Skip to main content

View Diary: Sept 20th, 2011: A Kossack's History of DADT Repeal. Part II. (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am curious about this: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, cooper888, EdSF, musing85, lineatus
    Admin... fired up repeal advocates on the third side.
    I can honestly say, I don't remember admin using the energy of the grassroots to their own advantage. The meetings they had with LGBT orgs were closed door at the White House and in fact the lead org SLDN was locked out of negotiations in 2009. They seemed to be invited back to the fold as the bill's passage drew near. (Also about the time that their lockout was made public by Aubrey Sarvis at Michelangelo Signorile's LGBT Town Hall.)

    But White House never initiated any action items. At best they were ignoring, not engaging the LGBT community, if not fighting repeal grassroots throughout the whole time.

    This added to the frustration IMO, in that for most of it, the LGBT community was not included, save for Joe Solomnese and HRC, who have dubious credibility with many in the community.

    Which is not to say DADT is unique. We've seen in health care, tar sands and other battles the admin keeps it's distance from "the people" and seems to prefer to negotiate behind closed doors.

    "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."--Margaret Mead 

    by Scott Wooledge on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 11:41:33 AM PDT

    •  I didn't mean to imply that the admin was using (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cooper888, musing85

      activists to some advantage, merely that the administration was getting different kinds of pressure from all sides.

      Although I do vaguely recollect the notion floating around that the adminstration kind of got the whole idea that if the SASC campaign failed, advocates were going to be unbelievably pissed.  Whether they cared or not who knows?

      •  I guess saying that the administration was (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cooper888, musing85, llbear

        'negotiating' with activists is a stretch.  Although I would assume some kind of indirect messaging had to be taking place, possibly through very-pro-repeal Senators on the committee.

        This is why it's not really history; it's my own recollections of how things seemed to happen.  You, undoubtedly, have a slightly different take, and those elsewhere have, I'm sure, vastly different takes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (139)
  • Community (67)
  • Elections (40)
  • Environment (38)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Media (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Education (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Science (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site