Skip to main content

 title=The Atlantic's  Marc Ambinder attempted on Friday to paint a picture of activists opposing military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy as being overheated "conspiracy theorists" that were really just upset over nothing. The piece purports to weight the claims of don't ask don't tell activists against the plans of the administration (as relayed through Ambinder) to give "the inside story."  

It is not a good piece of journalism, nor does it make any serious attempt to address the substantive  concerns of don't ask, don't tell activists. Instead the piece cherry picks complaints and offers red herrings in an attempt to discredit and dismiss what are very reasonable concerns and objections to the direction the administration is heading. Ambinder fills space by giving unnecessary attention to minor sideshow issues, to distract from key facts that present reasonable cause for concern among repeal advocates.

Most disappointing was the credulous reception his piece received. Ana Marie Cox, a pundit I've grown to admire for her ability to see progressive issues in sharp focus, called it "smart." She's wrong, it is not smart.

I saw the article touted in this communityas some sort of definitive last word. I was glad to see many of the commenters recognized the folly of accepting Ambinder's claims and reporting at face value—as the diarist did—given Ambinder's history. To recap, Ambinder previously claimed, even faced with direct evidence to the contrary, that leftists were wrong to suggest George W. Bush would play politics with terror alerts. That column quickly prompted both Glenn Greenwald and Marcy Wheeler to unceremoniously eviscerate him. (See: "Fringe leftist losers: wrong even when they're right" and "Ambinder: Sorry I Was So Stupid, But I Was Right To Be Stupid.") I would have hoped a history as a Bush apologist and progressive scold would have earned his punditry a little skepticism, particularly from the left and in matters of authoritarian deference.

Aside from the author's history, there are serious problems with the piece itself. Within hours of posting, the piece was riddled with corrects, clarifications and walkbacks, calling into question Ambinder's actual expertise to speak to the subject. And if one is seeking to get a balanced picture of the story, it is as fair and balance as a Fox News segment. Engaging in lazy, rhetorical dismissal, Ambinder describes activists as conspiracy theorists no less than four times, which we all recognize as punditry short hand for "Koo-Koo."

Ambinder also picks and choose the facts he'd like to present, as most befitting his narrative. The bulk of the piece is devoted to sideshow attractions, such as the unusual incident in Lafayete Park,and dredging up some old history between LGBT community and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, while paying no attention to actual legislative and strategic concerns that activists having been working to draw Congress, the White House, the press and the public's attention to.

For example, Ambinder makes no mention of the previous day's revelationthat Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemember's Legal Defense Network(SNLD) has been locked out of legislative repeal strategy meetings for over a year. SLDN is the oldest, most experienced and most credible LGBT lobbying group and legal authority on the military's DADT policy. From their website:

Founded in 1993, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has become a widely regarded expert on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on open service and other policies and issues impacting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender service members, including anti-gay harassment, issues impacting service members living with HIV/AIDS, regulations regarding transgender service personnel and policies and laws impacting same-sex military families. SLDN has answered more than 7,600 requests for assistance and effected more than three dozen changes in Pentagon policy.

The administration is certainly free to pick and choose who it wants to talk to. But one would hope they'd respect the LGBT veteran community's opinion of who best speaks on their behalf, and the consensus would surely be that it's SLDN. So it certainly doesn't make DADT activists conspiracy theory nuts to be concerned that SLDN is not in the loop. (Think of it as akin to reproductive choice legislation proceeding without input from NARAL.) One might be doubly concerned if one looked at the peculiar coincidence of the timingof when the group stopped receiving invitations to meetings.

 title=Ambinder's use of DADT advocate Lt. Dan Choi as the voice of the movement is an egregious example of a shameful and intellectually dishonest tactic. Though self-appointed, Choi has emerged as a excellent spokesperson for the DADT activists. Though many may know him only for his headline-grabbing demonstrations, in truth, he's dedicated his time to real grassroots activism as well, touring the country, speaking at colleges and rallies and making media appearances. And he's proved himself a remarkably good spokesperson for the movement, speaking thoughtfully, passionately and at great depth, showing a firm grasp of the policies and politics involved. If Ambinder wanted to present Choi as speaking for the repeal movement, Dan is a good choice, and there's a wealth of material from which to draw. Sadly, Dan Choi's voice in the piece appears only in the form of one, perhaps ill-advised tweet he sent to Twitter.

