Pelosi: DADT to stay for now, there are "more urgent national-security priorities"

[Brian_Expat]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/21/pelosi_team_tries_to_steer_democrats_to_the_center/

Pelosi has also tempered hopes of reversing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the service of gays and lesbians in the military, after two key Democrats -- Representatives Martin T. Meehan of Lowell and Barney Frank of Newton -- said last week that they want to repeal the policy.

Though Pelosi believes homosexuals should be able to openly serve, she has made clear that she believes Democrats have more urgent national-security priorities -- including changing course in Iraq and investigating war-related contracting.

So millions of dollars and millions of gay votes later. . . they won't even repeal DADT?

"Disappointing" doesn't even *begin* to cover it.

[Ian David]

1. Why would you hand Bush more cannon fodder for his war machine?

Do you really want your gay friends going off to Iraq or Iran to fight on behalf of a country that won't even allow them to marry the person they love?

But yes, I see your point.

Pelosi is becoming a disappointment.

Hopefully, after she becomes Unitary Executive in 2007, she'll be willing to shake things up a little more.

[cboy4]

2. First of all, he's not talking about a draft....if gay people WANT to

serve, they should be able to. It's their choice.

Secondly, our gay friends are ALREADY in Iraq.

[Monkeyman]

3. Yep and they need to come home

Then they can work on policy changes

[Ian David]

6. They can make ten times as much money as a private contractor

I'll say it again: Start a private military contracting firm for gays-only.

Call it "Pinkwater Consulting," or something.

Recruit everyone discharged under DADT into the company, making then times as much as they did in the military.

[TheWraith]

4. It wouldn't get repealed.

Even assuming that you could muster the votes for such a bill in both the House and the Senate, which is light-years from a certainty, they'd never have the votes to override a veto. And if you're not going to win, the very least you can do is insure that you don't give the other guy a victory.

[Brian_Expat]

7. So let's not even try then?

Something tells me that Pelosi will push forward with all their other controversial plans -- like national health coverage -- despite the threat of a veto.

But she is already preparing excuses for why they cannot do the minimum. . . the ABSOLUTE minimum. . . for gay people.

Incidentally, the support for gays being able to serve in the military is something like 66% in the general public -- it's far higher than the support for just about anything else the Democrats supposedly want to do (even pulling out of Iraq). It's not a hard battle at all.

[Vorta]

14. I also think national health insurance is more important

Gay people who don't get to serve in the military aren't going to suffer in the same and immediate sense that people, including gay people, will without health coverage.

Money is power, and it's really hard for gay people to start businesses when they have to pay out huge and discriminatory premiums, or worse- do without.

[Brian_Expat]

15. They're not mutually exclusive choices

And this is the thing that ticks me off.

Democrats campaigned on repealing DADT, supporting civil unions, etc. and have declared they're now going to back off because it's supposedly unpopular -- and spend all of their political capital on other things that are unpopular.

Our basic constitutional rights should be guaranteed for ALL citizens before chasing after new entitlements like health care.

[Big Sky Boy]

33. There is never an "optimal" time to fight for your rights

I never would have believed that the Supreme Court in 2004 would have ruled the way it did in Lawrence v. Texas.

Not that court. No. I would have remained with the pragmatists and urged Lamda Legal and everyone else to wait for a more favorable environment. We would still be waiting... perhaps another generation or two.

Would you have told MLK to forget about pushing for Civil Rights legislation?

Would you have told Cesar Chavez to keep his mouth shut?

I place no faith in politicians to protect my rights. It is my responsibility to fight for them, to fight to keep them, and to never give up on principle for some temporary political gain.

No this is not a great time to bring up the subject, but when do you suppose it will be?

I served four honorable years on active duty in the Navy and four more years as a drilling Reservist. I and everyone else in uniform deserve better than the current policy.

