Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
One of the reasons why I don't get all up in arms and don't ascribe nefarious "they're going to sell us out" motives about the Obama administration and even some members of Congress who inspire outrage among the netroots, is that on some issues where people have said "they're not doing anything!" I knew that there was stuff happening behind the scenes.
But I do think that there are signs that a lot of people miss and signs that a lot of people misinterpret. And the one-dimensional view of various public officials has led a lot of people to really shitty conclusions.
DADT Repeal
Shortly after President Barack Obama pledged Saturday to end "don’t ask, don’t tell," the Administration’s highest-ranking LGBT official said the White House is speaking with certain senators about strategies for repealing the policy—specifically Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"On ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ this administration is talking directly to the Hill—we are in direct discussions with Senator Lieberman," John Berry, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, told The Advocate.
[...]
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the repeal lobby group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said during a symposium two weeks ago that he believed a bill was only weeks from introduction.
Though Sarvis said he preferred a bipartisan track, he added, "A number of other Democrats are ready for bill introduction and I suspect we may soon have a Senate bill introduced."
The administration has wanted buy-in from the military and the Pentagon to get the votes for repeal and to smooth implementation of new policy once the repeal went into effect.
NSA Jim Jones from two weekends ago:
JONES: The president has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on.
It's never bad to have military publications advocate for DADT repeal. This article was written by someone working in Defense Secretary Gates's office, as noted in this article from September 30.
Also, the administration has been working with allies in Congress to get votes, according to Rep. Patrick Murphy who said this in July:
First, I'm meeting one-on-one with all my colleagues in Congress (especially conservative Democrats and reps in tough districts) on both sides of the aisle. Secondly, we're doing the Voices of Honor Tour going around to hit strategic congressional districts where we can most effect change. If you have an idea for additional places we should visit email me at letthemserve.com. Obviously, I'm working closely with the White House and have been having discussions with the Department of Defense.
If you want to say that the administration has been insensitive at times on the issue, fine. If you want to say they're working too slowly, fine. But if you're saying that they haven't doing anything, you're simply not stating the truth. In addition, to quote John Cole at Balloon Juice:
Now I’m sure the usual suspects will claim that the little shit fit from the last 48 hours is the driving force behind this (I’m imagining fifty self-congratulatory and misguided "SEE, THEY LISTENED" posts), but as you can see, the head of the SLDN has known for quite some time that work was underway for a repeal of DADT.
I suppose it is probably pointless to note that the people who have been most obnoxious the last 48 hours probably were also berating Obama for not knee-capping Lieberman a while back.
I hate Joe Lieberman as much as the next partisan Democrat (back when he was a Democrat, he was my least favorite Senate Dem. Now that he's an independent, Evan Bayh and Tom Carper are competing for that spot.) But I wasn't bothered by having Lieberman come back to the caucus. He's a pain in the ass, but the WH working with him on DADT repeal? Well, I'm glad the WH and Lieberman came to the detente that a lot of people in the netroots got up in arms about. It doesn't stop me from criticizing Lieberman when it's warranted, but hey, if it helps us get progressive legislation passed here and there, then, I'm not going to care if the WH works with him. And NO ONE should be surprised by the WH working with Lieberman on this or by the general arc of the moves that the administration is making on gay rights, back in June, John Berry (highest ranking openly gay official in the administration):
Our first hope is that we will get our federal house in order and ensure that no discrimination exists in the federal work place against any of the LGBT community. [Note: This presumably pertains to the fact that transgender workers are still not protected by the federal government’s nondiscrimination policy, though gay employees are covered.]
Second, we want to make sure that we get the benefits for the LGBT community that are equal to all other benefits provided to other federal employees, and where we have the authority to move forward, the president is going to be announcing something in the very near future that is going to be a very significant announcement in that regard. Where it requires legislation, we will seek and support it.