If Ambinder is ever inclined to grant Choi more than 140 characters to make his case, I'd advise him to look at what Choi said in Newsweek interview:

We all know the political reality now. The only way for the repeal to go through is for the president to take leadership and put it in the Defense Authorization Bill. There's a sunset on this, and it's happening quickly.

This is the key point of contention, one that Choi has made many times in interviews and speeches and writings. Also one Ambinder does not address at all. This is the heart of what is driving LGBT and DADT activists fierce sense of urgency:

There's a sunset on this, and it's happening quickly.

Ambinder declares with certainty that:

Senate will vote on a repeal either in the rump session of Congress late in 2010 or early in 2011.

But DADT activists that are fired up—and I'm sure Dan Choi himself—recognize that this as a facile claim.

By that time frame, the legislative window for including it in the 2010 military spending budget will have closed. Folding it into the military budget (the same process the law was first enacted) makes it virtually impossible to filibuster. Neither Ambinder nor the administration has addressed, very real-world concerns about how,—absent millitary defense budget inclusion—the bill will be able to pass the Senate? Democrats are sure to lose seats in the midterms, making the vote harder. Passing it in "late 2010 or early 2011" (and it's a big difference between the two) seems unworkable. A stand alone bill in the Senate will be stopped by filibuster. Tasked with finding a supermajority, we are far more likely to lose conservative Democrats than we are to pick up "liberal" Republicans. There's confusion and speculation, but Sen. Scott Brown  is on record as opposing repeal.

 title=It isn't only the gay people who are concerned. Repeal bill sponsor Senator Mark Udall from Colorado, said just four days days ago:

The Pentagon is studying how to implement an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and while I agree that is a necessary step, I also believe strongly that we must repeal it this year.  I will continue to work with other senators to ensure that the repeal is included in the Defense Authorization bill, which will be marked up in the Senate Armed Services Committee next month.   But we still face an uphill battle, and we will need a bipartisan push to clinch this urgent effort.  

This was always the plan, fold it into the Defense Authorization Spending bill. It was the plan that Barney Frank stated in November 2009, it was the plan that Mark Udall himself enunciated to this communityon March 3, 2010:

The plan is to include it in the Defense Authorization Bill. As a member of Armed Services Committee, I will play a major role in the first part of the process before the bill makes it to the Senate floor.

The White House is in disagreement with that plan. We activists do not hate the President. We worked for him. We donated to him. We voted for him. We merely disagree that the administration is charting a plan that will succeed, and are seeking to change his mind. This is even harder to do when your lobbying group isn't invited to talks. We agree with Lt. Choi and Senator Udall's assessment of the situation. Ambinder's piece, from it's divisive headline to it's focus on personalities not policy is just a smokescreen to obfuscate the message activists are trying to put into the public discourse about DADT: Put it in the next military budget in the next 30 days.

That can't happen with Ambinder's timeline of late 2010 or early 2011. And he, like so many others, totally ignores the legislative reality of what that means.

That window will close in the next 30 days. That is the driving force behind DADT repeal activism at this time. It is not that they are overheated, conspiracy theorists who are worrying about nothing. They are worried about the goal posts being moved and into terrain that is potentially very, very damaging for the chances of this repeal to become a reality in the near future. If the House is lost in November—not out of the realm of possibility—repeal will be off the table for years. There is no good reason for delaying what everyone agrees is inevitable.

Activists have placed a perfectly reasonable offer on the table: vote in 2010 for repeal, with a delayed implementation until after the Pentagon study is complete in December. The law can be sunset for sometime in 2011, accommodating White House and Pentagon wishes to wait for the results of the repeal implementation study. The major LGBT lobbying groups including Human Rights Campaign,Servicemembers Unitedand the Servicemembers Legal Defense Networkhave indicated they are amendable to such a compromise. And my sense is, the grassroots will be too.

