White House congressional liaison is telling US House NOT TO VOTE on DADT this year

[Smashcut]

Joe and I were just informed that the White House congressional liaison office is telling US House members not to include the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the Defense Authorization bill, and not to have a vote on DADT on the House floor, this year. This would be at odds with the promise the President made in the State of the Union to repeal DADT this year, but it would be consistent with all other signs coming from the White House.

As you recall, Congressman Barney Frank, who is openly gay, recently said that he is "frustrated" and "disappointed" with the Obama administration's efforts (or lack thereof) to repeal DADT. Frank went on to directly criticize the lack of leadership from President Obama on this issue:

“His not being for it will give people an excuse to not vote for it. Thing is – we’ve done hate crimes. We do ENDA. It’s a big agenda all at once. At this point – the President’s refusal to call for repeal this year is a problem."

President Obama is now actually hurting the effort to get DADT repealed. He is costing us votes. And remember, we are in serious danger of losing the House to the Republicans this November. If that happens, we won't see DADT repealed, ENDA, DOMA, or any other part of our civil rights agenda move forward for years to come. Last time it took 14 years to win the Congress back from the GOP, and even then, we had to wait for a Democratic president before we could move forward - and even then, it isn't moving forward.

Our number one gay rights lobby, the Human Rights Campaign, told us that DADT would be repealed this year. You heard it directly from the mouth of HRC's President Joe Solmonese. Is HRC even talking to the White House? It's hard to believe that we were able to find out that the White House is undercutting DADT on the Hill, that Barney Frank knows it, but HRC doesn't. So what exactly is HRC doing about it? We don't need HRC going through the motions, holding ineffective "lobby days." We need HRC to tell the White House and the Hill to pass the damn repeal this year. From what we hear, that isn't happening."

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/04/white-house-congressional-liaison-is.html

[aquart]

1. Waiting till there are more Republicans in the House?

When there's no chance to dump this rotten mistake in the trash?

Should we all get up every morning and pray to the Great God Republican?

[Smashcut]

3. Exactly.

And I have little hope for any support from them next year, anyway.

What a sham.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. Yes, that is the whole point.

Haven't you figured this out yet??

This gives the WH cover in not actually doing anything to repeal DADT. They can claim they wanted it done and were working towards it (the stupid study being done -- again) but when we lose the votes in the midterm, they can throw their hands up and claim they can't do it now because (gasp!) they don't have the votes. They are clearly kicking it down the road for another administration to deal with.

[EFerrari]

2. WTF.

[Echo In Light]

8. +1

[TheWraith]

4. Yet more made-up nonsense from John Aravosis.

And factually inaccurate, claiming the President isn't for repeal when the President publicly called for repeal in his last major speech

Aravosis is an Obama-basher, plain and simple. Facts never get in his way, such as claiming an inside source for saying that the federal benefits to same sex partners was "just a political ploy."

[Smashcut]

6. Aravosis has been right too often and Barney Frank corroborates what he's saying

But typical RW loyalist tactic: don't like the truth, attack the messenger.

Meanwhile, Patrick Murphy has the co-sponsor tally up to 191 for his repeal bill. But no word from the WH on that. What does that tell you?

[EFerrari]

13. What was John's made up nonsense?

I've found him to be reliable. Have I missed something?

[laughingliberal]

45. Uncomfortable truth = Made up nonsense. nt

[frylock]

14. how's that gitmo closing working out for you?

but but but obama sez...

[Toasterlad]

19. And Yet More Head-In-the-Sand Behavior From You.

I know that in your world, Obama would have already single-handedly given gays all the same rights as straight people if every single member of Congress hadn't ganged up together and vowed to kill his family if he even considered making that a priority. And I'm sure it's fun living there.

However, in the real world, Obama promised to use the power of his position to be a Fierce Advocate for GLBT people, and he has not. He is a liar.

And the extension of federal benefits to government workers is the very definition of "political ploy". It gave them nothing of any substance: no health benefits, no pension entitlement upon decease of a loved one; nothing of any real value. It was a crass photo op that was only performed because the gays told Obama that he wasn't getting any more money until he delivered on his promises.

He's still not getting any more money.

[Bluebear]

27. It's all Aravosis' fault, says ignored!!1

Did I approximate the message?

[Toasterlad]

28. Yep, That Was Pretty Much the Gist of It

[walldude]

29. Bullshit... BArney Frank backed up this statement and questioned

why the WH would issue a statement in support of Repeal and then reneg on it.

It was stated here yesterday that the WH is claiming that this issue will be brought in 2011.

At which time the Democrats will say "but this is an election year and we can't piss anyone off" so the GLBT community will be told to wait again. It's a cute little game. Unless it's your rights being put on the backburner again.

