    I am stealing this and you can’t stop me :)

  111. 111.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    @BTD: But no credit is ever given back by the activists. It’s a dishonest trade in the manner it’s being used now because it suggests that the activists job is to seek out the impossible position and demand that and nothing less in order to always be negotiating from outside the comfort zone. That’s fine to a degree, but once some reasonable movement is made, that needs to be recognized and rewarded before asking for more. That’s not happening.

    Instead, too many of the activists are setting their position and drawing up sides and then sticking with that in the face of all evidence. FlipYrWhig has it right – on gay issues, the activists lined up with Clinton, took advantage of every opportunity to sew the narrative they wanted but then, when Obama won, rather than embrace the only guy who was in a position to help them, they stuck with opposing him out of, I don’t know what compelled them to do that, to be honest. But even though progress is being made (perhaps not fast enough, sure) there’s remarkably little credit to be handed out – just more demands and criticism. Why the fuck should anyone work with people like that? I refuse to – and a lot of voters refuse to as well. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of different categories of activists on the left and some of them always manage to piss someone off. Unions lose support from voters because gay activists, or environmental activists, or [fill in the blank] activists are too busy shitting on the guy that has union interests at heart, making the party impossible to work with. And, of course, gays lose support from voters because union activists are doing the same thing…

    When everyone stands right on the periphery of reality and demand that they be joined by politicians and voters, pulling them in every possible direction at once – as far as they can possible be pulled in each direction, it’s no wonder this shit falls apart. It’s popular to pick on Jane here, but she became the poster child of this behavior, moving from being a semi-responsible critic to being a flat-out bomb thrower who is only deserving of being ignored and ridiculed because there’s simply no pleasing her in this reality. And there’s more than a few Dem activists that fall in that category, though on different issues.

    The GOP has the same dynamic going on, but they have fewer pet categories and so there are simply fewer directions to get pulled in – but they are also somewhat more disciplined at backing off when things are going their way. GWB didn’t deliver 95% of the things that the American Taliban wanted, but they were willing to ease off of him in order to get the 5% they wanted. And in case you hadn’t noticed, their system worked pretty well the last 8 years. We win the longer war, but I wonder how much more smoothly that might go if we works so hard denying any credit at all to our own guys?

  112. 112.

    Anonsters

    February 2, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    @John Cole:

    Lost in the poutrage and screaming hissy fits on the internet is. . . .

    I’m still waiting for you to admit that you are just as guilty of poutrage and screaming hissy fits as anyone, only yours are directed at those you call “hippies.”

    Pot, meet kettle.

  113. 113.

    Anonsters

    February 2, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    @Anonsters:

    But silly me, I forget.

    When John Fucking Cole does it, he has hundreds of blog commenters to cheer him on.

    And that’s all that really matters.

  114. 114.

    mcc

    February 2, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    @J.W. Hamner:

    I agree with you John, but I also think it’s a good thing that activists continue to put the pressure on. I mean, that’s sort of what being an activist is, right?

    I disagree with the idea that the specific “activists” you are referring to are putting pressure on anything. Where were they when ENDA was flushing down the toilet last year, for example? Angrily demanding the democrats drop everything and get started on DADT sooner, last I checked. The pressure they’re applying has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with tactics. I don’t see how attacking a policy of hate crimes+ENDA one year and DADT the next, because you want DADT the first year, gets us anywhere– and looking back a year alter it didn’t get us anywhere. It doesn’t move the overton window in either direction. It’s just rearranging deck chairs.

    I know what activism looks like. I see it myself in the real world. It’s not anything you’ll find on the blogs.

    @John Cole:

    I read the Advocate and used to read the Blade and the Advocate has constantly had information about the WH coordinating with gay advocates. Hell, the Advocate had stories about Lieberman working on DADT. Additionally, they worked closely with HRC

    Oh, but that’s exactly the problem. The Aravosis blog axis hates HRC. The exact problem all along has been that Obama is working with “establishment” activists such as HRC and not working with the Netroots. This battle you’ve been seeing in the blogosphere the over the last year has nothing to do with gay rights. It has to do with some stupid, irrelevant internal struggle for power between two factions within the gay rights’ movement’s professional activist set.

    @Michael D.:

    John actually believes that “this was a strategy Obama had in his back pocket alllllll along” and that it had nothing to do with the fact that gay people (and their straight allies) were threatening to pull support, finances, and all that.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing. From the very beginning of 2009 Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi were consistently, repeatedly saying that they’d handle DADT in 2010 after ENDA+hate crimes. And they were attacked for it mercilessly. From the very beginning of 2009 there were consistent reports that Obama was working with the military to bring us to exactly the point that we saw in the hearings today. But the blogs didn’t report it, so nobody cared. This wasn’t “in the back pocket”, it was in the fricking newspapers. The democrats are doing exactly what they said they would for a year and a half.

  115. 115.

    les

    February 2, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Uh, c’mon, they came within a vote of a filibuster on defense appropriations in 2009, to avoid a vote on healthcare. You think they wouldn’t filibuster appropriations to keep the ghey menace from destroying their awesome military machine?

  116. 116.

    celticdragonchick

    February 2, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    @Zifnab:

    Ouch. :(

  117. 117.

    Chris Andersen

    February 2, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    @Zifnab:

    People don’t care how DADT is repealed. They just want it done.

    But what if how it is done has a direct impact on whether it will get done?

  118. 118.

    The Moar You Know

    February 2, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    @Joe Beese: Poor Joe. He’s going crazy since he got kicked off of the GOS and doesn’t have any good places left to troll.

  119. 119.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    @Martin: bingo

  120. 120.

    mcc

    February 2, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    @Davis X. Machina:

    I think the chances of a DoD appropriations filibuster are small, but defintely non-zero.

    So, the chances of a DoD appropriations filibuster being attempted are 100%. Remember, they filibustered the DoD appropriations bill last year, and moreover, they filibustered it over gay rights (the hate crimes bill). However, the filibuster failed.

    I imagine sustaining a filibuster over DADT in the appropriations bill will be if anything harder than sustaining a filibuster about the Hate Crimes amendment in the appropriations bill. DADT may seem easier to demagogue than hate crimes at first blush but repealing DADT is simpler and easier to understand, it’s actually relevant to a military appropriations bill, there are Senate Republicans on the record against DADT and it’s much simpler and so harder to confuse (most of the attacks on the hate crimes bill were based on incoherent, impossible claims that anti-gay pastors would be arrested or something).

  121. 121.

    John Cole

    February 2, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Oh, but that’s exactly the problem. The Aravosis blog axis hates HRC. The exact problem all along has been that Obama is working with “establishment” activists such as HRC and not working with the Netroots. This battle you’ve been seeing in the blogosphere the over the last year has nothing to do with gay rights. It has to do with some stupid, irrelevant internal struggle for power between two factions within the gay rights’ movement’s professional activist set.