[JeffR]

5. It's profoundly disappointing

But those votes were only the beginning. No elected official - not even a Democrat - will be responsive to issues without constant pressure from constituents. It's not a good idea to give up in despair. Whatever Pelosi's statement, the new session doesn't begin until January 4. There will be time for many positive things. Keep the pressure on if you care about this: write, call, fax. Don't just assume that the votes were enough. They weren't.

[GodlessBiker]

42. Yes, it is. They are going to be very cautious over the next two years.

And they will ask us to be patient. I think I may focus on state matters, as Elliot Spitzer is a good friend of our community.

[cboy4]

8. The U.S. is a third world country regarding equal rights, compared

to other nations.

It's insane.

[ruggerson]

9. If the choice was between

Having Frank and Meehan move on this right away and lose catastrophically, amidst intense media and Republican garbage about how the House is repeating Clinton's mistake of 1993, making gays in the military one of his very first priorities

vs.

Doing this in a few months, after carefully laying the plans for a floor debate, and actually having a chance of getting it passed in both the House and Senate -

Which makes more sense both for gays and lesbians in the military currently and for getting other things like ENDA further down the road?

[Brian_Expat]

10. Except that's not the choice

This is such an easy thing to do, and so generally supported by the population, that it's a no-brainer.

I think they're trying to reduce our expectations -- portraying something as simple as nuking DADT in the 21st century as a "great struggle," then they'll "reluctantly sacrifice and take the risk" and tell us to go pound sand in other areas like marriage equality, immigration for foreign partners, etc.

[ruggerson]

12. How do you know that's not the choice

her quote on this is that there are more "urgent" national priorities. Leads me to conclude, especially since she is in FAVOR of ending DADT that she may very well want to bring it to the floor, but not right away. If the leadership hasn't addressed this within the first year, then I will join you in being disappointed, but for now I'm perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Brian_Expat]

13. Because much of the rest of her agenda is LESS popular than repealing DADT

But she hasn't announced any plans to shelve or table those portions.

Just the stuff that helps us.

[ruggerson]

17. Do you remember 1993?

When Clinton tried to do this? The press is majorly homophobic and they will be goaded on by the Republican party. If she tried to do this right away, regardless of what polls say, she would be fried in the media and it would have huge reverberations for the rest of the Democratic agenda. SAN FRANCISCO VALUES would be trumpeted in the headlines of major newspapers across the country. I fervently hope this will be addressed, but to expect her to make it one of her first priorities is not realistic, considering the huge shitstorm that would erupt from the Republicans and the media. America is profoundly homophobic, much of the country hates our guts, and to defeat them we have to be crafty and skillful and let our straight allies get all their ducks in a row. Success in politics is largely about timing. Let's allow Americans start to like and trust Nancy Pelosi and the Dem leadership for a couple of months and THEN they'll have the moral authority to get to our issues.

[Brian_Expat]

20. 1993 was 13+ years ago

In 1993, civil unions and gay marriage were unheard of.

In 1993, civilian opinion was against gays in the military -- not 2/3 in favor of it.

In 1993, Democrats were a fading star in Congress with a shrinking majority that would be booted out the next election less than a year later -- not a resurgent majority.

I mean let's face it. If Pelosi isn't willing to fight for something which is such an easy slam-dunk, what use is she?

[ruggerson]

21. But it's not an easy slam dunk

that's sheer fantasy. It's a big "culture war" issue and it's not something they evidently think is wise to bring to the forefront early on. Like I said, I'd rather they pass it down the road than bring it up right away and have it turn into a media firestorm about how out of touch Nancy Pelosi is with America's priorities.

[Big Sky Boy]

34. I remember 1993

And there were a whole host of other factors that are different today.

Clinton's first major roadblock was his Joint Chiefs. Colin Powell (a man with political aspirations of his own) saw an opportunity to embarrass the new president make himself look presidential in the process.

Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) also saw it as an opportunity to embarrass the new president. He was chair of the Armed Services Committee at the time and rumor has it was extremely bitter about not being mentioned for Secretary of Defense.

