Good to have this finally behind us:
The military’s longstanding ban on service by gays and lesbians came to a historic and symbolic end on Wednesday, as President Obama signed legislation repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the contentious 17-year old Clinton-era law that sought to allow gays to serve under the terms of an uneasy compromise that required them to keep their sexuality a secret.
“No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie or look over their shoulder,” Mr. Obama said during a signing ceremony in a packed auditorium at the Interior Department here. Quoting the chairman of his joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, Mr. Obama went on, “Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.”
The repeal does not immediately put a stop to “don’t ask, don’t tell;” Mr. Obama must still certify that repeal will not harm military readiness, as must Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen, before the military can implement the new law. But the secretary and the admiral have backed Mr. Obama, who said ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a topic of his first meeting with the men. He praised Mr. Gates for his courage; Admiral Mullen, who was on stage with the president during the signing ceremony here, received a standing ovation.
The Times has a picture with the story, and am I just missing Gillibrand? Shouldn’t she be up there?
The question- will Obama receive some love from gay rights advocates, or will they just move on to the next grievance and once again Obama will be the worstest homophobe ever, even worse than BUSHCHENEYHITLER combined? And I’m not making that up- people have actually made that argument here in the comments (they’ve curiously disappeared since DADT passed).
BruceFromOhio
dingdingdingdingding!
gogol's wife
I noticed the strange disappearance of some of the worst offenders in the last couple of days. I thought maybe they’d been banned. I’m glad to hear it was voluntary.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
I’m optimistic that this will settle at least one outstanding grievance we on the Professional Left have with the Obama Administration.
The fact that the awesome Nancy Pelosi has to let her new office air out over the holidays in order to rid it of Boners cigarette smoke is just my newest grievance. The failings of the Administration and the Senate and the one good person up there, Pelosi, is taking the hit for it.
Comrade Jake
All joking aside, I don’t know if you caught any of Obama’s speech, but he gave a fairly powerful one. Our country is a better place today than it was yesterday.
Sasha
Now what excuse will would-be draft-dodgers use to avoid service?
amk
John, ignore the frustrati. They neither help the cause nor the discussion.
It’s a great day today to celebrate. And the President handled it point perfect.
blahblahblah
It’s a throwaway to the base who seemingly now care more for social issues than bread and butter economics. I fail to see how Democrats fired up over this issue are any different from Republicans voting against their economic interests in order to promote the social policies they support. In both cases, the parties have thrown their people under the bus and then thrown them a social bone to divert their attention from what _hungers_ them.
Anya
The speech was moving and the President wore a lavender tie for the event. A coincidence, I think not.
These few days were great, the only thing that ruins it a bit for me is that I just found out that goodwin liu confirmation is in question. That really sucks!
NonyNony
Look, John, this is how activists work. You don’t become an activist to make friends to to be nice-nice – to be an effective activist you need to be a fucking painful thorn in the side of the people in power. That’s the only way that activists have ever in this country gotten anything done – they don’t generally have the money to buy their way through Congress, so they take the two-pronged approach of working the crowd to make their message popular and working the refs by being a pain in the ass.
So no, I don’t expect gay rights activists to do much more than a grudging “thanks” before they move on to their next goal. It’s not like gay folks have all the rights that most folks take for granted in the US yet, so they need to continue to be a fucking thorn in the side of people in power until that happens. Activists can’t afford to be happy – they need to be outraged to get shit done (which is why conservative activists are so good at the game – they can sustain outrage long after most of us have decided we’re too tired to maintain it and go off to look at some lolcats or something).
OTOH, I do expect that gay folks who aren’t activists will be very happy with this result and will give props where they are due. I know a few who didn’t really expect any movement on this before recruiting got to dangerously low levels for the military and they’re pretty happy with the outcome.
