Obama's new Army Secretary supports changing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[NYCGirl]

You know, the Republican that DUers are screaming about?

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obamas-new-army-secretary-supports.html

Well, here's some good news, via Kerry Eleveld at the Advocate.

At today's White House press briefing, Kerry asked Robert Gibbs about the nomination of Rep. John McHugh (R-NY), who Obama picked to be Secretary of the Army today. McHugh has indicated support for changing the DADT policy -- and, for what seems like the first time in a long time, Gibbs gave a solid response about changing that law:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of the Army, Republican Representative John McHugh, agrees with the president that "don't ask, don't tell" should be changed.

"I think it's obvious from those statements and other statements that Congressman McHugh has made that he and the President are in agreement on changing the policy that they both don't think is working for this country right now," Gibbs said in response to a question from The Advocate. "It's a priority of the president's and I think, for any number of reasons, we have a nominee that we hope can be confirmed quickly and will have -- ah, based on his background and experience -- will help to improve the lives of (inaudible).

McHugh is the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. During last summer's hearings on the military gay ban, McHugh expressed a desire to see a review of the policy and frustration that the Department of Defense and military leadership had not been more open to addressing the issue.

[Occam Bandage]

1. That should make it easier to switch, but I think it's about time we see some movement. nt

[jesus_of_suburbia]

8. Yes.. it is embarrassing that the UK, Germany, Israel, Australia (and more) have made us look bad.

Why can't we lead?

It's time to strike down the ban. The world is a different place today than it was even 15 years ago.

[Teaser]

38. You aren't going to see any movement until after the health care debate is settled

That seems to be the calculation that's been made and it seems to be paying off for them. I'd be surprised to see any action until that's over and done with.

[chill_wind]

2. K & R. n/t

[Egnever]

3. "It's a priority of the president's

WTF? No its not! Thats just crazy talk.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

9. I'm all for giving him time... as long as it happens before 2012.

[SuperTrouper]

4. It is about time! How can they keep qualified and excellent soldiers

like Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach from doing their job? It is a shame that in America we still have that policy. Nobody had any complaints about Lt. Col Fehrenbach's job until they outed him. He has many medals and honors for his bravery and dedication. I hope President Obama ends that policy.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5DCFfRgXSHzw-W-WBaO8G0_bF_wD98FF59G1

[Wednesdays]

5. K&R

:kick:

[Cha]

6. Yes! This is good news!

I saw John McHugh and Prez Obama on our local news today and caught Obama saying that McHugh agrees with him on all his policies.(paraphrasing)

[Cha]

7. This is still early in the OP but

if McHugh would be against DADT..this thread would be on fire now.

I think it should be on Fire real soon because of the good news.:)

[dionysus]

10. they're still busy bitching about the choir... give it time...

:rofl:

[Cha]

11. I shall :)

I have off and do my laundry now.:)

This really is good news..when I first read the OP I though McHugh was in favor of DADT(I thought "OH NO!" and then I read in GLBT that he was in favor of changing it, like Obama!

pinto (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-02-09 04:07 PM
Original message
Gibbs: Army Secretary Nominee Favors DADT Change (The Advocate)
I know little about the nominee, but apparently the Advocate asked Gibbs about DADT at today's WH press briefing. ~ pinto

Gibbs: Army Secretary Nominee Favors DADT Change
By Kerry Eleveld / The Advocate

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid87814.asp

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that President Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of the Army, Republican representative John McHugh, agrees with the president that "don't ask, don't tell" should be changed.

<snip>

Full text of the exchange is below:

The Advocate: On the nomination of Representative McHugh, last year, during the "don't ask, don't tell" hearings, he expressed a deep desire to move forward with a review of the policy and he said, "I would hope and encourage both the Department of Defense and the various services to reconsider the reluctance they have displayed to this point." Was a review of the policy something that the president took into consideration with this nomination and will Congressman McHugh be encouraged to move forward with talks inside the department?

Gibbs: I think it's obvious from those statements and other statements that Congressman McHugh has made that he and the president are in agreement on changing the policy they both don't think is working for this country right now. And it's a priority of the president's and I think for any number of reasons we have a nominee that we hope will be confirmed quickly and will have -- ah, based on his background and experience -- will help to improve the lives of the Army.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid87814.asp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x135626

[ruggerson]

41. A lot of gay DU'ers don't post in this forum

because they get jumped on when they do. By many of the people high fiving you in this thread.

I've always given the President credit when credit is due. I like much of what he's accomplished so far. I also criticize him when warranted. If one focuses on issues pertaining to gay equality, which a lot of us do because it affects our daily lives, there is, unfortunately, a lot to criticize lately, because our issues have not yet been addressed.

Lest you think this is confined to impatient gay DU'ers, it isn't. I talk to people at work, at the gym, at dinner - the frustration level amongst gay citizens is rising and so is the anger, some of it fueled by Prop 8. Read gay blogs, read the net - the anger is palpable.