CALL TO ACTION: Our task is to convince the Senate to assert themselves and work independently. Repeal is in their hands alone. Activists have identified six key members of the Senate Armed Services Committee we'll have to lean on extra hard to make repeal happen in 2010: Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, Robert Byrd and Scott Brown, their contact information is below.The only pragmatic strategy for repeal this year is for the Senate Armed Services Committee (listed below) to attach it to the military spending budget.

Technically, yes, Congress can do whatever it wants. But only if 15 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee agree to let them. The fate of DADT repeal in 2010 lays in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Originally posted to Scott Wooledge on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:16 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Call to Action List (10+ / 0-)

      The following is contact information for the 11 Crucial Senators on the Senate Arms Services Committee.(See like to jpassar's diary on why these are essential votes.) They are handicapped according to their likliehood of supporting repeal. SP denotes sponsor, ++ on the record support, + positive indicator, etc... Please thank supporters too, we don't know how many cons may be working the other side.

      MARK BEGICH (++)

      202-224-3004 email
      907-271-5915  907-456-0261  907-586-7700
      Peterson Tower, Suite 750, 510 L St, Anchorage, AK, 99501


      202-224-5941 email
      303-650-7820  719-471-3993  970-356-5586  970-245-9553
      999 18th St, Suite 1525, North Tower Denver, CO 80202


      202-224-4041 email
      One Constitution Plaza 7th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103

      TED KAUFMAN (??)

      202-224-5042 email
      302-573-6345  302-424-8090
      1105 N. Market St., Suite 2000, Wilmington, DE 19801-1233

      BILL NELSON (??)

      202-224-5274 email
      1-888-671-4091   305-536-5999   813-225-7040   850-942-8415
      US Court House Annex 111, North Adams Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301

      DANIEL AKAKA (+)

      202-224-6361 email
      808-522-8970   808-935-1114
      300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 3-106, Box 50144, Honolulu, HI 96850

      ROLAND BURRIS (sp)

      202-224-2854 email
      312-886-3506  Phone: 217-492-5089  309-736-1217  618-529-7471
      607 East Adams, Suite 1520 Springfield, IL 62701

      EVAN BAYH (??)

      202-224-5623 email
      317-554-0750  812-465-6500  260-426-3151  219-852-2763
      1650 Market Tower, 10 West Market St., Indianapolis, IN 46204


      202-224-2523 email
      207-622-8414  207-945-0417  207-780-3575
      One Canal Plazam, Suite 802, Portland, ME 04101

      SCOTT BROWN (+)

      202-224-4543 email
      2400 JFK Federal Building, 55 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203


      202-224-6221 email
      313-226-6020  906-789-0052  989-754-2494  616-456-2531
      107 Cass Street Suite E Traverse City, MI 49684-2602


      202-224-6154 email
      573-442-7130   816-421-1639   314-367-1364
      5850 A Delmar Blvd, Ste. A,  St. Louis, MO 63112

      KAY HAGAN (++)

      202-224-6342 email
      1-877-852-9462   336-333-5311   919-856-4630    704-334-2448
      701 Green Valley Rd,  Suite 201,  Greensboro, NC 27408

      BEN NELSON (-)

      202-224-6551 email
      402-391-3411  402-441-4600  402-209-3595  308-293-5818
      7602 Pacific St. Ste 205 Omaha, NE 68114


      202-224-5521 email
      800-443-8658   505-346-6601
      Suite 130, 625 Silver Avenue, SW, Albuquerque, NM 87102

      JACK REED (++)

      202-224-4642 email
      800284-4200   401-943-3100   401-528-5200
      000 Chapel View Boulevard, Suite 290, Cranston, RI 02920

      JIM WEBB (?? )

      202-224-4024 email
      804-771-2221   276-679-4925   757-518-1674   540-772-4236
      507 East Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23219

      ROBERT BYRD (-)

      202-224-3954 email
      304-342-5855  304-264-4626
      300 Virginia Street, East Suite 2630, Charleston, WV

      202-224-5972 email
      803-933-0112  864-250-1417  803-366-2828
      508 Hampton Street, Suite 202, Columbia, SC

      Trickle Down Equality isn't working

      by Scott Wooledge on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:17:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good post. (6+ / 0-)

      I did a diary on Jeremiah you might like.