    I said the same exact thing in the comment you quoted. Therefore, I agree with you.

  122. 122.

    celticdragonchick

    February 2, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    @aimai:

    Great post, aimai.

  123. 123.

    Zuzu's Petals

    February 2, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    Wonder what the chances are that McCain will reverse himself on this and make a total arse of himself?

  124. 124.

    mcc

    February 2, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    @John Cole: Oh, I wasn’t disagreeing. Just ranting :)

  125. 125.

    Cassidy

    February 2, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Give them credit for years served, too, in seniority and calculating eventual retirement benefits. That would be just.

    Why? Disagree with the rule or not, it was on the books. Publicly outing yourself, to make a statement, while brave, is still breaking the rules.

    Those who were drummed out, sure, I can give some leeway, but not those who purposely broke the rules, no. That would be no different than pardoning MSG Hatley because he only killed Iraqis.

  126. 126.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    @Zuzu’s Petals: Greater than 100%

  127. 127.

    mcc

    February 2, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    @Cassidy: Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether it is just to break a rule to draw attention to its unfairness– what you are saying doesn’t make sense. Very few of the people who broke the DADT rule did it on purpose and even fewer did so to “make a statement”. DADT was just not a rule it was possible to follow– if you go back and look, discharges for homosexuality actually went up when DADT was first implemented. You’re never going to be able to separate out “those who purposely broke the rules”.

    Incidentally, has anyone heard whether anyone in Congress / the White House / the Military has commented on the possibility of making amends for those already discharged under DADT? (I still haven’t listened to the entire hearings from today.)

  128. 128.

    kay

    February 2, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    @Zuzu’s Petals:

    “In response, the Arizona senator declared himself “disappointed” in the testimony by Mullen and Gates. The senator said Gates should be asking whether to repeal the ban, not acting as if it had already been repealed.”

    He still doesn’t get what they’re doing today, then.

    This is great fun. I want to go around the Senate every day. They’re going to be really cranky when they figure this out.

  129. 129.

    lol

    February 2, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    We got stuck with DADT because Clinton didn’t line up institutional support in the military before trying to repeal the ban.

    The firebagger left has zero political memory about what works and what doesn’t.

  130. 130.

    Cassidy

    February 2, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    Very few of the people who broke the DADT rule did it on purpose …

    I don’t disagree with that. And I, and most everyone I’ve worked with over the past 11 years, will welcome them back with open arms, if they choose to come back in. I’m speaking specifically about people like the recent LT and others who outed themselves, being wel aware of what the consequences would be. And, those who outed themselves to get out (yes that happenned pretty frequently as well) or outed themselves to keep from deploying, need to stay out.

  131. 131.

    cxs

    February 2, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    I’m coming in late on this and so don’t want to seem like dogpiling (couldn’t respond from phone). My problem with saying that the WH didn’t reach out or offer any encouragement to the LBGT world is that a lot of this perception derives from what is generated on Americablog et al. What I have noticed over the past year, however, is that repeatedly I will see steps taken by this administration either blown off, attributed to Hilary Clinton’s influence, or flat out not reported on the blogs that generate the most attention. I agree wholeheartedly with mcc, who is certainly in a better position to know than I am with my casual reading, that with many of the better known LBGT blogs if it doesn’t fit the agenda it doesn’t get reported. This is especially striking with trans issues.
    It’s not that I don’t think communication could be improved (always can), it’s just that I’m a little chilled by the fact that even the blogs I used to rely on for an accurate picture have started filtering out the unsexy details. I think it is appropriate to talk/critique Americablog because he has TV access and a big megaphone. These blogs may not accurately represent the LBGT blogosphere or even general community, but they are certainly who get the nod from the MSM and non-involved progressives.

  132. 132.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    The great thing about this is that all you self-satisfied realists and “pragmatists” can blame everyone and everything else but your stated approach of gradual centrist consensus building and letting endless processes play out — because it’s obviously going exactly how Obama mapped it out — when the Democrats earn minority status again come November.

    It’ll be everyone else’s fault but yours, stalwarts that you are, who believe in precisely your own vision for the world, know exactly what’s possible and what’s not, and believe that in politics, like gift-giving, it’s the thought that counts. Everyone else is either too impatient or too blind, their causes too grand or too personal, their support too fragile or too ineffectual, their grievances too strident or too irrelevant.

    You might also get your collective heads out of your collective asses, look at the fucking polls for a second, and wonder if we, the decided minority — the manic progressive, Naderite, PUMA, pony-wishers — on this site might have a fucking point. That when calling for the “Audacity of Hope”, people can rightly expect something audacious and hopeful! And that regardless of the weak-kneed, but substantial Democratic Majority, voters are notoriously unforgiving when it comes to NOT passing things you call the centerpiece of your policy goals. After all, Bush wasn’t hated because he got tax cuts passed and wars started — he was hated because they didn’t work. If you believe that Democrats have some good policy prescriptions, they should fucking pass them! And since, Congressional Democratic Leadership sucks, someone should lead! If Obama has to run against them, he should, because they are doing him no favors, if he really supports the things he says he supports.

    You know, if you really want to talk about “realism”.

    Or you can assume that Obama’s agenda is going along exactly as he planned, the Democrats in Congress will come around, Democratic voters will become enthusiastic over the summer and that everyone else’s concerns are just silly.

  133. 133.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    You might also get your collective heads out of your collective asses, look at the fucking polls for a second, and wonder if we, the decided minority—the manic progressive, Naderite, PUMA, pony-wishers—on this site might have a fucking point.

    More self-righteous than right.

    You youngsters trying to play “more righteous than thou” bore me.

  134. 134.

    Cassidy

    February 2, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    and wonder if we, the decided minority—the manic progressive, Naderite, PUMA, pony-wishers—on this site might have a fucking point.

    No you don’t.

  135. 135.

    4tehlulz

    February 2, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    And that regardless of the weak-kneed, but substantial Democratic Majority, voters are notoriously unforgiving when it comes to NOT passing things you call the centerpiece of your policy goals. After all, Bush wasn’t hated because he got tax cuts passed and wars started—he was hated because they didn’t work.

    Exactly. Pass the damn bill.

  136. 136.

    maus

    February 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    @Jay B.:

    You might also get your collective heads out of your collective asses, look at the fucking polls for a second, and wonder if we, the decided minority—the manic progressive, Naderite, PUMA, pony-wishers—on this site might have a fucking point

    Ron Paul has a “fucking point”, but him and all the rest of the aforementioned are so steeped in bullshit that the rest of us can’t stand to pick the kernels of truth from their massive dumps of waste.

    (Not a pragmatist/centrist, but not about to give the Naderites/PUMAs any slack just because I agree with a few decent points that remain unaddressed by the current administration.)

    The problem is systemic, not just with this current administration.