THis is still very early in this administration. They have a chance to effect a lot of change. Hopefully, they can do this while we still have strong Democratic majorities in both houses. And hopefully Obama will begin to use the bully pulpit to accomplish what we all want to see accomplished.

[Cha]

43. You're reading into my posts again..

I'm not talking about Gay DUers at all..this is good news for us all..HELLO.

They're are a lot of people who do post in this forum who bring nothing but news to gripe about..so here's some good news for EVERYBODY!:party:

I had already been reading in GD about how "here's another republican in Obama's admin..sigh sigh sigh sigh.."

[SpartanDem]

12. Now they have the Reagan thing to be the outrage du jour

Seriously though a very good move of on his part

[redqueen]

13. Hah.

I'll just start holding my breath... NOW!

[Cha]

15. I just realized I wrote "against DADT" which is

not what I had in mind. Too late to edit..sorry.

[BlooInBloo]

26. Good news is never on fire in this forum...

Because good news is really BAD news to the people who live here.

[Cha]

27. Oh man, if McHugh had been down with

DADT..you couldn't even get in here now.

Thankfully, he's for changing it like Obama is.

Good News for everybody expcept the freeps.

[redqueen]

36. Spot fucking on.

[AtomicKitten]

28. that is the truth

I haven't posted in weeks. I just peruse headlines mostly and bookmark articles. Otherwise I find myself mired in the vitriol of those intent on presenting current events in the worst possible light according their particular mindset or ax to grind. Just the facts, mam, and I'll make up my own mind.

[Cha]

29. You're smart.

:hi:

[Number23]

30. True that. Well said.

[redqueen]

37. That's what I need to start doing.

[vaberella]

31. That is so true Cha....and what kills me is it's always the usual suspects. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Having somebody as Army Secretary who supports repealing DADT

Sounds like another brilliant "chess move" by Obama. :thumbsup:

[Cha]

16. And, a republican from upstate New York..

<snip>

“This seat is one of the best opportunities for Democrats to pursue now that McHugh out of the way,” said Reynolds, who is also a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Already we’re watching the Democrats downplay their chances but make no mistake, you can bet they’ll be as forceful as this as they were in NY 20 .”


Logistically, McHugh is leaving the Armed Services Committee at a disastrous time. The defense authorization bill was already delayed given it’s the first year in a new administration. McHugh’s departure comes one week before the defense authorization bill was scheduled to begin a markup."

Read more: "GOP Rep. John McHugh tapped as Secretary of the Army - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23225.html#ix...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Even better

Man, do he and Rahm know how to play chess! And to think, somebody here at DU once asked about what the whole "Obama-Chess" thing is about. Well, look no further than THIS!

[Cha]

20. Congressman John McHugh is all over the local news

tonight..emphasizing his service and his dedication in the Ft Drum area.

And, Prez Obama is here too saying that John McHugh has agreed with every decision their admin has made regarding the policy.

[On the Road]

17. Obama is Just Gobbling Up the Sensible Republicans

He is getting support from old school conservatives, moderates, and Nancy Reagan. In the process he is destroying what remains of the Republican party and creating a juggernaut.

I didn't believe in his centrist non-partisan "president of all the people" philosophy until seeing it in action. It is truly impressive.

[Beetwasher]

18. Yup-Brilliant Move

Kinda makes ya think he knows what the fuck he's doing!

[Cha]

21. I did believe in it after

I saw him action during the primaries.

[janx]

22. It's the way our government is supposed to operate.

The arguments between the two parties are supposed to constitute an exchange of ideas, not a food fight. We're all Americans; we just have different ideas about how things need to get done. :shrug:

[redqueen]

35. Too many here seem to want to just run roughshod over republicans...

and this party did that actually, in the 70's... not the best way to run a country.

[vaberella]

32. I guess you've joined the "choir" welcome. Personally, I'm in the band. n/t

[ruggerson]

23. Great. Let's get it repealed.

There seems to be this mystical hurdle around repealing this.

JUST DO IT.

[vaberella]

34. I don't think it's mystical.

I've seen our Senators in action and I don't bloody like it. Gitmo is a perfect example but also the credit card cap...they're fuckers. It's not about, "Just Do It." I had hoped it was that as well. However, I'm seeing that it's about building up the army to "Just Do It." It's about having that backing so that he doesn't have people turn against him when he needs to get things done.

We saw what happened when Clinton tried to, "Just Do It." and he failed, so much so we had a shitty law in place. This was the same with the banking situation that is currently affect us and yeah Clinton bares some responsibility and we also saw how HRC didn't build the army in order to get Health care through. It was easily destroyed.

If there is mysticism it's damn powerful. What O has done is to see that he needs a coalition in order to get anything done. He needs to manipulate the media, he needs to get the Repubs who he can on his side ---which could also sway those fucked up Conservadems... Once he has that he can get things through. That's what he's did for the primaries and he's doing it now.

If only it was as easy as "Just Do It." If it was, we would NEVER have gone to war in the first place. I remember the millions of people marching against it since I was one of them and it did nothing. O's trying to be smarter and it's taking time (as seems reasonable with a dirty Gov we've been left); but I think he can.