(Oh and this doesn’t excuse the trolls who show on your comment sections – I really don’t know what they’re trying to accomplish. Half the time I think they’re just conserva-trolls trying to rouse rabble, and the other time I think they’re just idiots who are misplacing their activist impulses and should get away from the keyboard and out to the streets or something.)
jsfox
@blahblahblah:
I am sure all the activist who have fought long and hard for the repeal of DADT totally agree.
(please read with the appropriate amount of dripping sarcasm)
El Cid
What would be the most likely GOP reactions to slow or block any implementation? Turn certification into a circus with continual bills to do one delay or objection or another? Are there any parts needing funding which can be blocked, or some sort of amendment to some other defense authorization contingent on no enforcement?
tomvox1
The question is now that homosexuals have won this major civil rights victory will they and their coalition throw their considerable might and media savvy behind someone else’s struggle for equality, i.e. something like the DREAM act? That is what I would like to see in Obama’s America–everyone pulling on the same rope and the diminishment of parochial interests. (Well, regarding the good guys at least–fuck the Right and their dinosaur ways.) As we’ve seen with today’s historic and absolutely wonderful moment, progress really is possible if people who actually believe in the promise of the United States pull together and do the right thing. Let’s take this momentum and use it to make a better life for immigrant children, with those most recently through the door of equality leading the way for the next group.
cleek
@blahblahblah:
finally, someone gets it!
i was so sick of pretending to care about the poor. now that you’ve discovered the real truth, i can finally relax.
and now that that’s settled, i think i’ll have a nice mug of Grand Marnier 150 while i read the new edition of Bugati & Buggery Enthusiast. ah, life…
Strandedvandal
They didn’t get the exact pony they wanted, in the exact time frame they wanted it, with the exactly worded card they required. There was no boombox held overhead for hours, serenading them with the sounds of Peter Gabriel. This means nothing.
amk
@Sasha: Were you born classless and clueless ?
Nicole
Better to have done it legislatively. I’m very negative about the economic prospects for the country, but this is a step forward socially. Desegregation happened in the military before it happened nationally for marriage… next up, marriage rights for everyone!
Sasha
Suggestion to Sen. Lieberman:
Now that Democrats like you again, quit while you’re ahead and don’t run for reelection in 2012.
Take a look at your good friend John McCain and look at what happens to people who continue past their sell-by date.
You’re a hero to the left. Don’t screw it up by overstaying your welcome. There are tons of cushy and prestigious jobs waiting for you outside Congress.
And good job, Joe.
Nicole
@Sasha: “Other priorities,” of course.
Chrisd
Seventeen years to repeal a rotten bill that never should have happened in the first place.
I sure hope they took time off to savor the repeal, because that’s it for the queers for another good long while.
El Cid
If seriously expanded civil rights — even in the midst of failures on other major issues — is a “throwaway”, then please toss “the base” more throwaways. (And always define “the base” in some justifiable fashion.)
Fuck, not even Marxist and Soshullist groups and publications outside a few marginals (Maoist, RCP, and then even those changed their tunes) took the line that governments limiting discrimination against one or another part of the population was harmful to economic reform (or revolution). Jeesh.
Yes, it took a while for many of them to get rid of brute dismissals of gay & lesbian oppression, but afterwards they didn’t just toss them out as just part of the superstructure over the capitalist base.
Culture of Truth
Yes, but truly successful activists are more than just a painful thorn in the side of the people in power – they gain power, utilize power, understand how the system works and use it to get what they want.
Sasha
@amk:
No, just with tongue-in-cheek puckishness.
Guess I should have added a smiley face or sarcasm tags for clarity.
Elisabeth
Been to FDL today? (If you can call them “gay rights advocates.”)
Sasha
@Nicole:
Of course. That never goes out of style.
amk
@Sasha: I apologize.
Anya
@NonyNony: Activism also means, rewarding your friends and distinguishing between friends and foes. You direct the blame where it belongs. Activism does not include constantly attacking your friends and deliberately minimizing or outright denigrating their role when they do something right.