  137. 137.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    @gwangung:

    Right. It’s not like this place drowns in smug self-righteousness, it’s that I’m being a jerk. The polls? Wrong. The assumption that things would get done? Pfft, dreamy. The fact that, for whatever reason people you agreed with 9 months ago are pissed off? It’s their fault.

    Everything’s going Okey-Dokey because you’re satisfied with how it’s going. No smug assumptions in there at all.

  138. 138.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    @Jay B.:

    You might also get your collective heads out of your collective asses, look at the fucking polls for a second,

    We have. And Obama has 90 percent approval amongst dems. The highest recorded at this stage for any president since polling has been done. OF EITHER PARTY. I guess the other 10 percent would break down 8 or 9 percent conservadem leaving 1 or 2 percent for folks like you. Internet progs with big mouths and little else going for them other than delicate egos and empty threats. Next question.

  139. 139.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    @Jay B.: It’d help if you could provide some evidence that these people wouldn’t be pissed off no matter what, because my experience has been that that’s their baseline, just like the conservative activists that are perpetually pissed off that science and condoms even exist.

  140. 140.

    Mnemosyne

    February 2, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    @BR:

    I fully expect that once DADT is repealed, we will hear whining about how it wasn’t repealed quickly enough, and that whining will drown out the achievement of getting it repealed.

    Yep. It happened with the stimulus and it’s already gearing up to instantly declare healthcare reform a failure when/if it passes. DADT’s repeal will immediately be declared “too little too late” and yet another reason for the hippies to stay home in November because Daddy Obama just didn’t pay enough attention to them.

  141. 141.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    @Jay B.:

    Everything’s going Okey-Dokey because you’re satisfied with how it’s going. No smug assumptions in there at all.

    Actually, no. It is not going the way I want but I don’t think that this

    Look, Obama is a terrific speaker and a very smart guy. He really showed up the Republicans in the now-famous give-and-take. But we knew that. What’s now in question isn’t his ability to talk, it’s his ability to lead.

    Leading to this

    As the president said, he is “pragmatic.” That means he doesn’t stand for anything. How can you lead when you don’t know where you are going.

    Is at all helpful in getting to where I want to be.

    [edit: And I as I read him these are the hippies Cole punches.]

  142. 142.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    @maus:

    The problem is systemic, not just with this current administration.

    Sure. And that’s what the Administration seemed to say the other day when Gibbs reiterated “post-partisan” fairy tales:

    GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no — welcome to Washington. One party is not going to get — one party is not going to be able to solve all these. The American people want both parties to work together to solve these.

    Which is 15 tons of bullshit in a 1 pound sack. The American people don’t give a shit who addresses their problems, they just want them solved. If the Administration really believes this, then they are hopeless.

    It goes without saying that the Democrats are useless and the Republicans worse than that.

    But, given your point that the system needs to change — who does it? You’d think it would start at the top, but since they’ve already signaled submission to the system, it ain’t happening there. And you can bet that elected Democrats and Republicans won’t touch it. Why would they?

    You’re the realist. What now? Get a new electorate?

  143. 143.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    @Anonsters:

    When John Fucking Cole does it, he has hundreds of blog commenters to cheer him on.

    This blog has not changed in at least 3 years since I started posting here. Neither has Cole in requiring common sense and reality based arguments.

    And you sir, can take this pompous little turd of a comment and shove it sideways up yer ass. The nutroots is teaming with other blogs that see it your way. This little one and a handful of others see it different. How was that for a hippie punch?

    and it ain’t hundreds. more like 50 or 60 regulars and untold number of lurkers. You aren’t as outnumbered as you think here.

  144. 144.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 2, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    @Jay B.:

    You might also get your collective heads out of your collective asses, look at the fucking polls for a second, and wonder if we, the decided minority—the manic progressive, Naderite, PUMA, pony-wishers—on this site might have a fucking point.

    You’re right. A lot of people around these parts don’t give a fuck about the polls in Bizzaro World.

  145. 145.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    Then you and altogether too many Democrats are more smug in your assumptions than can be imagined.

    First, if you’re right, then why are you bitching so much about what you perceive to be liberal apostasy?

    Second, Obama’s popular in Massachusetts too. Did that help? Why not?

    Third:

    Among self-identified Republican voters, 81% are either “definitely” voting next year or “probably” voting, while 14% are “not likely” to vote or will “definitely” not vote.

    Among self-identified Independent voters, 65% are either “definitely” voting next year or “probably” voting, while 23% are “not likely” to vote or will “definitely” not vote.

    And among self-identified Democratic voters, 56% are either “definitely” voting next year or “probably” voting, while 40% are “not likely” to vote or will “definitely” not vote.

    If you can’t see the trouble in those numbers, you really don’t get it at all.

  146. 146.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    @Jay B.:
    I going to argue that your claim that

    The American people don’t give a shit who addresses their problems, they just want them solved. If the Administration really believes this, then they are hopeless.

    is as accurate, coherent, and cogent as this claim

    Just as the majority of Americans of differing political parties and ideologies banded together to send Washington a message regarding the government takeover of health care, so too must all Americans band together to defeat this budget.

  147. 147.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    HAHAHAHA. Good one!

    Then it’s all good. We have nothing to worry about. Phew.

    I’m glad the realists can determine which polls and election results are the good ones and which ones don’t count.

  148. 148.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    @Jay B.: And thanks for helping drive down the Democratic numbers by perpetually shitting on your own party for not being pure enough.

  149. 149.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    @t jasper parnell:

    When I said “if the Administration really believes this…” I was referring to their stated position that the American people want both parties working together. I clearly don’t think the American people care who or how things are passed, they just want things passed and problems addressed. Only people who make up the permanent class in DC care about the process. Everyone else is concerned with results.

    Sorry for any confusion. It was poor writing on my part.

  150. 150.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    @Martin:

    Oooh — the clap louder argument! Disagreements destroy a party and determine future results, their actions have nothing to do with it!

    Are you guys going for self-parody?

  151. 151.

    Uncle Kvetch

    February 2, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    The Pentagon has the same game plan today that they had then. Delay, study, and all the while sow misinformation, scare the public, rile up the right-wing. The longer this gets drawn out, the harder it will get to win. It’s health care reform all over again. A weak, hands-off president endorses a long drawn out process run by his political enemies. And he thinks that this time they won’t run circles around him and make a fool of him, again.

    This is my gut feeling too, and I haven’t seen a convincing rebuttal of it yet in this thread. I know hippie-punching is more fun, but you might want to at least try to bring something a little more substantial than “It’ll be different this time.”

  152. 152.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    @Jay B.: The problem is that we can’t get anything passed in the Senate without both parties working together. Hell, even if the GOP stops filibustering but voting against anything, that’d be a sufficient level of bipartisanship, but even that isn’t happening.

    So, they’re right – it needs to happen or else there are no results from here on out.