[ruggerson]

40. This is not 1993

80% of the country supports repealing this thing. 80%! If it was any other issue, it would have been done long ago with public opinion numbers like that.

This is not controversial to anyone except for some homophobic military brass. But both COngress and the Administration listen to these military brass and thus the repeal gets pushed aside. Obama has advisers, also stuck in 1993, who are telling him to avoid getting anything "gay" done in the first year, so as to avoid the media firestorm they imagine would happen.

The public will exists to do this now. This is 2009, not 1993. The world has changed.

Just. Do. It.

[vaberella]

42. It doesn't matter if it's not 1993.

A good number of the same old Politicians are still there. Or there are new ones doing the same thing. Please don't act bloody oblivious to the fact that there are people who want to stall or completely stop O's agenda. Look at the new article of the Uyghurs who were cleared for release 5 years ago and because Congress is saying there's no where for them to go although they could come to the US, they are still not released.

The public could want Lincoln to be resurrected but so far the wants of the public have been by and large ignored either by the Congress or Senate, especially in consideration of things O wants to do that they deem to be "ambitious." There's one thing in holding O's feet to the fire and there's realizing that there are other players at work who don't give a fuck. And in this case O needs to build his army base in the politicians more so than the peopele...and you need to realize that because apparently you're not seeing that.

So he's doing it. It's slow going but he's doing what he can. Further more as to your statements about his advisors telling him to avoid anything gay is pure and utter bullshit. You know that very well. O has stated in the past and ran his campaign on repealing DADT and he even stated it on his board. The only thing he sort of waffles on is using civil unions instead of the word marriage. But the man wrote a letter to judicial officials in California over prop 8 while fools on this site were quick to call him a homophobe...until the letter came out. He even spoke against prop 8 during his run in the primaries. This is not to mention an article months ago when members of LGBT groups came to the White House and met with him and he assured them he's moving on things and he'd like to know if they had any plans on pushing more legislation through the House.

So to say he's avoiding anything gay in the first year is bullshit. He even has work getting done in the Pentagon, when the Pentagon corrected their misinformed lackey. Excuse the bit of pop psychology, but what I see from you is baseless indignation b/c he's not doing the things you want him to do when you want him to do it. He's got 4 years to complete a lot of his goals and I think he's getting a lot of things done.

However, again, you choose to ignore all the damn obstacles because he's not running roughshod over the government who has thwart his initiatives left and right.

[ruggerson]

45. You're right

your pop psychology is puerile and off base. Obama himself has said many times that he expects to be pushed to do the right thing when it comes to gay rights. It's a bit like FDR's famous line "I agree with you. Now make me do it."

You act as if gay people who write the WH, write on blogs, pressure the media, stage demonstrations and marches are all purely self serving, self absorbed and impatient. Well, no on the first two and maybe on the last. They are doing what women and African Americans did before them - making themselves heard, loudly and incessantly.

I realize you don't want to believe that Obama acts out of political instinct at times instead of noble altruism, but he does. And many in Washington, including some close to him, do see gay issues as the third rail. The reason to hound Obama on these issues is because they involve a beleagured minority (hated in some quarters) and, frankly, there is not much political benefit for him to address these concerns as one of many priorities.

If he thinks about the history books, he will do the right thing. If he thinks like a purely political animal, he may err on the side of caution. We're here to make sure he acts boldly and courageously. And if that means agitating and pushing him to address our issues, so be it.

Most of us are very realistic about the time frames and how quickly we can measure progress. We have, after all, lived with being second class citizens our entire lives - it ain't some new thang.

And the anger out there is palpable. It's not just something impatient, disgruntled DU'ers came up with. I'm not saying I agree with all of it or much of it - but it is there. And growing.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/gay-leader-talks-about-sitting-out-next.html

[Cha]

44. Exactly...it's not a NIKE commercial..

it does have to be built up and set into motion with intelligence and planning. People can yell their demands all they want but it's taking careful action and the right people in place.

[Clio the Leo]

24. Slid that one in on us, didn't he? Sneaky sneaky! ;-) NT

[BlooInBloo]

25. It even got AmericaBlog to stop calling Obama a terrorist supporter for a change.

[vaberella]

33. You're kidding?! Ha! n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

39. I thought everybody knew this when he was announced

And it does make McHugh a nice choice, even if he is a Republican. In fact, that might help in reaching the goal, sad to say. Or maybe not sad, I'd just rather it be a Democrat of course.

It is great that McHugh wants to join the rest of NATO in being inclusive, and stop being alone with Turkey in the discrimination in our military. And when he helps make that happen, I will commend him without reservations. But it has not happened as yet. At this point I can support him in his stated intentions on DADT.
But try to understand, folks who have been close to this and related issues have heard much fine talk over the years, and we tend to wait for actuality before dancing under the moonlight in celebration. Given historical context, any reticence in the heaping of praise is to be expected.