The Republic of Stupidity
@cleek:
Bugatti & Buggery Enthusiast?
Truly, there is a magazine for EVERY demographic…
We live in an enlightened age no doubt…
Nicole
@Chrisd:
DADT was an attempt to improve the situation at the time, which was that gays could be thrown out no matter what they chose to keep private, remember? Clinton wanted them to be able to serve openly but the GOP had a hissy fit at the prospect. DADT sucked, but was a step forward from the status quo and it was the best the left could get in the 1990’s. Jesus tap-dancing Christ I expect conservatives to have the memory of a goldfish, but can we liberals try to keep an eye on the long view before we start savaging our own history?
Dave
What about ENDA, John?? What about ENDA??!!
…
I swear, some people are just hell-bent on denying that Obama has accomplished anything since taking the oath of office.
NobodySpecial
@Culture of Truth: Given that there’s only a handful of gay legislators out there, I’m not quite sure that model holds true. The real difference was moving the public via a lot of different methods. Some went the ACT UP route, some went into politics, some merely* went public with their sexual orientation, and all of it moves the needle a bit.
Plus, as I keep saying, I have never seen a non-squeaky wheel in American politics who got grease.
Sasha
@amk:
No worries. Honest error. Thanx.
Go drink some ‘nog — it makes everything better (YMMV).
angler
“The question”
Will BJ use every turn of events as an opportunity to push intraparty divisions?
I know, they said something nasty first.
Maude
It is a never ending list for the wingers and I don’t mean activists.
HE is going to gut Social Security.
HE could have done this right away.
The one I liked was there is a certain percentage of Domestic terrorism and that is because, are you ready, HE has alienated 99.9% of the country.
mclaren
Great! Now if they could do someth8ing about the fact that 1/3 of all the women in the American military report having been raped, we’d be set.
Steve
I don’t want to be like “told you so” with the naysayers because honestly, you never really know, and it turned out to be a pretty close thing. If you had told me that DADT repeal would hinge on whether Joe Lieberman suddenly started fighting for it like he’s never fought in his life, I wouldn’t have felt very confident.
But I do want to enjoy a little chuckle at the denizens of this comment section who swore up and down that no way in hell could DADT repeal ever pass in the lame duck, and you’d have to be the world’s biggest idiot to think that it was even within the realm of possibility. Well, gosh. I hope you didn’t store up too much bile to prevent you from enjoying this great victory for equality.
amk
@Sasha: Cheers. Beer here.
Shadow's Mom
@El Cid: The first blast was to attach an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that passed this morning.
Lieberman objected during an attempt to get unanimous consent for its inclusion in the defense appropriations bill. That bill passed without McConnell’s amendment.
Link to politico article
I’d like to note that I could only google articles referencing “defense appropriations poison pill” at GOS and Politico (neither of which I read regularly)
Culture of Truth
If I had a painful thorn in my side I’d want to get rid of it. No, you don’t become an activist to make friends to be nice-nice, but a successful activist needs friends as well as enemies.
Chrisd
Really, you can stop carrying water for DADT. Even Clinton long ago dropped the pretense that it was an improvement.
homerhk
the above from emptywheel at FDL. Don’t know who that is but appears to be well respected. Is it me or is this just dickishness? President Obama worked for DADT because, what, 15 people chained themselves to the WH a few months ago? Nothing of course to do with the fact that he thought it was wrong, promised to end it during the campaign, repeated the promise in the State of the Union, presumably organised the whole Pentagon report-thing without which it wouldn’t have passed…oh never mind…
myiq2xu
It ain’t over ’til it’s over.
evinfuilt
@Sasha:
The republican stand by of anal cysts of course.
homerhk
damn blockquote!! everything up to the last para of my post should have been in quotes….
Culture of Truth
Responding to the vote by Congress to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays and lesbians serving in the military, state Del. Bob Marshall said Monday that he plans to file legislation to bar openly gay people from joining the Virginia National Guard.