  153. 153.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    I think Obama needs this set up to issue an EO. I do not expect legislation on this matter before 2012.

    I thought my point was clear.

  154. 154.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    I punch a lot harder than that.

    So does Cole.

    Come now.

  155. 155.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    @Jay B.: Are you interested in contributing substantively, or is everything going to be a variant of “It goes without saying that the Democrats are useless”?

  156. 156.

    mcc

    February 2, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    DADT’s repeal will immediately be declared “too little too late” and yet another reason for the hippies to stay home in November

    Actually, on the initial response, this isn’t what I see happening. Checking even some blogs that have been fairly critical of the democrats people seem enthusiastic to see action that they can see as concrete and not just talk and plans. (People also seem really, really angry at John McCain.)

    I am expecting to see complaints that the military proposes for implementing the DADT repeal will be too slow and torturous. I am expecting this both because we’re seeing fragments of it already, and also because initial reports are that the way the military wants to do this actually is going to be incredibly slow and torturous.

  157. 157.

    Mnemosyne

    February 2, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    @Jay B.:

    Which is 15 tons of bullshit in a 1 pound sack. The American people don’t give a shit who addresses their problems, they just want them solved. If the Administration really believes this, then they are hopeless.

    Actually, I think you’re wrong about that. We’ve been under de facto Republican rule for at least 30 years now where the entire political discourse has been geared to Republican ideas. We have at least two entire generations of voters who have been told their entire lives that Republicans will solve their problems.

    We’re trying to win those voters back with all of the talk about bipartisanship. We’re trying to not make them feel like they were fucking morons because they fell for the Republican line, because that will only make them cling harder.

    The administration doesn’t keep talking about “bipartisanship” for the benefit of Congress. They keep talking about it to try and keep independents who were registered Republicans as little as a year or two ago on the Democrats’ side. It’s an attempt to make them feel welcome in the big tent.

  158. 158.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    @Jay B.: Dude, you cannot take special elections in single states and claim bellweather. Especially when the dem candidate in Mass only campaigned for 2 weeks out of a 6 week campaign season. Christ, you sound ready for prime time on Fox News parroting their talking points.

    And secondly, dems are going to lose seats in Nov. It is like clockwork history for first term presidents. And you know why? Not because a few percent of prog bloggers has a case of the ass for the dem president. It is because the dem president is passing laws and doing shit that makes the goopers pissed as hell and itching to vote, excited, and all that. While at the same time dems approve at 90 percent and get apathetic in their thinking shit is going Ok. So in a weird paradoxical way, the worse dems do is largely because the dem presnit is pissing off the right people with his policies while causing his supporters get lazy.. Chew on that little factoid for a while.

  159. 159.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    @Uncle Kvetch: Isn’t having

    Admiral Mike Mullen, the military’s top uniformed officer, [telling] the Senate Armed Services Committee today that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”

    different?

  160. 160.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Right. It’s not like this place drowns in smug self-righteousness, it’s that I’m being a jerk

    Dude, I’ve been doing progressive self-righteousness for DECADES.

    As for this,

    I clearly don’t think the American people care who or how things are passed, they just want things passed and problems addressed.

    That only works if people LIKE what’s being passed. With certain things, it’s not clear that this is going to be the case (i.e., health care reform). With other things, like DADT, you want them done so it can’t get undone and with the cooperation of the organizations involved.

  161. 161.

    Uncle Kvetch

    February 2, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    TJP, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, does the name “Shinseki” mean anything to you?

  162. 162.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    @Martin:

    Oh, well then, I’m sure that will work itself out. The voters will reward the Democrats for burdening them with a mere 18 to 20 vote majority. Again, that might be “reality”* (*as determined by Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman and the Republican Party), but of course, it sinks Obama and the Democrats just the same.

    Although, and you advanced thinkers might help me out here, but it seems entirely stupid to keep reaching out to an opposition party that WON’T VOTE FOR YOUR AGENDA — and is being successful being obstructionist — while squandering a once-in-a-lifetime chance for reform, as the Administration is doing by publicly wanting health care on the backburner. Tell me the endgame here.

  163. 163.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    @Uncle Kvetch: Yes, it does. But, iirc, Bush marginalized Shinseki; is it your claim that Obama and co are going to marginalize McMullen?

  164. 164.

    Mnemosyne

    February 2, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    @Jay B.:

    Tell me the endgame here.

    The endgame is to flip Republican-leaning independents into the Democratic column and turn them into Democratic voters.

  165. 165.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    @Jay B.: I honestly do not know if there is an end game. However, as I saw and see the health care debate it wasn’t just Republicans versus Democrats but rather Republicans and some (bad) Democrats versus other (good) Democrats. Maybe the reaching out, and tomorrow’s Democratic retreat question time might be interesting in this regard, to the obstructionist party as an attempt to jawbone the bad Democrats; but who knows.

  166. 166.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    So in a weird paradoxical way, the worse dems do is largely because the dem presnit is pissing off the right people with his policies while causing his supporters get lazy.. Chew on that little factoid for a while.

    What? There’s nothing to chew on. It sounds like a lot of convoluted, unnecessarily complex, excuse-making.

    That only works if people LIKE what’s being passed. With certain things, it’s clear that this isn’t going to be the case (i.e., health care reform).

    Unfuckingbelieveable. The Democrats have run on it for 60 years. They’ve gotten parts of it passed and those parts, Medicare in particular, are wildly popular. They expressly ran on health care reform in November and won big. If they can’t pass it, it’s completely and utterly on them. They made the simple complex and looked weak doing it. And of course, the Republicans have fought it tooth and nail — as Orrin Hatch admitted — because it will work and the GOP can’t compete with it.

  167. 167.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    @Jay B.: Head on desk. Carry on.

  168. 168.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    February 2, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    :) Well said!

  169. 169.

    gex

    February 2, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    @mcc: Agree. Most of the rule breaking under DADT would have been on the DA side, not the DT side. One soldier discharged was discharged because a CO asked the entire group who was they gay guy he’d heard rumors about. The soldier who protested that this was a violation of DA was investigated, as though his objection was the same as telling.

    Ironically, this only points out that they assume only the gay guy would uphold the rules of the military.

  170. 170.

    Mnemosyne

    February 2, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    @Jay B.:

    And of course, the Republicans have fought it tooth and nail—as Orrin Hatch admitted—because it will work and the GOP can’t compete with it.

    Great. Now tell that to all of the manic-progressives who are running around shouting about how we have to Kill the Bill because it sucks so bad and is so anti-progressive that the only possible choice is to start over again from scratch.

    It’s not like the only pressure the Democrats have been getting has been from the right. Firebaggers have been calling Congress every day to try and get the bill killed. After a while, if you have people on both the right and the left who tell you that the bill sucks, eventually you will come to believe that the bill sucks because clearly everyone hates it.