[Bluebear]

32. + for a true progressive voice

[muffin1]

52. Is Barney Frank an Obama basher, too?

And to which speech are you referring? The one that took place SIX MONTHS ago before the impotent HRC? The one that was basically a 'preemptive strike' the day before the march on Washington?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. Am I surprised?

Not. Politics trumps all for Rahmbo and all ther other "pragmatists" in the WH.

We need to understand this: Anything that does not get done before the midterms will NOT be dealt with well afterwards. Our numbers will not be enough to push through something this important.

And we also need to understand this: the WH knows this and is OK with it.

[defendandprotect]

9. Obama/Dems need to move on DADT now -- and stop checking wind direction ....

[mitchtv]

10. I just got two requests for money ystdy

one from DSCC, another from DNC. I returned them today with this message "This GayTM is closed".

[laughingliberal]

46. I support that 100%. They need to hear that a lot. nt

[Mari333]

11. knr. not surprised anymore.

[katandmoon]

12. And the bretrayals keep on coming.

[struggle4progress]

15. Aravosis has a talent for wedge-driving

I thought the way he pushed the "blame blacks for Proposition 8" theme was quite disgraceful: the quickest look at the often-quoted CNN poll would have revealed its flaws to the laziest of observers, as was noted immediately by many folk, but Aravosis came back to it again and again in the following months

Anyone can read whosoever they like, of course, but I consider Aravosis shrill, dishonest, and self-serving

[Toasterlad]

16. And Obama Has a Talent For Breaking Promises To Gay People.

[QC]

17. Bingo! n/t

[struggle4progress]

21. Perhaps I'm dense: I've tried repeatedly to imagine how your particular approach could

possibly accomplish much, and frankly I can't see that it could accomplish anything at all -- other than perhaps convincing potential convincing potential allies to throw up their hands and seek other people to work with

The world was imperfect when we both arrived here, and it will be imperfect when we have both left: between the coming and the going, perhaps we can help fix some of the mess, but -- like it or not -- that's always been a two-steps-forward-one-step-back deal. I'd prefer to win more fights rather than fewer -- and since I'd like to do it with as few unnecessary injuries all around as possible I'd rather flank my political enemies and enfilade them than stand up shouting in their sights; and if I must to duke it out, I prefer not to waste my energy in drunken brawls amidst supposed friends

:hi:

[Toasterlad]

22. Since You Asked, Here Would Be My Approach: Suspend DADT.

75% of Americans want DADT repealled. That's what we call a mandate. That's more people than wanted Obama to be President.

So if I were in Mr. Fierce Advocate's shoes, I would suspend it, and tell Congress that it would STAY suspended until they got off their asses and stopped allowing the legal discrimination of brave men and women who are being robbed of their careers and the chance to serve their country for no other reason than that some people are bigots. And I would CONTINUE to mention that it still hadn't been repealed, until it actually IS repealled. Just like 75% of Americans want it to be.

That would be MY approach. Then again, I'm not Obama. I've got integrity. And a committment to equality.

And Obama has made it clear that he is NOT my friend, drunken brawl notwithstanding.

[Bluebear]

26. You've never been one for any brawl regarding gay rights, that's for certain.

[struggle4progress]

30. Have a lovely day

... many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat ... the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field ... Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows ... Do not linger in dangerously isolated positions ... Move not unless you see an advantage ... http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=20908&if=en

:hi:

[Bluebear]

31. Yes, when being discriminated against nothing is more helpful than Chinese snippets.

[struggle4progress]

40. Because you couldn't learn anything from a Chinese classic? Or because

you don't think Politics is war carried on by other means? Or you don't like the idea that, when engaged in a struggle against conservatives in the Pentagon, one might do well to try to imagine their view of the world in order to have a better prospect of winning?

[Forkboy]

42. Oh for fuck's sake.

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

44. Believe me, the only person here who thinks is clever is you. Sheh-sheh.

[Toasterlad]

48. "Move not unless you see an advantage"

75%

How much more of an advantage does Obama the Chinese warrior need?

At some point, waiting for an advantage becomes cowardice, and we are well past that point.

[Bluebear]

54. Human rights relegated to an episode of Karate Kid.

Can you believe it?

[laughingliberal]

47. +1000 nt

[FLAprogressive]

18. More fierce advocacy from the white house.

[amborin]

20. unacceptable stalling

[Bluebear]

39. +

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. If this is true

Is there still any reason that Congress can't move forward on repeal even if the WH strategy says otherwise???? Is the WH going to veto a repeal of DADT if it gets passed by Congress? Or are the Dems just going to follow the WH on this issue? I don't get this idea that Congress only acts on issues if the WH is jumping down their throats about it? :shrug: Congress isn't SUPPOSED to simply be a "rubberstamp" or act as an enabler for POTUS (or for that matter ONLY act when the President says to). Isn't that what happened with Bushco and we (rightly) didn't like it much as I recall. :shrug:

[Toasterlad]

25. Of Course Congress COULD Move Forward With It. But They Won't.

The White House asked Rep Alcee Hastings to withdraw legislation to cut off funding for DADT. This was back in Jul 09. And Hastings did it. Because the office of President carries weight. And the President could use that weight to push for a repeal of DADT, or he could use it to oppose a repeal of DADT. Despite his promises, Obama is using his weight to keep gay people from serving openly in the military. And Congress will follow his lead on it, because individual Congressmen know that it would be difficult ot push this through if Obama is against it.