Under his bill, Marshall said, enlistees would be asked to attest that they aren’t involved in same-sex relations. He said that any service member found to be actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle after enlisting would be subject to expulsion.
Jay C
“Finally over”?
Don ‘t you/we wish…
Unfortunately, Big Prejudice is too well-organized these days. For the “social issues” crowd (or, more germanely, the organizations that love to grift them for votes and – more importantly – money) setbacks and losses are never really setbacks/losses, but merely more and better opportunities to gin up self-righteous hate and resentment on a national level, and thus generate more political activism/interest (and – more importantly – income flow).
DADT and military restrictions on out gays may be dead – for now – but gay-bashing (usually under cover of religion) is still a proven moneymaker, and ain’t going anywhere. In fact, in some places, it’s getting more targeted than before.
Happy New Year!
Glenn
Ah, nutpicking your own comments section. Holiday fun!
I trust that John is not seriously contesting that most “gay rights advocates” are genuinely pleased with this result and giving Obama credit for it.
But, as for the next “grievance” (nice sneering there, John), why exactly shouldn’t we move on to it? I guess since we got this we should just STFU about the other civil rights abuses we suffer?
Tom Hilton
Speaking of whom, the President invited Lt. Dan Choi to the signing. And Choi said he’d be there.
Mnemosyne
@Chrisd:
Yeah, why did it take Obama 17 years to repeal the bill? He should have been able to do it any time in the previous 17 years that he’s been in office, but he only just got around to it in the last two years. What a wanker.
amk
@homerhk: Sites like fdl give a bad name even to loony left.
gwangung
@Chrisd:
Really, you should learn a bit about the nature of power. You really sound naive.
Nicole
@Chrisd: I’m not water-carrying for anything; I believe I said DADT sucked. But I do think it was an improvement over the status quo. And part of that is because it was absurd and there reaches a point where even the (still remotely sane) conservatives realize it’s an absurd compromise for an even more absurd status quo. And then you change the status quo.
Social progress takes forever. Seneca Falls was in what, 1850, and the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. Slavery was ended in the 1860’s and the Civil Rights movement was a CENTURY later. This is a long game. And dumb compromises get struck on the way to changing things (civil unions, anyone? Dumb, but better than the status quo). But the dialogue starts over dumb compromises and eventually you win.
Socially, anyway. I still think we’re fucked economically.
Sasha
@Chrisd:
I believe Clinton thought is was theoretically a good idea until practice proved otherwise. I do not think Clinton always thought it poor.
That said, I suspect that the incipient allowing of homosexuals to serve openly in the military would not have come as (relatively) easily or soon without DADT coming first.
Blue Neponset
Attaching the ‘Obama is Hitler’ comments to gay rights activists is nutpicking at its finest.
Mnemosyne
@Glenn:
No, it means that it’s probably not the best strategy to insist that the president who is fighting for what you want is a homophobe who secretly wants his own agenda to fail. It makes you look like an idiot when that president proceeds to get the legislation passed that he supposedly opposed in secret and then signs it into law when you’ve spent months claiming he’s a bigot who was never going to give any rights to gay people at all (except for the ones he gave them before the repeal).
But I’m guessing you’re one of those people who’s absolutely convinced that the bill totally would have passed in September if only Obama hadn’t wasted five minutes making a congratulatory call to the WNBA champions.
jsfox
And now on to DOMA and ENDA
[snip]
gwangung
I think the point is not to STFU, but to acknowledge the effort of allies and use that to get the next step. Belittling the effort or dismissing it as minor is not a good use of political capital.
Given that DADT is repealed, Obama’s strategy is, by definition, a correct strategy–DADT was repealed. (It’s not the ONLY correct strategy, but that is a different discussion). The issue now becomes how to build on that.
Glenn
@Mnemosyne:
Dear Mnemosyne.
I have never made any of the comments or held any of the positions you attribute to me. Nor have I said anything that would give you a legitimate basis to believe otherwise.