    We probably will lose this fight, and it’s not only because the Democrats in Congress suck. It’s also because, unlike the teabaggers, we progressives weren’t willing to go out and attend the town halls and shout down our opponents because, hey, we were right and people should have immediately seen that. Why should we visibly support our signature reform when everyone knows we want that reform?

    Digby wrote about a pro-healthcare-reform rally that MoveOn was organizing up in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago. They got a grand total of three (3) people to attend. But I’m sure that’s all the elected Democrats’ fault, right? If only they hadn’t been so lame, people would have totally showed up.

  171. 171.

    John S.

    February 2, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Christ, you sound ready for prime time on Fox News parroting their talking points.

    This is the problem I have with firebaggers more than anything else – they use the same fucking talking points as wingnuts. It’s one thing to arrive at the same conclusion as the wingnuts (Obama sucks!) but to get there by ingesting the same nonsensical rhetoric as them (Obama is an empty suit, Obama reads a teleprompter, etc.) is sheer lunacy.

  172. 172.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Shorter Balloon Juice commentary:

    Of course Republicans are going to gain seats, because Obama is reaching out to Republican-leaning independents, making Democrats complacent, except for the bitching whiny hippies, who when their negativity isn’t draining the President’s purity of essence, keep talking about health care which might not even be popular to begin with! It’s all going to plan.

  173. 173.

    The Sheriff's A Ni-

    February 2, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    This is the problem I have with firebaggers more than anything else – they use the same fucking talking points as wingnuts.

    Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  174. 174.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    @Jay B.: You pitch a fine hissy fit my friend. Kudos for that, at least.:)

    edit – and standing up for what you think is right and taking the fire for it. Hat off to you.

  175. 175.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 2, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    @Jay B.: You need to include something about rightwing framing and 11 dimensional chess, otherwise I think you nailed it.

  176. 176.

    The Sheriff's A Ni-

    February 2, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    We’re trying to win those voters back with all of the talk about bipartisanship. We’re trying to not make them feel like they were fucking morons because they fell for the Republican line, because that will only make them cling harder.

    See, that’s our problem. The Firebaggers believe they are fucking morons, and only by the grace of George W. Democrat implementing our positions by fiat will we ever get anywhere.

    Well, those that aren’t ratfucking for fun and profit.

  177. 177.

    CalD

    February 2, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    Chalk it up to inexperience.

  178. 178.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 2, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    @BTD:

    I think Obama needs this set up to issue an EO. I do not expect legislation on this matter before 2012.
    I thought my point was clear.

    No, your point was clear. Stupid, but clear.

  179. 179.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Now tell that to all of the manic-progressives who are running around shouting about how we have to Kill the Bill because it sucks so bad and is so anti-progressive that the only possible choice is to start over again from scratch.

    You’re right. We should shoot them.

    It’s not like the only pressure the Democrats have been getting has been from the right.

    It’s a good thing there’s no such thing as the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, otherwise, I’d add them before even “the right”. But i’m sure it was the progressives’ fault all along because when they are not being called retarded by the Administration, they have the House in their back pocket.

    After a while, if you have people on both the right and the left who tell you that the bill sucks, eventually you will come to believe that the bill sucks because clearly everyone hates it.

    Sure, if you’re looking for an excuse. And of course, this pressure is totally different than “bully pulpit” pressure, which is unfair and shut up, that’s why.

    It’s also because, unlike the teabaggers, we progressives weren’t willing to go out and attend the town halls and shout down our opponents because, hey, we were right and people should have immediately seen that.

    Uh. We did. Unions too. It’s a good thing the Administration laid low and let the process happen then.

  180. 180.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    The Firebaggers believe they are fucking morons, and only by the grace of George W. Democrat implementing our positions by fiat will we ever get anywhere.

    So, now the problem is that we elected Democrats without considering the feelings of the “right-leaning independents”? Is that the new reason progressives are being unreasonable? There’s no flicker of recognition that independents voted for the Democrats and, presumably, their agenda?

    Just checking.

  181. 181.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    @Jay B.:
    I realize that the intertrons and its related tubes are meant for intransigence and what not but this

    You’re right. We should shoot them.

    in response to

    Now tell that to all of the manic-progressives …

    is really too much.

    Take, as an example, Krugman. His line, as I recall it, was to insist on nose holding because of the bill’s rancidity. He is, for lots of us, a big deal. Many, it seems to me, saw only the rancid half and not the voting for half. I think, to repeat myself in somewhat different terms, that this is where the hippie punching impulse arises. First condemn the bill and then condemn its passage because it is so lousy and then assert that Obama is a lout because he didn’t do more to pass the very bill that some hated.

  182. 182.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Also:

    In the face of widespread suspicion that health care reform is stalled indefinitely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters this afternoon that Democrats will succeed in passing the party’s top domestic priority, adding that “we are very close to doing that in a comprehensive way.”

  183. 183.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    February 2, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    They got a grand total of three (3) people to attend. But I’m sure that’s all the elected Democrats’ fault, right? If only they hadn’t been so lame, people would have totally showed up.

    Oh no, that isn’t it. According to Jay B., the Democrats are useless. Obama could have MADE them show up, and turned them into rabid supporters if he had only harnessed the power of his magic teleprompter. Unlike what Obama has been saying (about the grassroots being the basis of real change), Jay B. wants the Decider to march in and order his supporters to be supportive.

  184. 184.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    @t jasper parnell:

    Velly interesting. Reading between the lines with the “comprehensive way” sounds like some Senate scoop on recon.maybe. And I like the very close thing to. Nancy usually doesn’t talk this rosy unless she knows something we don”t.

  185. 185.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Heh. Stupid because . . why exactly? Because I believe this will end with an EO not legislation? Because I realize you need 60 Senate votes to pass it (who know if you can even muster 50 or 218 on the House.)

    Remarkable stuff. Not surprising, but remarkable.

  186. 186.

    nepat

    February 2, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    @Jay B.:

    Are you guys going for self-parody?

    Conceded, if it’ll shut you up.

  187. 187.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    @t jasper parnell:

    Good.

    @Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:

    Democrats are useless. I didn’t think that was particularly controversial. John even uses the “We are all Mayans now” tag because of it.

    But as for why the pitiful rally in San Francisco? Who knows? There could be a million reasons. Maybe people were too demoralized. Maybe it was terribly organized. Maybe they didn’t coordinate with the unions. Believe me, I have a lot of criticisms of the progressive movement, but their ability to organize rallies has rarely been one of them. Trust me. They are usually nails with the rallies.

  188. 188.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    @Jay B.: It seems to me that

    Good.

    in reference to Pelosi’s claim about the possibility of passage and

    Democrats are useless.

    stand in considerable tension one to the other.

  189. 189.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    @BTD: If they attach this to defense appropriations (which would actually be appropriate), I don’t see how the GOP can afford to filibuster it into non-existence.

