Skip to main content

View Diary: Updated: Politico on DADT: "Anti-gay contingent at DOD has not given up." Survey revealed. (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Punked? Well .. that's a nasty way of putting it (6+ / 0-)

    but yeah.

    The problem is that there is a desperation for two things .. the Democratic Party, liberals in general and supporters of the President are desperate to see that this administration can claim it's made significant progress on gay rights, without actually paying any political price or debate or animosity from the homophobic sect.  Saying they "tried" (even if they didn't try) is as good as saying they did.

    They're also desperate to be seen to be doing something without having actually done much of anything, particularly angering the entrenched military that doesn't want to really answer to civilian leadership.  There's a desire this thing really not get out of control and reveal a military that views civilian leadership as a joke.

    As we have seen this desperation on many sides -- we have had people who are normally sympathetic to LGBT rights even on this site claiming that DADT is gone or near to be gone, despite pointing out that claiming DADT is gone before people stop being discharged is dangerous, untrue and inappropriate to the people involved.

    They in the administration and in liberal circles didn't want to do anything  -- or more precisely they didn't want to fight and possibly pay a price.  They just want to say they did and wash their hands of the whole thing.  And anything that can be used as a sticking point will be.  Like falling off the edge of a cliff and grabbing onto a tuft of grass.

    Hence the survey and its nature.

    "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:50:46 AM PDT

    •  Nothing short of repeal (6+ / 0-)

      of DADT and allowing LGB members of the military to serve openly is progress on this issue. In this case "we tried" isn't enough.

      I'm sick of having my rights put up for a popular vote. We have a government that is specifically designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and that duty has all been but abdicated in the desire to keep from being held accountable.

      If you're not going to do the right thing, then get the hell out of the way so someone who is willing to do the right thing can work.

      When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

      by Cali Techie on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:22:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  EXACTLY!!!! (3+ / 0-)

        that duty has all been but abdicated in the desire to keep from being held accountable.

        You saw it well-demonstrated on Tuesday when Lingle said she vetoing equality so the people could decide by popular vote.

        No one person wants to be held accountable for denying or delivering to the gay community. Let's let people decide in the privacy of a voting booth, behind a sheet.

        Trickle down Equality isn't working

        by Scott Wooledge on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:28:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, they aren't doing the right thing. They're (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dem Beans, Cali Techie, Keori

        not going to do the right thing.  And we so can't believe they won't do the right thing, and that they're doing everything possible to avoid doing the right thing, that we're analyzing the intent of the survey, rather than seeing what it is -- which is an attempt to get the military to appear to hold its breath and turn blue and say, "but gays are icky!  I won't serve with the gay!  I won't!"

        If they had any intent of doing this they wouldn't have had this survey at all.  They wouldn't have put the shower and barracks questions in.  This is Sam Nunn all over again talking about men in submarines.

        What I predict is this:  The gay community is going to see, DADT repeal slip totally away.  Obama will issue some directive which is a further compromise that actually changes nothing on the ground again.  Liberals will claim victory; people who object to the new compromise are going to be called recalcitrant and militant.  And a consensus will emerge to wait ten years and see how this NEW compromise will work out.  And another round of STFU and wait will ensue -- for 10 years.

        I'm sorry this is unpleasant but this is what I predict will happen with the way things are going.  Because what is happening is that we're wanting to believe people have our best interests at heart and we're unwilling to say this is a total sham designed to short circuit justice.

        "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

        by AndyS In Colorado on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:35:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're more pessimistic than I am (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Richard Lyon, sfbob

          but your scenarios could well transpire.

          Trickle down Equality isn't working

          by Scott Wooledge on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:45:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I find it pretty easy to envision (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cali Techie, sfbob, Clarknt67

            it being dragged out passed the 2012 election.

            •  The only problem with that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cali Techie

              and I guess we've seen how out of touch the admin is with the LGBT community, is if discharges are still going on during his re-election campaign, that will be a real headache for him. It was the lowest hanging fruit. I don't think the community will be forgiving of the witch hunts continuing.

              Trickle down Equality isn't working

              by Scott Wooledge on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:53:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sure that the community won't. (4+ / 0-)

                I was thinking about the prospects that DADT could endure indefinitely. If they do drag it out that long, there is the possibility that we have a Republican administration in 2013 and they would certainly bury it.

                If Obama were really concerned about maintaining the support of the LGBT community he would not be proceeding as his has.

                •  I'm trying to remember --- (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AndyS In Colorado, Clarknt67

                  Didn't Obama send out a trial balloon last year that DADT would be a 'second term' issue?  I remember thinking at the time that if he did put it off, he might not win enough gay votes to get that second term - unless it was a way to box us into voting for him vs a Republican who would never repeal.  I was shocked at the cynicism.  I'm pretty sure it was about DADT, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

                  you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

                  by Dem Beans on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:04:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have lost track of all the inuendo and rumor. (3+ / 0-)

                    He is clearly putting delaying tactics ahead of conclusive action. Since there will be no magic moment when all of the parties tearfully embrace each other and march off hand in hand into the sunset, I can't easily envision an end to the delays.