Faced with the bad press about expelling Arabic translators and struggling to keep their numbers up, I don't think the Joint Chiefs are in any position to play hardball. Also, no one in the party is going to give Pelosi that kind of trouble that Sam Nunn gave Clinton.

Finally, I could be wrong, but I actually think Republicans are beginning to suffer from Gay Fatigue. Gay issues just don't fire their base up the way they used to.

I really don't think it's something that should come up in the first 100 hours, but I'm not ready to be tabled again.

[Zhade]

51. 'SAN FRANCISCO VALUES' is *already* being used against us.

ENOUGH with the dry powder already.

[Vorta]

16. Think like the enemy

Republicans that is.

We are about to lose the war in Iraq no matter what we do. Do you honestly want them to be able to blame it on our making "drastic" changes in the military during a time of crisis? I don't.

[Brian_Expat]

19. The average person would laugh that argument out of the media.

Really, if we're going to spend our lives fearing the spin that the neoconservatives distribute, what's the purpose in even running for office?

[Vorta]

22. It has nothing to do with "neoconservative spin"

I hate to say this, because it's revolting, but this is a game. A very high stakes game. Stamping our foot and demanding doesn't cut it. If there is no strategy then there is no win. The last time we stamped our foot, it cost Bill Clinton big time- he faced a mutiny in the Joint Chiefs. The same thing happened to Truman. It took a long time- it's not a simple pass of the magic wand. That was with the number and work of the black members in the armed forces being known.

We don't even have the outward support in any numbers of our own people who are already in the military. Where is our threat to the Secretary of the Navy if he doesn't do something? Such a threat was made on behalf of the black people.

April 26, 1948: Sixteen African-American leaders tell Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal that African-Americans will react strongly unless the armed forces end segregation

What is our threat?

[Big Sky Boy]

36. The difference between Truman and Clinton

is that Truman had a pair big enough to put his foot down and make it happen over the objections of the Joint Chiefs.

Clinton, still unsure of himself as president, didn't understand how Washington worked and tried to compromise.

I was as disappointed as anyone by his complete capitulation. But holding his feet to the fire and forcing him to follow through on a campaign promise was the right thing to do. I am not going to give money, support or vote for candidates who are all too happy to take that during the campaign and then completely ignore me because it's politically expedient to do so after they win.

Why else would anyone get involved in politics?

[dsc]

53. The difference is Truman had the power and Clinton didn't

Clinton had to change law while Truman could issue an order

[Big Sky Boy]

35. The drastic change we are talking about...

Is actually admitting that there are thousands of gay and lesbian people who are wearing the uniform TODAY and serving honorably TODAY.

Acknowledging that fact and conceding that it is OK for them to continue to do so is not going to alter the course in Iraq at all.

[Vorta]

49. Of course it isn't.

Acknowledging that fact and conceding that it is OK for them to continue to do so is not going to alter the course in Iraq at all.

Of course it isn't. The GOP will spin it that way and the public will buy it. Morale is already low. The military is having to do stop-loss to keep people from going home. As soon as a wave of soldiers quit or retire, it will be blamed on the homos.

Of course there is another way of looking at it. If we hadn't needed black soldiers for Korea the military might still be segregated.

BTW, in looking this up, I found EXACTLY the mantra of the moderate to center-right folks: "the military is not the place for social experimentation." It was attributed o the Secretary of the army or somebody like that in Truman's time.

[hughee99]

11. They just got elected, they don't have to worry about

what their constituents think for another 18 months.

[JeffR]

18. They won't unless their constituents keep hammering them on an issue

That's just how it works, sadly.

[cboy4]

23. DING DING DING

We have a winner!!

And then in 2008, they won't want to rock the boat because 2010 will be right around the corner. :eyes:

[Big Sky Boy]

37. Exactly

If they feel the need to ignore our issues to avoid some bad press now, they will most certainly feel a pressing need to ignore us as the election draws near.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. a lot of dems think clinton lost the congress because the first thing he tried to do

was to allow gays in the military.