      Kossak Jeremiah Frei-Pearson Announces Candidacy Tonight

      Pooties and Woozles unite; you have nothing to lose but your leashes!

      by TomP on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:18:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  of note (7+ / 0-)

    We had a visit at my firm this morning from a Democratic member of House Armed Services.  He predicted that DADT repeal would not be included in the base defense authorization bill, that Cong. Patrick Murphy would introduce DADT as an amendment on the floor, and he wasn't sure how that vote would go.

  •  Today our President has (4+ / 0-)

    launched an effort to reengage voters on FB. If you can meander over there and provide some encouragement to gain his advocacy to end these apartheid practices Barack Obama Vote 2010.

  •  Thanks for doing diaries like this. (5+ / 0-)

    Given how infuriatingly slow my internet is, I can't grind through most of the internet to mill out all the news I'd like to, so being able to read diaries like this here that compile lots of various facts and sources and the like is very nice.

  •  nice take on the subject (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and you've done a great job of criticizing the administration while still being respectful and policy-oriented.

    The compromise you reference at the end seems like a no-brainer. I really don't get (presumably) Obama's reasoning or purpose with their DADT actions. DADT is the most harmful, dickish policy affecting LGBT people. Its one thing to delay marriage, but it seems irresponsible to allow another year of careers ruined and forced professional lying.

    I hear gardening is a nice hobby.

    by SeanF on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:10:38 AM PDT

  •  Well done. Tipped and Rec'd. N/T (3+ / 0-)
  •  Excellent diary, thank you. (3+ / 0-)

    I don't see why everyone couldn't support the repeal + delayed implementation strategy, given that it accommodates everyone's demands.  ... Then again, knowing how politics works, the fact that it accommodates everyone's demands might be why it'll never happen, heh. </cynicism>

    But seriously, I like this, and thanks for the action list.  We need more diaries to push us into activism instead of just passively chatting about it on the site.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:51:37 AM PDT

  •  Logged in solely to recommend this diary. (5+ / 0-)

    I don't think most Democratic Party boosters understand just how important it is to get ENDA passed or DADT repealed this year (I would include DOMA as one of the options, but that just ain't happening).

    I have stopped listening, really, to Daily Kos much or most of the time.  I don't really care, so I do what Obama/Democratic boosters would have me do -- which is to at least largely be silent.  I don't intend to vote for Democrats in November.  I will probably try to find alternatives for all my votes, but the entire party and all its members seeking election/re-election are getting my wrath, not just one or even the putative "responsible" ones on this or that issues, inasmuch as we know that the Democratic Party plays Villain-du-jour when it comes to the issues.

    Just me saying this on Daily Kos is troll-baitable and practically meaningless, but repealing a DADT or passing an ENDA would go a long way toward changing my mind.  It would cool that wrath and I'll be quite honest -- it would make me reconsider.

    All this means nothing in the rhetorical flambe-fest that is Daily Kos, so I don't bother.

    But, GOTV operations among the Democrats will be starting up in a short period of time, and when the Democratic Party or its agents come knocking at my door, the first thing I'm gonna say is, well, I just don't have the votes, and that electing Democrats takes time.  I expect to have a lot on my plate in November.  And then I'll be politely closing the door or putting down the phone.  I don't need them, they need me, when it comes to re-election.

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

    by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:25:40 AM PDT

    •  Well, I suppose that presumes (3+ / 0-)

      I don't think most Democratic Party boosters understand just how important it is to get ENDA passed or DADT repealed this year

      There nonchalance is ignorance and not apathy. I'd say it's a little of both.

      Trickle Down Equality isn't working

      by Scott Wooledge on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:30:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh I'm way past that. It's neither, at least at (4+ / 0-)

        the highest levels.  It's cynically playing with social issues for political gain.  It's neither ignorance nor apathy -- it's trying to keep an issue alive or more accurately a set of issues alive because passing the so-called "gay agenda" in toto would kill the issue totally.