Love,
Glenn
p.s Please go fuck yourself. And Merry Christmas!
Glenn
And what gay rights advocates are doing this?
El Cid
@homerhk:
Yeah, and it was the Civil Rights / Voting Rights movement which over decades of dangerous and deadly struggle achieved their aimed, legal victory.
I don’t remember MLK Jr criticizing LBJ for having pushed through the 1964 CR & 1965 VR acts as throwaways or whatever. I mean, he didn’t say that while he was standing there beside LBJ when he signed it.
I’m all against a blinded “Great Man” view of history, but it doesn’t mean that grassroots movements frequently have the ability to independently achieve goals without sympathetic and even hard working political leadership.
Certainly it mattered when African American union leader A. Phillip Randolph threatened FDR with a march of 100K blacks through the streets of Washington for equal employment opportunities in the defense industry. But it wasn’t just the threat, it was also FDR agreeing with their cause, but having thought it too politically difficult.
Yeah, people absolutely must base an analysis of the repeal of DADT on all the people who kept fighting to repeal it, but it’s not some sort of insult to them to see Obama’s key role in getting it repealed legislatively.
Mike in NC
Guess they’ll throw him under the
bussleigh and find another issue to whine about.Anya
John, to answer your question, Dan Choi is till calling it a compromise. Just pay attention to the weaselly thank you to the PresidentWTF?
gwangung
By the way, this is not news. This has been a well known aspect of Obama’s political strategy since 2008. Why are people not taking this into account and grappling with it? In a lot of ways, getting change through legislative channels DOES have a patina of legitimacy that other avenues don’t.
gwangung
@Glenn: Are we talking about the professionals or the “professionals”? Don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that there aren’t wide segments in the public that do that very thing.
Short Bus Bully
@NonyNony:
Be a pain in the side of people with power? What a great idea!
How about being a pain to the people THAT OPPOSE GAY RIGHTS (read: Republicans) instead of the people that support them (read: Obama)? Or is that simply too much of a stretch?
amk
@jsfox: Thanks for that tpm linky. Gititdone right seems to be his way.
Chrisd
What does this even mean?
Mnemosyne
@Glenn:
No? Then I’m not quite sure why you aren’t happy to have this evidence that the president actually is an ally and is not secretly working against you behind the scenes. I’m not sure why you seem convinced that DOMA and ENDA will still never be dealt with by this administration despite what the president has been saying.
President Obama is not the big, bad boogeyman holding you back, so you’ll need to find another one. Sorry about that.
Tim
“The repeal does not immediately put a stop to “don’t ask, don’t tell;” Mr. Obama must still certify that repeal will not harm military readiness, as must Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen, before the military can implement the new law.”
Oh dear god…I thought they had already played all these games BEFORE the bill was passed. But of course, there are always more games to be played…
I will celebrate the actually repeal of DADT when it finally, actually happens, or you know, is “certified.” And at such time I will give Obama all due credit.
But all the celebrating here seems weird, when NOTHING in the practical world of policy and implementation for closeted gay servicepeople has actually changed.
Your treatment of this issue is, Cole, is a textbook example of where the term “Obot” comes from. Your so eager to credit O with success that you don’t wait for actual success to occur in the real world. Kind of like the health care bill, which is far from universal, and most of which won’t be implemented for four more years.
Commence frothing Obot abuse and hysteria…
Rob
What Glenn said.
Also, isn’t illogical (to say the least) to beat on your opponents for exaggerating Obama’s faults by – grossly exaggerating your opponents’ position? Or did someone really call Obama “the worstest homophobe ever”.
Allan
@Tim:
And your team is so eager to attack O for failure that you don’t wait for actual failure to occur in the real world. Kind of like Social Security, which your team is already attacking Obama for cutting even though he hasn’t yet proposed it.
homerhk
El Cid, not sure but I think we are on the same page. That quote was actually a quote from a post on FDL which I was critiquing – except I had a bit of a fail using the block quote function so it didn’t come out right.