                    •  Endgame. People who delay and frustrate gay (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dem Beans, Cali Techie, Clarknt67

                      rights, for whatever reason, are never unique or clever.

                      They go with what works.

                      What works for delaying for years or decades is to confuse the issue and divide the liberal base from the gay community.

                      So the best thing for Obama to do, not apparently wanting anything to change -- and if you look at the behavior of his administration, he actually does not want to undo DADT, he just wants to speak of civil rights in nice speeches that unite things for him, politically -- is to create a new compromise that looks good and that enables mainstream liberals to claim things are better, or at least wait and see, and still sleep at night.

                      What one knows about this is the good parts will not be followed, will be forgotten, while the bad parts of the new compromise will grow into rigorously enforced military policy.

                      "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

                      by AndyS In Colorado on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:21:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't recall that coming out of the WH (0+ / 0-)

                    and I'm pretty sure I would have heard that, it would have been a pretty huge disclosure and reverberated, had it actually come FROM the admin.

                    What I remember was Kerry Eleveld reporting from the Advocate and other people corroborating it, that a meeting was held 2 days after the SOTU address and Jim Messina told Joe Solomnese and other repeal advocates the Pentagon had taken Repeal off the table for the 2010 session. Follow-up reporting was that this had been a deal Obama struck with the Pentagon (in exchange for what? I don't think it was revealed.)

                    Of course, our handicapping revealed that delaying it until after the midterms, would almost certainly delay it to term two (presuming). The vote in the House did not have 40 or 50 votes to spare. It's unlikely, with a smaller majority next year, they could have made the lift.

                    Trickle down Equality isn't working

                    by Scott Wooledge on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:24:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I discussed this with a friend last night (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dem Beans, Clarknt67

                    It seems to me that we're over a barrel. While I generally find my peers to be pretty well-informed on matters political, my survey is skewed due to where I live. My friends generally think "well when the next election comes along, what the hell are we supposed to do? If we stay at home we lose automatically, and it would be insane to vote for a Republican. So we vote for Obama, albeit with far less enthusiasm than we did in 2008." I have no doubt however that there are plenty of low-information voters in our community who will vote reflexively against an incumbent without giving much thought to what the opponent is likely to do to them once in office. And that is certainly a scary scenario.

          •  DADT was originally DADTDP (4+ / 0-)

            (don't pursue).  The DP part was lost, of course, in translation, which is why the policy actually wound up being more oppressive on many measures than what came before.

            Why would we assume lessons from 1993 weren't learnt?

            Bill Clinton lifted the policy and opposition appeared among "Conservative Democrats" as well as Republicans.  With too little signs of active opposition, now opposition is literally being manufactured out of thin air.

            When you look at these questions, how many he-man military dudes actually might be uncomfortable showering with or sleeping next to someone they envision came right out of the set of La Cage Au Folles?

            The reason you ask these questions is to create discomfort, to turn comfort into actual opposition.  None of it is about soliciting actual attitudes or how it would play out in real life.  Surveys are not always innocent; their intent is not always to see a reality but are sometimes meant to create a reality that did not exist before.

            They could not magically get 1993 to happen again, so a natural and almost inevitable conclusion is, they had to find a stealthy, above-board appearing way to make it happen again.

            Then there's the actual proposal, which is not to repeal DADT at all, right down to not even changing the wording, but to put it in the hands of Mullen, Gates and Obama.

            And we know what Obama's (or his administration's, with no difference) history is with gay rights.  He has at all times wanted the appearance of being open to the gay community, but not wishing to actually give much of anything.  He wants to be able to speak in grandiloquent terms about rights for everybody and doesn't want to give that up, but when push comes to shove, you find out they in the administration did as little as possible and sometimes actually fought an advancement that would take place without them.

            So, I am not sure what part of my pessimism is unwarranted, in that it takes into account the past behavior and desires of all parties.  The liberals, too, want to claim victory on gay rights issues .. and as long as they can claim it, many don't appear to care about anything else.  As long as it's not laughable on its face to claim that and sometimes even then.  We've seen it with our own eyes, on this very blog.

            "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

            by AndyS In Colorado on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:05:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't say your pessimism was unwarranted (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AndyS In Colorado

              not at all. I think I validated it, by agreeing your scenario is entirely possible. I just said you were more pessimistic than I. I attempt to imagine there's a win possible. I have to or I'd never post another diary.

              Trickle down Equality isn't working

              by Scott Wooledge on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:25:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  FWIW, I see your posts as very valuable, even (0+ / 0-)

                with my outlook, and I don't consider myself pessimistic.  I just don't see this government nor either of the parties particularly interested in the welfare of any of the "little people" anymore.  You and I and all the rest of us, we're insects.

                But, even as an insect, I bet you give the administration heartburn ;)  We don't always serve the purpose we think we serve.

                "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

                by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 03:34:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site