Obama wouldn't veto it if it came across his desk (at least, I don't THINK he would...frankly, I'm hesitant to say at this point just how far this President is willing to throw us under the bus). But it won't get to his desk as long as he's pushing against it, and he knows it.

[dsc]

24. If this is true it is utterly unacceptable

If DADT isn't repealed in this Congress it won't be for at least a decade.

[johnaries]

33. Once again, "I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who...

Let's be honest, this is a very sensitive issue that has to be dealt with intelligently and, yes, sensitively. Obama has to deal with lots of resistance within the military itself. If he just passed an Executive Order repealing it without the proper groundwork it would fail because - like it or not - there are still plenty of people who would love to see it fail and would do everything they could to undermine it. Then, it would be reinstated and each future effort to repeal it would be undermined by the argument "hey, we tried repealing it before and it didn't work!"

We must repeal it, but we must repeal it the RIGHT WAY if we want to make sure it stays repealed. Not just during Obama's term, but FOREVER.

In case you haven't noticed, Obama isn't playing for the short-term easy win. He's playing to win the war, not just the current battle.

And, that takes time and planning, and laying down the proper preparations.

Fuck the rumor mills.

[Bluebear]

34. Gee, John, tell us what's so "sensitive" about this? 'Fuck' waiting.

This is no "rumor", it has been verified by Barney Frank.

He's the CIC, 'fuck' the resistance from the military.

"Once again": This is about kicking the can down the road, and if not now, it will be many years.

[QC]

35. Clearly you do not appreciate googledimensional intergalactic chess.

Isn't it funny how some have turned on John Aravosis. He was one of the first of the big bloggers to endorse Obama. He all but banned supporters of any other candidate from his site. He sang Obama's praises for months. All that is forgotten now, though, since he has ventured some criticisms. It's all "JOHN ARAVOSIS NEVER REALLY LOVED HIM ANYWAY!1!!!!1"

[Bluebear]

36. We must repeal it THE RIGHT WAY!!!11

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch.

[riderinthestorm]

37. A good first move would be to suspend personnel firings pending review

That move would mean that current LGBT personnel can still serve while the process plays out. It also means the military gets a chance to experience open service personnel - while discovering it's no big fucking deal.

Win-win.

But Obama can't even do this. This move would be both a short-term easy win, and play to the long run.

Nope, instead he's gonna throw this one into the bleachers right now and hope no one comes down to put the ball back into play before 2012.

It's despicable.

Aravosis isn't some newbie on the Washington scene. If he says he has info, I believe him. He's got cred by me.

[bullwinkle428]

38. Harry Truman said "Fuck the haters", and rammed integration

of the military through, without all kinds of delicate triangulation! I'm guessing public support was not nearly as high as 75% back then, either!

[Bluebear]

41. Thank you.

[Kaleva]

55. It took several years and wasn't completed till Ike was President.

[Smashcut]

43. Oh I'm sorry for being INSENSITIVE to you.

It's only peoples goddamn CAREERS that are being destroyed. But they're only gay people, so their lives and livelihoods are secondary to straight homophobes' "sensitivities." We must make sure every last putatively hetero douchebag with sexual insecurities is soothed and tucked into bed (separate sleeping quarters from the predatory gays, naturally) before we can move forward with reversing a prejudicial and destructive policy
that defies all rationality. And which
3/4 of the nation is against.

Got it.

[muffin1]

50. Unbelievable, isn't it?

I would bet everything I have that these discrimination apologists are able to serve in the military and - gasp! - get married. All gay people want is EQUAL FUCKING RIGHTS, not SPECIAL rights (fuck, I hate that term).

I am really unclear why homophobes and homophobe defenders are allowed to continue posting here. If these issues involved black people or women, and posters were defending the discrimination, they would be gone in a heartbeat, guaranteed.

[Toasterlad]

49. So, First You Insinuate the Story's Not True, And Then You Go On to Make Excuses As Though It Were

Something tells me that you don't give a shit about repealing DADT, and that you're pretty much only concerned with making excuses for the Homophobe in Chief.

[theHandpuppet]

51. Bingo!

You know there's always a few who will jump in to make sure we aren't popping our heads out from under that bus.

[Bluebear]

53. Exactamundo,