  190. 190.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    @t jasper parnell:

    Listen, if you want to think they are a dynamic, progressive party with strong leadership, go right ahead.

    That over the course of this debacle — and if they pass something they’ve slightly mitigated a disaster totally of their own making — they’ve managed to make Arlen Specter look like a principled champion of reform should make you cringe considering when this all started he wasn’t even in the party and largely opposed it, but sure. They’re super.

    That optimism notwithstanding, I’ve also read time and time again that they had the votes and it was only a matter of minutes before the fucker passed. Skeptics haven’t yet been proven wrong, but if Pelosi is still optimistic about the health care bill, that’s of some encouragement.

    And right now, they should be selling that lipsticked pig. Sell it to the skies. A triumph of the Gods.

  191. 191.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    @Jay B.:

    First, if you’re right, then why are you bitching so much about what you perceive to be liberal apostasy?

    Missed this little nugget from earlier. Let’s get something straight, this is not about me perceiving liberal apostasy. I happen to agree with most libs and progs on policy, with occasional differences. This is about practicing politics and doing it in a responsible way. I don’t agree with burning down my own house because the doors won’t close right, or the shower sucks and has no water pressure. I want to write the stuff down and do the steps necessary, one by one, to make it work better.

    And I have no illusions or delusions that what gets written on blogs makes a big difference in prosecution of governance. It has some around the edges, maybe, and can sometimes get picked up by the MSM in broad ways to build memes of intra party dissent, and when prominent prog bloggers get themselves on teevee, that can do some harm, or good, depending.

    This blog is where I come to stay sane in a sea of shit slung in all directions these days with little or no effort at running on facts. I care when people come here to hawk untrue memes and assorted other lies. That is why it matters, to me.

  192. 192.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    @Jay B.:

    Listen, if you want to think they are a dynamic, progressive party with strong leadership, go right ahead.

    Listen, yourself. I don’t but neither do I think that they are useless and selling me and mine down the river or that Obama is the suxor and so on.

    As I think I said up thread, I am not getting all I want all at once but I am getting some and I am encouraged by how Obama’s been governing even when he is not doing what I want, i.e., ending wars, universal health care, and my personal pony. I find criticisms like Democrats are useless and etc because you and I cannot or — in any event — have not gotten our particular policy pony just plain silly. And that goes double for folks like Krugman who are explicit in linking criticism over policy preferences with crap about Obama being the suxor.

    [Edit: it is possible, in other words, to condemn policy decisions without deriding the policy makers. I stopped thinking that Obama was progressive, whatever that might mean, when he came out on the wrong side of FISA; but, I still voted for him and continue to support him, cause he is both smart and dreamy. (I kid I kid)

  193. 193.

    mclaren

    February 2, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Sounds sensible.

    I just have to wonder why the hell Obama and his team didn’t have a full-court press like this lined up for health care reform.

  194. 194.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    @t jasper parnell: Unless Jay B. is a member of the Kill the Bill brigade, which wouldn’t surprise me. Much of the narrative from them is that it doesn’t matter how much you actually do unless you are doing precisely the thing they want, when they want it.

    Passed single payer? Bzzt! Sorry, DOMA was supposed to come first. You lose. Passed DOMA? Bzzt! Sorry, all troops out of Afghanistan was supposed to come first…

  195. 195.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    This is about practicing politics and doing it in a responsible way.

    Oh Jeez. Thanks Mom.

    This blog is where I come to stay sane in a sea of shit slung in all directions these days with little or no effort at running on facts.

    Funny, this is where I used to come to read people skeptical of the official word and mock the literally unbelievable things that came out of a misguided, unquestioning movement. Facts? I’ll accept that 90% of Democrats support Obama. But you have to accept that Democrats feel like the things they voted on and for aren’t being addressed to their satisfaction — responsible or not, that’s reality — and it shows in the polls about voting enthusiasm, and that’s not a good thing, no matter how you want to spin it.

    I care when people come here to hawk untrue memes and assorted other lies.

    Untrue memes. That’s authentic Internet gibberish, I’ll give you that. But you can think I’m coming here spewing lies — or you could think that I’m just wrong. I’m wondering why you think people who disagree with this administration operate automatically in bad faith.

  196. 196.

    Davis X. Machina

    February 2, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    initial reports are that the way the military wants to do this actually is going to be incredibly slow and torturous.

    The way the military buys staplers is incredibly slow and torturous….and presumably they want the staplers.

  197. 197.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 2, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    @BTD:

    Heh. Stupid because . . why exactly? Because I believe this will end with an EO not legislation? Because I realize you need 60 Senate votes to pass it (who know if you can even muster 50 or 218 on the House.)

    @Martin:

    If they attach this to defense appropriations (which would actually be appropriate), I don’t see how the GOP can afford to filibuster it into non-existence.

    That’s why. Or as it’s known in some circles, “a plan.”

  198. 198.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    @Jay B.:

    I’m wondering why you think people who disagree with this administration operate automatically in bad faith.

    I think you are wrong about what I believe concerning this administration and about the Democrats and I think you are wrong about how to move both in the direction I, and suspect, you want. Its like What About Bob Baby Steps. I might be wrong as well, but I am not, as you have suggested, deluded.

  199. 199.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 7:41 pm

    @Martin: But what, exactly?
    [edit: why, exactly]

  200. 200.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    @Jay B.: No, I don’t think you are here to spew lies, that statement was not meant for you personally, but for some others. As I said earlier, I think you believe what you are saying, but are more in the untrue meme category.

    But you seem to be impervious to facts and believe want you want, which is ok, I guess. Take for example your dismissal of my repeating what is known by about every expert, or non expert like me who wants to take the time to learn about mid term elections of first term presidents. And them being a referendum largely on degree of anger from the opposition, or GOP. This is common knowledge and has basically held true throughout our history, except when extraordinary circumstances alter it. Like 9-11 and the GOP electoral success in 2002 during Bush’s first mid term.

    Now there are things that can be done to mitigate those loses by dems this year. But screaming Obama FAIL by a portion of his base just ain’t going do much good, and will likely do a little bad, emphasis on little. Instead of progs going firebagger and Obama oppo and making hay with the wingers by using their talking points, why not instead get on the phones and call their Senators to insist they do a recon. fix so the House can pass their bill and we can claim some success from this clusterfuck. Instead of calling congress critters like the wingers and demanding they kill the bill and start over. And I’m not lumping you in with those folks cause I don’t know where you stand on it. But you are generally defending prog slamming Obama for things we don’t agree he deserves, and we resist because we see it different. That is all that is going on here.

  201. 201.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    @Martin:

    Much of the narrative from them is that it doesn’t matter how much you actually do unless you are doing precisely the thing they want, when they want it.