Sharl
Yeah, there are times when I don’t know where to draw the line between “responsible activism” [1] and “grievance farming” [2]. It’s a case-by-case judgment call, I suppose, always requiring adjustment of tactics to meet new situations – which, of course, different people will see in different ways.
[1.] Kinda-sorta what NonyNony @9 gets at; you always need someone on the outside, prodding and pushing, sometimes in rude fashion. But sympathetic insiders, with good strategic insight combined with savvy tactical instincts, are also needed – e.g., {holds nose, pukes in mouth a little} Joe Lieberman.
[2.] Excellent phrase, which I think I saw over at Rumproast.
amk
@Tim: Yes, when he lobbies for it, I’ll give him the credit. When he gets the votes, I’ll give him the credit. When he signs it, I’ll give him the credit. Now it when it’s “certified”, I’ll give him the credit. And then, when it “finally, and actually, happens”, I’ll give him the credit. Your credit is worthless.
So you can take your “credit” and shove it up your hysterical ass.
Chrisd
My point was that he no longer claims it was an improvement. If memory serves, Clinton blames Powell for lying to him about the “Don’t Pursue” joke and all the gays for not drumming up enough congressional support.
As for whether or not the rottenness of DADT facilitated its own eventual repeal, my opinion is that rotten laws tend to remain until people agitate enough to get them removed. One could just as easily argue that the unmitigated witchunts prior to DADT heightened the contradictions even more than the compromise did and would have resulted in lifting the ban even sooner.
Whatever. It was a shitty bill, and the progress of gay rights in this country is shameful. That it is ever thus in the U.S. is no reason for liberal self-congratulation.
Tim
@amk:
Nice.
Note how quickly BJ Kool Kids devolve to name calling. It’s weird. And kind of juvenile.
And telling.
jsfox
@Tim:
How long?
Obama, though, gave a ballpark to The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld.
Sasha
@Tim:
You must be a pill to travel with. I can only assume, based on your comments, that whenever you’re in a plane/train/automobile, you begin bitching as soon as the trip starts because you haven’t arrived at your destination yet.
Concerning DADT, the plane has finally left the tarmac. It’s in transit. Give props now and more props later. Insisting that you’re still on the runway when you are actually flying is damn silly.
Tim
@jsfox:
OK, great. When all that happens, I will be thrilled to credit Mr. Obama.
See, that wasn’t complicated.
But really, isn’t it a wise thing to remain skeptical of ALL politicians at all times? Isn’t that just common sense?
shortstop
Gay rights activists come in many flavors, like all other kinds of activists. If you specifically mean “the portion of gay rights activists who wouldn’t recognize the political and legislative processes even with the help of a remedial tutorial, but manage to keep being assholes anyway,” please say so.
@Chrisd:
Is it possible to be this stupid and still be able to feed and dress one’s self?
@Anya:
Well! I don’t think his Mooslim overlords are going to like his super sekrit gayness at all.
JMC in the ATL
This gay guy is over the moon happy. It is going to be difficult to publically explain to the children-by-gay-marriage of an active duty soldier or vet why their state won’t recognize their relationship or that DOMA prevents them from being eligible to live with their mom or dad overseas or a thousand other relationship issues that most people take for granted. It is one thing to demonize a hypothetical gay person, and another to combat stories of GLB servicemembers’ legal spouses being denied access to grief counseling, penions, etc.
Sasha
@Chrisd:
IMHO, liberals went along with DADT because they thought it was viable. It wasn’t until later that it demonstrated itself prone to abuse.
DADT, also IMHO, helped the cause as it technically allowed homosexuals to serve in the military. After 17 years of de facto honorable and distinguished (if secret) service, the public at large and the military establishment could no longer pretend that homosexuality has an effect on combat ability.
amk
@Tim: Pot, kettle and oh, grow a skin.