        The Democratic Party's calculation is, the longer they can demagogue on the issue, the better politically.  If the fight is won, 3 or 5 years hence, nobody, not even conservatives, would understand what the big deal ever was -- and those people would still not vote Democratic.

        And, it's not just us.  Women who care about choice are played with in an equally heinous manner.  Just look at the degree to which abortion was allowed to become a political football in the health care debate.

        It's this political playing at the highest levels that have really stoked me, anger wise.  The apologia for it is just whipped cream on top.

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

        by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:37:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We have to play games too (5+ / 0-)

          Notice the different reception Pam's rec list diary got from mine. And people have to actually ask good heckling the President does? I've noticed a pattern when I post on LGBT issues, if you include Obama, people notice, even if it's as a foil. If you don't, they ignore it.

          Mark my words, I'll try reposting this diary verbatim with the headline "MA is a stupid DADT apologist for Obama" and see what happens.

          Trickle Down Equality isn't working

          by Scott Wooledge on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:46:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, the expectation is, "this'll work". (5+ / 0-)

            I believe most of the Obama supporters on this site are just Obama supporters and they have a schtick.  There's nothing nefarious about it, it's a difference of opinion in that Obama, to them, is the Way, the Truth and the Light.  And so, everything else is secondary to that Obama support.  That is, anything meaningful -- not just us.  The schtick is always the same, whether it's social issues like gay rights, health care, financial reform, anything.

            Inasmuch as political issues with DADT and other things, the real fight is over what Aravosis calls "political homophobia."  It's a basic disagreement, and people really get riled up when they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar. ("What, who, me?  You're a radical, I'm pure as the driven snow!  Troll!")

            The Obama/Democratic Way (and to be quite honest, it would be a mistake just to make this about Obama personally) is, spew high minded lofty statements of intent and purpose when there's nothing on the line, delay, dissemble, and obfuscate when there is.

            Framed another way, I suppose (that is, if I cared to sally forth to an Obama supporter in real life, inasmuch as they don't have an "HR" button there), it would be unworthy of a President to give speeches making support, and then have one's minions skulk around in the background sabotaging.  Not just not moving forward and not doing anything - actively sabotaging.

            In this I believe the President is listening to centrist third way advisors such as Rahm Emanuel.

            But if one wants to kill this mindset, this political homophobia, deader than if one sprayed a cockroach with RAID, such a cynical philosophy whispered in the President's ear has to sting.  A lot.  And, not just for him.

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

            by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:59:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Please don't post it with that headline. The (0+ / 0-)

            English language is expansive enough for you to achieve your goal without antagonizing the friends you will need in your fight.

            Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

            by JoanMar on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok, well I wasn't going to post any diary at all (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clarknt67, Liberalindependent28

              -- that was Clark and I know you were directing your comments at him.

              But just for the record, and, meant civilly, what I just said, more or less is, no, I don't need you.  You may say that in all good intent, but it isn't true and I'll tell you why.

              I have stopped looking for meaningful support for GLBT issues from those who personalize Obama support for Obama in either way (negative or positive).  Or the Democrats and for this type of thing it just makes no difference.

              Because what I have concluded is any support for GLBT issues for those who make it about the president or the party as opposed to the issues themselves is, with all due respect, utterly meaningless.

              You might rhetorically "support" gay rights, but I believe what you will do is defend and support what Obama and the Democrats will do.  That's your choice.  And so to dangle it in front of gay people like a carrot that gains anything is a mirage.  It's rhetorically neutral.  I think you are coming from a place where you think yourself honest and you mean well, but, I would disagree that I or anyone else who cares passionately about the issue "needs" you.

              Because there's nothing to either gain or lose.  Like most uninterested Democrats who have a completely other agenda, I believe you wouldn't move in either event - you will still say good things about gay rights in a vacuum, and find a way to support and defend the things the President and the Democratic Party do whenever there's action to be taken, regardless.

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

              by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:58:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Our friends have abandoned us. (3+ / 0-)

              Trickle Down Equality isn't working

              by Scott Wooledge on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:10:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  By the way, were Clark to "antagonize" you, are (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clarknt67, Liberalindependent28

              you actually hinting that this would affect your support or lack of support in a negative way for GLBT rights in general?