    You’re right. It’s way better to drag the process out and let the opposition party lead the debate while floating a few thousand trial balloons about what your intention is. Obama spent a year trying to win over the GOP. Why? Oh, I know to talk to “right-leaning independents” many of whom still think he was born in Kenya, others who simply believe he’s a pinko. Mission Accomplished!

    I think of myself as equally ‘pragmatic’ as you political strategists. I want substantive things done. Some things have been done. A lot — from wars to civil liberties to health care reform to jobs to cramdown — have not. In lieu of results, I’d like to know the President’s priorities on these things. Sometimes he signals them, sometimes, he doesn’t.

    But if you think I’m too impatient, that’s fine. But you’re fooling yourself if you don’t think scores of “independents”, Democrats and other voters don’t feel the same way.

  202. 202.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    @Jay B.:

    But you’re fooling yourself if you don’t think scores of “independents”, Democrats and other voters don’t feel the same way.

    Well, a score is 20. So that don’t say much.

  203. 203.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    @Jay B.:

    But if you think I’m too impatient

    I think you’re doing it wrong because it is sounds, to me in any event, like a constant drum beat of the Democrats are useless and Obama is a maroon. Neither of which is either true or helpful.

  204. 204.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    Take for example your dismissal of my repeating what is known by about every expert, or non expert like me who wants to take the time to learn about mid term elections of first term presidents. And them being a referendum largely on degree of anger from the opposition, or GOP…This is common knowledge and has basically held true throughout our history, except when extraordinary circumstances alter it.

    I’d counter and say extraordinary circumstances are everywhere you look. Obama and the Democrats won with a sweeping mandate for change. The financial sector almost collapsed. Unemployment is still at 10% We’re still mired in two wars. States across the country are teetering on bankruptcy. Banks are running amok. Some unspeakable number of people are upside down in their mortgages. Health care costs are rising at an insane rate. Global warming continues unabated. All while Republicans obstruct or oppose the agenda en masse.

    The Democrats wouldn’t or couldn’t get their shit together to capitalize on the real political opportunity afforded them here. We should be WAY past health care by now and onto cap and trade — which officially has no chance anymore. The last election gave them every political advantage. And here we are a year and change in and the best part of their stump speech will be that they averted major economic catastrophe by presiding over a minor one, with much of the structural damage still intact.

  205. 205.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    I’d counter and say extraordinary circumstances are everywhere you look. Obama and the Democrats won with a sweeping mandate for change. The financial sector almost collapsed. Unemployment is still at 10% We’re still mired in two wars. States across the country are teetering on bankruptcy. Banks are running amok. Some unspeakable number of people are upside down in their mortgages. Health care costs are rising at an insane rate. Global warming continues unabated. All while Republicans obstruct or oppose the agenda en masse.

    You left out Bradjolena are splitting up. Eegads, shits fucked up. Might as well jump.

    Your just a fucking world class worry wort.

  206. 206.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    Don’t worry be happy
    Was a number one jam
    Damn if I say it you can slap me right here.

    And I don’t think I was saying that isn’t utterly obvious. Didn’t mean to scare you, but that’s what a lot of people are feeling. No wonder you think so many liberals are so uppity and improper.

  207. 207.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    @Jay B.: I’d say that things could be worse and that some of what the Administration has done as ameliorated things and, even though I may well be wrong, while they are not progs they aren’t Republicans. I’ll take the half glass full, in other words.

  208. 208.

    Jay B.

    February 2, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    @t jasper parnell:

    And that will make for a stirring campaign theme for the 40th year in a row: “Democrats. Because it could have been worse!”

    Seriously. That’s why I’m a Democrat — the alternatives are infinitely worse — but it becomes self-parody after a certain point.

  209. 209.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 2, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    No wonder you think so many liberals are so uppity and improper.

    More like unfocused and hysterical. But what ever floats your boat.

  210. 210.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    @Jay B.: Your slogan being? Democrats are useless and Obama is the suxor. You’re right that’s much the better tactic for achieving your strategic goals.

  211. 211.

    Ronrab

    February 2, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    And if Obama fails to repeal DADT because Republicans scowled at him, you’ll immediately post a retraction of this post praising his brilliant scheme, correct?

    I think Obama’s smart, and has good plans. I also think he throws them all out the minute something goes slightly wrong and scurries back toward the right. In other words, he’s a typical DC Democrat.

  212. 212.

    DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)

    February 2, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    BTD: “Weak post.”

    I agree. I would also like to add that it is refreshing to see BTD giving us a frank summation of what he thinks of his own post and tacking it onto the end of it.

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Meh. I think some of those grassroots supporters get off on feeling like they’ve been made to hang and twist in the wind—when many times they’ve just climbed up there themselves.

    Of course they hang and twist in the wind. When you climb up on the cross and nail yourself to it you always hang and twist in the wind until you can get someone else to pound that last nail in.

  213. 213.

    gwangung

    February 2, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    Look, this is all just playing “more progressive than thou” for EVERYONE, progressives and hippie punchers alike. All it does is waste time and energy, and divert it from things like organizing others in the grass roots, getting collectives into politicians’ offices, forcing your ways into meetings and other more direct action. There’s no point to hippie punching if you don’t point ’em in the right direction.

  214. 214.

    mai naem

    February 2, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    It’s all good to lay the groundwork and give the military time to study it etc. etc. but from what I’ve heard/read, it’s going to take a minimum of a year. That’s a whole year that the rightwingers have to turn into “the US military is going to hell and your husband/dad/brother is going to have to shower with the gaayys ewww” etc. etc. etc. Sorry, if I am don’t quite believe that the Dems are going to stick it out for a whole year without Benny Boy Nelson/Jim Webb/Blanche Lincoln/Landrieu/Bill Nelson or even Lieberprick being influenced by his buddy McMavericky, to pull the plug on the repeal.

  215. 215.

    Karen

    February 2, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    I get the feeling that a lot of the people on Balloon Juice (the FDL, PUMA, Kos, etc.) would be totally happy with fascism and a dictatorship if it was with their views. They’d love the Democratic equivalent of Dick Cheney.

    That scares the fuck out of me. Fascism and dictatorship is wrong no matter which side of the aisle it is.

    What I find interesting is that those same people seem to forget that executive orders can be nullified by the next administration so should Obama issue executive orders like ending DADT that can be overturned? Or is it smarter to try to get as many key people (the DoD) behind it as possible so it’s not just in place already but there won’t be a DoD backlash.

    Executive Orders are useful when applied properly but remember what happened with the issues Clinton worked with at the end of his term? Bush and co. overturned almost all of them.

  216. 216.

    Martin

    February 2, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    @Jay B.: Considering that the Senate only passed the thing by paying blackmail to Nelson and Lieberman because they knew their vote was needed, I’m not sure what you think the alternative was. You think they were going to sign on to a more liberal bill?