Sasha
@Tim:
Healthy skepticism is fine. Unflinching skepticism in the face of demonstrable progress, and absent evidence warranting it, is unproductive at best.
Against long odds, Obama and the Dems squeezed out DADT repeal during the lame-duck session, despite the fact that it would have been much easier to give up on it. Considering the fact they’ve gone this far, it’s reasonable to assume that they are serious and willing to go the rest of the way.
Dollared
@El Cid: Well, actually, if you understand the Rove/Chamber of Commerce POV, and Obama’s negotiating style, what we got was:
-100,000 gay service people get to stay in the military.
in exchange for
-Several Trillion Dollars in soon-to-be-permanently lowered estate taxes and taxes on the rich, with no limit on how much those people can donate to Republicans to cement their complete control of all media outlets at election time. Oh, and a $400B downpayment on all that slush to Karl’s base.
Yup, if I was Permanent Majority Karl, I’d take that deal anytime.
I’m glad for DADT. But it really, really is a throwaway to the base after agreeing to the Big Deal, which was Obama’s agreement to defund the government.
BombIranForChrist
I am pretty thrilled.
As an Obama critic, I have been waiting for him to actually 1) get behind a principled liberal position and 2) work for it and 3) don’t use the passage as an opportunity for hippie punching.
He actually did all 3, which is great.
My big problem with Obama all along has NOT been that he doesn’t agree with me 100% on everything, as some critics of firebaggers/starry-eyed-dreamers would create a strawman of me. It’s the fact that 1) he has failed to do things _he_ _promised_ _to_ _do_ and then 2) self-indulgently punches hippies, as if its the hippies fault for believing all the bullshit he spouted in 2008. It has been like he’s saying: “It’s your damn fault for being stupid enough to believe that I meant what I said.”
But man, what a difference a lame duck session makes. Obama doesn’t deserve all the credit, for sure, but it was really, really nice to see DADT signed AND Obama didn’t use the opportunity to piss on the people who worked so hard to put him in office. He didn’t, in other words, triangulate at the expense of the hippie cause.
A Humble Lurker
@Tim:
Not after they sign the damn thing.
@Dollared:
It was the price Obama was willing to pay knowing it would get him the DADT repeal and START. And now the Republicans whose votes helped pass those are going to be squeezed by teabaggers and the establishment to give up their sanity or leave the party. I almost think Obama’s banking on being the safe haven for people like them once the crazies really start turning up the heat. And then they’ll owe him.
As for the tax cuts, they are now an election year issue.
And whoever runs against Obama, I highly doubt they’re going to be for getting rid of the high end tax cuts, and that’s going to be a great ‘see how we’re different’ issue.
Chrisd
@Sasha:
If the service is secret, by definition it is still unknown whether open homosexuality would adversely affect combat ability. That was the point of all those protracted military surveys and studies.
I think it is extremely difficult to demonstrate that DADT was a necessary or even beneficial step in some inexorable but slow march of liberal progress. I will admit that my opinion derives in part from my belief that this line of reasoning gives everyone props whether they in fact deserve it or not. It also tends to make liberals extremely self-satisfied and complacent.
The whole point of this thread is along the lines of what are the (ungrateful) queers bitching about now?, which, by my estimation, places gay rights along the same evolutionary timeline as when black civil rights started getting a little too uppity for white liberals, circa the mid 1960’s.
To me, it’s the cue that we’d better start picking up the pace.
john b
sad to see emptywheel post that. that’s the only part of FDL that i ever bother with (mostly for legal wankery stuff).
Sasha
@Chrisd:
But after DADT, it became an open secret. Instead of blithely denying that homosexuals existed in the military, everyone tacitly accepted that the they were in the military … and that the military didn’t fall apart for it. Those studies just proved what most everyone came to realize.
I don’t think that DADT was absolutely necessary, but I do think it helped grease the skids leading to today’s outcome.