[ruggerson]

25. Exactly

and whether they're right in thinking that or not, it doesn't matter, because that's the conventional wisdom and CW rules media and Washington. The worst thing, for both Pelosi and us, would be for her to press one of our issues as one of her first priorities. We have two years to do this, hopefully much longer. I'd like to see DADT ended, ENDA enacted and (I know, I"m reaching) perhaps, as a start, a federal bill which would give gay couples social security survivorship rights and inheritance rights. Of course, Bush will most likely veto each of these, but it would be great if they passed and got sent to his desk.

As someone noted upthread, we can either stomp our feet or we can learn to play this game strategically. I'm for the latter.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. i tend to agree. i personally think passing the minimum wage hike

should be our first priority

[terrya]

31. Good analysis

I hate the idea of scuttling repeal of DADT. This is a horrible policy that appeased the bigots far more than gay and lesbian soldiers. Discharges of gay and lesbian servicemen and women have never been higher. It's a shameful policy.

But you just have to look at the political terrain right now and see that it's just not going to happen this Congress. I agree, we have a far better chance of passing ENDA (and I think I'll contact my Representative, Jan Schakowsky, office about being a sponsor). And...maybe I'm ridiculously naive, but I'm not all that sure Bush would veto ENDA.

[Big Sky Boy]

38. That's just plain wrong

It may have been a factor. It was an early blow to his prestige, but it certainly wasn't THE reason.

You're forgetting there were three candidates in 1992 and Clinton just barely squeaked by elder Bush with only 43% of the popular vote--which was basically where his approval rating was for most of his first term. Not a great position to be in.

Then his universal health care proposal, which was supposed to be his legacy, went down in flames.

I remember all the attack ads in 1994 and they almost all exclusively focused on "Democrats don't want me to be able to choose my doctor."

The wave of Republicans coming in 1994 was a reaction to an unpopular president and discontent with a do-nothing Congress led by a party that many believe had been in power too long.

Sound kinda familiar?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. again i did not say i dont want gays to serve openly in the military

but given that most people are idiots...and idiots perceived that clinton lost the congress on this issue...i can see why pelosi doesnt want to touch it as her first thing

[Big Sky Boy]

41. But Clinton didn't lose Congress on this issue

And we enable the conservative revisionists if we concede that point. If people most people really are idiots and believe something that isn't true, than it is our responsibility to remind them about what really happened.

DADT was the first issue to embarrass Clinton, but it wasn't the only one. And he upset EVERYONE with his compromise. He upset the gay community because he dashed our hopes, and he upset conservatives who didn't think it went far enough.

Most pundits saw his administration as rudderless, reacting to the issue of the day. Lacking a clear public mandate and with no real vision, he was daily raked over the coals on a variety of issues.

I don't want this to be the first thing that Pelosi tackles. But I don't want it off the table either, and I am afraid that's where it's headed.

[cboy4]

44. I also worry it's going to be shoved off the table. I don't have

a major problem that it's not going to be one the first few issues the Dems tackle, but it would be nice to hear Pelosi commit on the record that the DEMS will be getting to it at some point.

[mitchtv]

27. welcome back Brian

I see little has changed:popcorn:

[Rowdyboy]

28. Considering civil war in Iraq, threats from Iraq and NK, & catastrophe in Darfur,

I'm not gonna get my panties in a wad if they don't tackle DADT right away. Deal with the meaty, significant issues first, while you still possess some capital from the landslide election. Deal with DADT after we have a solid hold of the senate and house, and hopefully a Democratic president in 2008.

[Brian_Expat]

29. I'm sorry. . .

I'm sorry that you think that equal rights for gay Americans isn't a "meaty, significant" issue. It speaks volumes about the rhetoric of election season, versus the rhetoric of government.

[mondo joe]

47. Equal rights is my number 1 priority. But I don't think this issue

will get us there, and I don't think the gain here is worth the potential loss of other gains.