We have four broad legislative goals that we want to accomplish and legislation is one of these things where you’ve got to move when the opportunity strikes, so I’m going to list them in an order but it’s not necessarily going to go one, two, three, four. Obviously, I think the first opportunity is hate crimes and we’re hopeful that we can get that passed this week. We’re going to try, but if not, we’re going to keep at it until we get it passed. The second one ENDA, we want to secure that passage of ENDA, and third is we want to repeal legislatively "don’t ask don’t tell," and fourth, we want to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Now, I’m not going to pledge—and nor is the president—that this is going to be done by some certain date. The pledge and the promise is that, this will be done before the sun sets on this administration - our goal is to have this entire agenda accomplished and enacted into law so that it is secure.
[...]
The Advocate: Understood that "don’t ask, don’t tell" is a heavier lift, but there’s still no Senate repeal bill with which to start lobbying on and building support.
Berry: We’re going to have to - there’s a lot of good support there - [Senators] Lieberman and Collins - a lot of people, I think, are going to be willing to help. I believe that that energy is going to come together. This administration has got some really smart people, and we’re going to work together to do this right and do it in a way that’s going to last.
Again, if you want to say that the administration has been insensitive at times on gay rights, I'm not going to argue with you; in fact, I agree. If you want to say they're working too slowly, fine. But if you're saying that they haven't doing anything and that it's all talk, you're simply not stating the truth.
Now, back to the first paragraph I quoted from Cole.
Now I’m sure the usual suspects will claim that the little shit fit from the last 48 hours is the driving force behind this (I’m imagining fifty self-congratulatory and misguided "SEE, THEY LISTENED" posts), but as you can see, the head of the SLDN has known for quite some time that work was underway for a repeal of DADT.
Claims from various activists or groups that they changed the direction of legislation, were indispensable to a campaign or were the ones who pushed the WH on an issue, are sometimes valid. A lot of times, the claims are exaggerated. Frequently, claims are complete BS. Same can be applied to many accusations that the administration isn't doing anything on any given issue.
Take the Employee Free Choice Act, for example. I've read complaints since inauguration about the administration not doing anything on it or that they weren't in support, complete with denunciations of Obama's entire economic team. For one thing, the administration sounded out members of Congress on support for the issue, and there were high level officials who talked to members about supporting EFCA. (The 60 votes for cloture in the senate just weren't there.) For another, Larry Summers and the administration have been 100% on board with EFCA since at least the inauguration (probably before that). Many labor union heads and people who consult for labor do like Joe Biden, and a lot of them feel that Obama, himself, really "gets" the importance of labor. Obama at a town hall in May 2009:
One of the things that I believe in — and if you look at our history, I think it bears this out — even if you’re not a member of a union, you owe something to unions, because a lot of the things that you take for granted as an employee of a company — the idea of overtime and minimum wage and benefits — a whole host of things that you, even if you’re not a member of a union, now take for granted, that happened because unions fought and helped to make employers more accountable.
The problem that we’ve seen is that union membership has declined significantly over the last 30 years. And so the question is, why is that? Now, part of it, the economy has changed and the culture has changed, and there hasn’t been a very friendly politics in Washington when it comes to union membership.
But part of it just has to do with the fact that the scales have been tilted to make it really hard to form a union. So a lot of companies, because they want maximum flexibility, they would rather spend a lot of money on consultants and lawyers to prevent a union from forming than they would just going ahead and having the union and then trying to work with — and collectively — allow workers to collectively bargain.
So no. Not corporate sellouts. If you're really cynical and don't believe that the administration cares, then, take solace in that EFCA would probably lead to more union members (and more Democratic votes), and that you better believe the political people like the sound of that, regardless of their feelings on the policy.
Bank nationalization debate. This is not a debate of whether bank nationalization was the right or wrong policy; nor is this a defense of how Geithner's plan was rolled out or implemented. But there were a number of people who were under the impression that bank nationalization wasn't even considered or debated. Oh how wrong they were. They didn't say or leak that bank nationalization was being considered because they thought that if they did say they were considering it, that it'd exacerbate the problems at the time.
The point being here is that attributing the worst possible motives to this administration's actions or inaction is wrong. One-dimensional views of most officials in spite of evidence to the contrary is unhelpful. I'm going to avoid examples of this when it comes to the health care debate because that's the most heated of issues right now, but the same points apply.