    You seem to think that there’s some degree of uniformity about where to go on HCR. There isn’t. Not even among liberals. Not among conservatives. It’s the worst possible topic to try and get consensus on because it touches every third rail in politics from entitlements to abortion to taxation. It’s quite simply the most difficult thing lawmakers will ever seek to do, but you seem to think it’ll be like banning leaded milk. It wasn’t dragged out – it was always going to be hard. It was hard in ’94 and it never even got to a vote.

    The GOP got Medicare D passed basically by selling out virtually every professed conservative principle in the process of doing it. Democrats aren’t willing to do that, but you guys are still shouting them down. Had the Democrats done HCR like the GOP, there’d be a tax on minorities, it’d only be available to the rich, and only Congress could remove a feeding tube. But it’d be done, so I guess you’d be thrilled. Or something.

  217. 217.

    DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)

    February 2, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Shorter Jay B : “Hey you! Yes, you! Look at me!! No, not over there, up here! Finally!! Now that I have your attention, see this cross that I’m nailing myself to? I am doing this because I am right and you are wrong. You are making me do this, it’s all your fault!”

    No, you are doing this because like most gasbags, you have an overinflated sense of self. That and you like to waste your time advocating for your cause by deriding and insulting people on blogs who dare to disagree with you. Do you think that this is effective? Do you (or anyone out there like you) think that you are actually accomplishing anything by posting on blogs with the attitude you have about issues like this? What are you trying to accomplish at a blog like this where some people disagree with you? Do you think your tone will encourage people to see or at least understand your POV?

    I really don’t think you have any idea about what you are trying to accomplish, maybe you don’t even care. What does come across loud and clear (at least to me) is that you seem to only care that you are right and anyone who dares to disagree with you is wrong.

    Pro Tip: If you really want to sell people on your point I would recommend keeping the insults and hyperbole to a minimum. It sucks, especially when people are assholes about disagreeing with you, but that’s the reality of it.

    @gwangung:

    Absolutely on target.

    @Karen: “What I find interesting is that those same people seem to forget that executive orders can be nullified by the next administration so should Obama issue executive orders like ending DADT that can be overturned?”

    I think too many people today look for instant gratification, they want it now and they don’t care about the particulars. As one of these types said here in this thread: “I clearly don’t think the American people care who or how things are passed, they just want things passed and problems addressed.” This is something that I see in too many aspects of our life in this country, too many people are used to getting what they want and they get angry when they don’t get it. They don’t want to fight for a solid win, they want it handed to them or else they throw a hissy fit like a spoiled child.

    Nobody wants to take the long view and work hard to build something that will last. They think they have earned it so just give it to them already! If it breaks later on they will just whine for a new one, expect to get it and throw a royal shit fit when they don’t get it.

    I want it all
    I want it all
    I want it all and I want it now

  218. 218.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Dream on. To attach it will require 60. It’s called an amendment.

    Plans have to make sense.

  219. 219.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    @gwangung: I am not sure I agree. I think the argument is about the proper tactics. Personally, I would rather highlight this evidence of Obama’s successful transformation in the war on terrorism, violent extremism, and other related nouns:

    “One of the principal reasons why his family came back is because they had complete trust in the US system of justice and believed that Umar Farouq would be treated fairly and appropriately,” a “senior official” told ABC. “And that they would be as well.”

    than focusing on the various ways in which I am disappointed.

  220. 220.

    BTD

    February 2, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    @Martin:

    Again, attach how? By amendment requires 60. they vote down the amendment and that’s that.

    Hell I bet there are 60 votes to strip it if Reid put it in the main bill, which he will not.

  221. 221.

    t jasper parnell

    February 2, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    @BTD:
    Hell, I’ll bet there aren’t 60 votes to strip it and I’ll point to the hate crime legislation as evidence.

  222. 222.

    Alice B. Stuck

    February 3, 2010 at 12:04 am

    @BTD: They attach it in committee mark up by a simple majority vote and it would take 60 votes to strip it out. I think that could work. Another way to sneak things like this into law, is attach it to last minute omnibus spending bills at the end of the year, that not passing would halt government functions.

  223. 223.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 3, 2010 at 12:09 am

    @BTD:

    Dream on. To attach it will require 60. It’s called an amendment.
    __
    Plans have to make sense.

    I guess it’s a good thing they’ve been working on that plan for a year now, isn’t it then?

    @t jasper parnell:

    Hell, I’ll bet there aren’t 60 votes to strip it and I’ll point to the hate crime legislation as evidence.

    Exactly.

  224. 224.

    BTD

    February 3, 2010 at 8:47 am

    @t jasper parnell:

    It needs to be put in first. There is no stomach for that.

    The question of 60 will come when it is offered as an amendment.

  225. 225.

    BTD

    February 3, 2010 at 8:49 am

    @Midnight Marauder:

    We’ll see. You show a lot of confidence in Senate Dems there.

  226. 226.

    BTD

    February 3, 2010 at 8:50 am

    @Alice B. Stuck:

    I seriously doubt it. But we’ll see.

    I can tell you this, betting on the cowardice of Senate Dems has never been a losing bet so far.

  227. 227.

    t jasper parnell

    February 3, 2010 at 9:36 am

    @BTD: It will be put in there is more than enough stomach for it. See how easy these kinds of arguments are?

  228. 228.

    BTD

    February 3, 2010 at 11:46 am

    @t jasper parnell:

    Indeed. Very easy argument. That’s why we have single payer now.

    Because of the courage of Senate Dems.

    Honestly, some reality based community you guys got here.

  229. 229.

    t jasper parnell

    February 3, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    @BTD: Or, perhaps, because a bunch of the Sen Dems are followers of Bill Clinton’s dicta that the era of big government is over, and they are sticking manfully to their guns despite the popular support of the position? Could that be it? I’ll grant that calling people with whom one disagrees cowards or deluded fools shows a manly steadfastness among 12 yr olds. Say and by the way are you the same BTD who insisted that Obama couldn’t get elected.

  230. 230.

    contessakitty

    February 3, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that BTD is a PUMA.

    Not that I know it or not.

    But anyone who spits out that “Obama is unelectable” garbage that Hiliary Clinton said makes me a mite suspicious…

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Next Stop Is Not Pleasantville « Just Above Sunset says:
    February 3, 2010 at 3:18 am

    […] And see John Cole: […]

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Paul in KY on Their Own Private Idaho (Mar 20, 2023 @ 2:57pm)
  • dimmsdale on Incentives and information — revisiting Iraq invasion decision-making (Mar 20, 2023 @ 2:56pm)
  • Kelly on Their Own Private Idaho (Mar 20, 2023 @ 2:56pm)
  • Matt McIrvin on Their Own Private Idaho (Mar 20, 2023 @ 2:56pm)
  • Hoodie on Their Own Private Idaho (Mar 20, 2023 @ 2:55pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!