              Clark is just one gay person.  So his antagonizing you means something to you as far as the overall issue is concerned?  Are you actually saying you would gain or withhold support for the basic human rights of an entire class of people based on if one gay person wrote something about it that pissed you off?

              Antagonizing friends who he needs?  So you would punish or just not support an entire class of people based on if one member of the group made you upset?

              That is far, far worse than simply withholding support to a political party, if true.

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

              by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:14:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You just said you didn't need me or my support, (0+ / 0-)

                and then you ask whether Clark's attitude would be the deciding factor in my supporting you.
                The dilemma is yours, it would seem.
                I am not going to get in a quarrel with you...not this morning.
                BTW, I could care less what you think therefore I do not have to justify myself to you one way or the other. Gosh, I am so tempted...

                Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                by JoanMar on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:43:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Should have said, "not today..." (0+ / 0-)

                  Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                  by JoanMar on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:43:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Shrug. I'm not Clark. But I thought I might (0+ / 0-)

                  take a moment to give an alternate perspective.  Since you're here and I'm here.

                  I've stopped talking to people who are all about Obama at all (with yes this one exception) or organization based ideology based group politics as the primary driver.  

                  I have given up and come to the conclusion that you will do what you will do.  To me, your hearts (plural, not personal) are hard and it's all about political support.

                  The past has shown us (that is, all us GLBT people) that political support, given freely, is ignored and taken for granted.  We give political support, we are ignored.  Bitch and we are lectured to as if we are children, told that we are whining and wanting a pony.

                  So, our hearts have to grow hard in turn.

                  If what is wanted to do is find a way to condescend to gay people and make them subservient to related but not necessarily consonant political demands, well, mission accomplished, but if that makes one feel good, I've concluded that people can do it without me.  It's obnoxious, though.  It's homophobic, and irritating enough to make some people give up and say, "whatever, go away".  And I mean that as a phenomenon and as a syndrome.  

                  To dangle other issues and expected support for singular people and personalities and political parties like a carrot using openly suggested homophobia (like making things about an entire class of people in exchange for something else one wants), the price is too high.  For me, anyway.  I will not eat shit to please some person dangling a hallucinogenic carrot at me for a reward.  

                  If I need someone, that need is not high enough to make me cringe and say, "yes, ok, I'll do whatever you want, just support us".  Because it's craven.

                  I'll do without your support if that is the price -- that I and every other member of a suspect class has to please you as the price.  I'll stop talking to you totally.  And less this small exception, that's exactly what I've done.  And I'd suggest every other gay person on God's Green Planet Earth do the same.  We will make progress when we are no longer treated like children and rewarded with beads and trinkets.  

                  Just my general philosophy.  Not to say all or even most gay people agree, us being, you know, very different people.

                  Now, of course, I have to (as if I have to paint an obvious picture as if finger painting with colors) I'm not Clark.  Gay people are all different.

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

                  by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:58:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Look, I can empathize with you. At first glance, (0+ / 0-)

                    your words annoy me - really they do. But I think your feigned nonchalance probably is a mask for pain and as a black woman, I know a lot about pain.
                    So, once again, no quarrel today.
                    And I am going to look about dinner so bye for now.

                    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                    by JoanMar on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:05:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, yeah, there is pain. But what I'd ask for (0+ / 0-)

                      and suggest of ALL Obama supporters and not just you is to separate the issues.

                      If gay people thrash Obama on his gay rights record, we have good reason.  I do my best to separate the issues and not make it all about him.  Try to depersonalize it, because, God knows, I have.

                      But I do not like language and verbiage that hints at being mafioso about it.  "It would be good for you to support Obama if you want gay rights to move forward -- how are the husband and kids?  Do they still live at  1130 Marbury Lane?"

                      Now, probably that wasn't the intent.  But I hear enough of it to make my blood boil.  I don't like the language, however intended, and with very good reason.

                      Support for GLBT rights among liberals by now, should be unconditional.  It's not about what we should have to do for Obama or anyone else in exchange for our rights.