And no, we lefties should be complacent, but we also ought not get into the habit of dismissing our accomplishments and denigrating our imperfect attempts to make things better.
Cris
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, a Daily Kos comment:
Dollared
@A Humble Lurker: Yup, and this was exactly the time to take that battle off the table. It’s a loser for Democrats – it really is the Republicans’ only hope of beating Obama, and he handed it to them for what – START and DADT?
Sad to say, but giving control of the government to the Republicans provides a much greater risk of nuclear war than START, and while DADT is a very good thing, it is a hill of beans compared to having SS and Medicare gutted.
Mnemosyne
@Rob:
Dan Choi called him “Worst POTUS in LGBT history.” Is that good enough for you?
The president was frequently referred to as a “bigot” in the comment threads right here on Balloon-Juice. Oddly, most of those same people — the ones who swore up and down that it was all just a giant kabuki game and Obama didn’t want the repeal to pass — have vanished into the ether.
Where are joe beese and Oscar Leroy when we want them?
LikeableInMyOwnWay
@Mnemosyne:
It’s really fun to watch people who have been subjected to abuse resort to abusive and counterproductive rhetoric when things go wrong for them.
Dan Choi continues to impress me as being one of the world’s up and coming assholes. No sexual pun intended. I really like Rachel Maddow, but why she fluffs this guy is beyond me. Of all the thousands of servicemen and women injured by DADT, can’t she find someone better to be a poster boy?
General Stuck
@Mnemosyne:
Hush your mouth woman. Though shall not mention the evildead out loud, lest they may return and disturb the peace.
A Humble Lurker
@Dollared:
1) How is this the Republicans’ only hope of beating Obama? Polls have shown the public wants the high end tax cuts repealed, almost no Republican does (if any of them do), and Obama can run on cutting them against his opponent.
2)You don’t think a temporary extension of those tax cuts in exchange for the mini-stimulus Obama got, plus extending unemployment benefits, plus DADT repeal, plus START which let’s us keep track of the loose nuclear material Russia’s got laying around is worth it? Well, I’m going to have to disagree with you on that one. And like I said, there’s the added bonus of heightened tensions among the Republicans, which will only hasten the inevitable schism or destruction that’s coming, which can only be good.
@Dollared:
It was the Democrats in the Senate who begged Obama to leave the tax cut vote ’til after the election. So you can’t lay that on him if that’s what you’re doing. Also, the cat food commission was supposed to have destroyed SS by now, so I’m going to wait before I start getting my panties twisted into knots over what the Exalted Seers of The Internet have to say.
LikeableInMyOwnWay
No, he can do the same thing he did two years ago: He can run on a proposal to cut them. He cannot cut them, cannot promise to cut them, has never promised to cut them, and will never promise to cut them.
Only congress can cut them, and nobody who knows the first thing about the process …. much less Obama … would make a promise that only congress can keep.
Rarely Posts
As a gay activist who has been disappointed a lot over the years, I’m definitely giving Obama some serious credit. It doesn’t mean we stop agitating for change and remaining critical when he falls short. It does mean we vote for him (and donate some time & cash) because he delivered some significant improvement.
Gwangung
@Rarely Posts: Personally, that also buys some lee way; it’s not like Obama’s strategy had nothing to offer compared to other strategies.
A Humble Lurker
@LikeableInMyOwnWay:
Uh…okay. You mean like the promise he made to get DADT repealed, and all the work he did with the top military brass to give cover to the spineless congress to vote for it?
I mean, I know congress makes laws, I’m not one of the ‘why doesn’t the President wave his magic wand’ types, but congress doesn’t make laws in a vacuum.
Besides, you’re average voter isn’t going to care about the details. They’ll just like that he’s saying he’ll cut them.
Triassic Sands
I’ll celebrate when Obama has certified the repeal and every homosexual in the armed forces is safe and any who want to join can do so openly. Right now it feels kind of like celebrating the engagement, when the marriage is what counts.