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

                      by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:13:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  And just to show how idiotic your argument is: (0+ / 0-)

                I love my sister. I would die for her and you dare not say a negative word about around her as she adores me. We still disagree and disagree vehemently about issues.
                I even disagree with my children, if you can believe it.
                Annoying and idiotic.

                Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                by JoanMar on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:48:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, Joan, I only go off what you write. (0+ / 0-)

                  English language is expansive enough for you to achieve your goal without antagonizing the friends you will need in your fight.

                  Saying "you will need in your fight" is effectively a warning, read a certain way.  Toe the line and we will support you.  If not .... (and let that dangle).

                  So, no, it's not idiotic to read what you wrote and then ask what you meant.

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

                  by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:00:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are really reaching. I meant no such thing. (0+ / 0-)

                    I am forever ticked off at some in your community on here but that has nothing to do with the principles.
                    I treat you like I treat everyone else. Isn't that what you'd want me to do?

                    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                    by JoanMar on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:10:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, I'm not reaching. Because we hear it so much (0+ / 0-)

                      and so often.  Try to understand I'm making it about the tactic, which the kindest appellation I can put on it is vaguely thuggish (I'm restraining myself) and not all about you.  You may not have meant it to be that way, but what I'm saying is there's a time and a place to gather support for Obama and for a non-GLBT person, with connection to those issues is not it.

                      Because if you make my human rights connected to Obama's political fortunes, or lack thereof, the kindest thing I want to do is slam the door in your face.

                      Coupling political ideology of some kind with gay civil rights (or the suggestion of same) should not be done by a non-gay person.  At all.  That is, if you want to appear to some as sincere and not looking for something in exchange for that which should be automatic.

                      The proper thing to say, whenever someone is supporting gay rights, especially for someone who purports to support gay rights is, "I support them too."

                      Period, the end.  For non-gay liberals (and even for professed non-liberals who care about human rights), it's not about Obama or what gay people say about Obama or anything else.  Or it shouldn't be.  

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

                      by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:26:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And I'd to think, there's more than just me. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        I'm saying something right now to indicate that I've been watching this travesty (as a phenomenon) as a bystander and I've broken my silence just this once.

                        There are a lot of GLBT people who are increasingly not going to put up with this conditional shit (or perhaps just inartfully worded sentiments to that effect) much longer.

                        It's not about us driving you away.  It's about Obama supporters who may be well meaning .. driving us away in increasing numbers.  I'm just someone who chose to break silence on it, and only for a second.  You aren't going to know when the gay populace as a whole abandons YOU all (as we have been abandoned).

                        There is a stealth population that is increasingly disenfranchized and pissed off... and we're not listening any more.  We don't want to hear it, anymore.

                        It will be silent and it will come in the form of political defeat.  I owe you, and you all, NOTHING.  If you want MY political support, then support for my basic human rights has to be unconditional and the strings to whatever we should or must do politically, for what YOU think of as important, have to be cut.  That is, severed.  Completely.

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

                        by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:41:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  BREAKING- Sit-in underway at McCain's office! (5+ / 0-)

    What do we want??? Equal rights! When do we want them??? Right now!

    by tnichlsn on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:05:18 PM PDT

  •  If DOD having time to implement is the problem, (3+ / 0-)

    why can't the bill repealing DADT expressly give DOD a couple of years to implement the change?  That ought to give them enough time to study how to do it.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:21:33 PM PDT

    •  That's what my final paragraph proposes (3+ / 0-)

      the study is due to be complete in Dec. But admin & DOD will let the window close in Oct, so they can wait. It's, frankly, a very false sounding talking point.

      Aspects of HCR don't kick in until 2014. So we can legislate 4 years ahead, but somehow repeal legislation can't precede the study by 2 months?

      I call BS.

      Trickle Down Equality isn't working

      by Scott Wooledge on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:33:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Rec'd & Tipped because this is really what I (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    have been asking for. None of the vitriolic Obamaphobia. We have a fight on our hands and we need everyone to be fighting together.
    Not that I think you will appreciate it from me (and I will soon be ticked off again, I know) but this is a job superbly done.

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:41:17 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site