[terrya]

30. This is disappointing.

But I have to say it...I'm not sure the votes are there to repeal DADT right now. I know for a fact that there will be Democrats who won't vote to repeal DADT (for instance, I really can't imagine people like Jack Murtha or Jim Webb voting to repeal).

I'm certainly in favor of allowing gay and lesbian folks to serve openly in the military if they choose. I'm just being realistic about the chances of repealing DADT in this session.

[mondo joe]

32. I agree with Pelosi. I think one of the dumbest things Bill Clinton ever did was

getting tangled up in this issue right out of the gate.

And I agree there are far more pressing issues.

[Big Sky Boy]

39. The dumbest thing he ever did

Was to promise he was going to do something about it, then try to backtrack on that promise, then only make a half-hearted attempt at trying something. That pretty much defined his approach to a lot of issues in his first term.

I like Clinton, but he was much better in his second term.

[TechBear_Seattle]

43. Yet again, basic civil rights are low priority to the Dems

Why do I bother getting my hopes up? It's all going to be the same anyway; you just don't give a rat's ass about gay people, except with regards to how we vote.

[kevinbgoode]

45. Yep..we'll get NADA from the Democrats

Except to tell us to be very grateful there won't be an FMA for the next two years. That will be the extent of their commitment to our civil rights.

[sui generis]

46. When we're good and ready as a recognized minority, we'll do it ourselves.

How many gay service members do we estimate are in the service today? I wonder what priority would be given to this if all of them stood up and "told", and then said "do something about it".

The process of the military having to cut 50,000 or so servicemembers in one year for this would certainly galvanize the topic and make it a topic not of the democratic agenda but a demonstration of the weakness of supporting DADT.

And if they fire 50,000 service members for being queer, there is nothing keeping another 50,000 from enrolling and getting fired a year later until it hurts those bigoted shit heads the way it needs to hurt them.

Financially.

[Christian30]

48. I feel the same way about DADT

that I do about gay marriage. Neither of them are as important as ending the illegal war in Iraq, restoring habeas corpus and rolling back the hundreds of evil things that the Bush administration has done to this country. I've been a queer activist since I was 16 years old and during Bush 1 and Clinton I was all for ending military discrimination, pushing for gay marriage, etc. But this administration has struck at the core of our country's democratic principles and restoring those basic liberties is more important than ANY minority's civil rights struggles.

To my mind, this is why the left continues to get our butts kicked. The minute we get a tiny bit of power, each group has it's list of "wants," "needs" and "like to haves." If we can use the next two years to build the kind of wave of liberal sentiment that the Right has over the last 40 years, we will be better positioned to pursue a host of equal rights measures for the LGBT community and other minority groups. Just my $0.02.

[Zhade]

50. Such cowardice on something a majority of Americans ALREADY support.

Guess we'll have to push harder.

(Was this posted in LBN/GD and moved, or just posted here?)

[JeremyWestenn]

52. I can deal with it being put off the radar for awhile...

However the Democratic house leadership HAS to hit this issue hard. This cannot be half hearted hearings with the obvious intent of blowing smoke but not daring to start a spark. They better go full steam ahead even if their going to fail.

[bluedawg12]

54. Of course it's disappointing

It's is also a blatanly unfair and discriminatory policy that disallows a certain segment of society, in this instance gays, to have the same right to fight for their own national security and to participate fully in democracy as others.

BTW- US soldiers have been fighting along side the Brits and sharing dorms, in effect, they are already fighting shoulder to shoulder with an army that has a non-discrimination policy and allows gays to serve their country.

I cannot imagine a policy barring Muslims, people of color, Jews, Christians, left handed people, from serving in our nations military with out a bellow and an outcry heard world wide.

But, sadly, Pelosi is correct, in terms of Real Politik. The dems must stay in power, in order to do that they have to establish a national and broad based support for future elections. What’s the other choice- repigs?

The answer is not with Pelosi, it lies with the gay community. Until there is a viable, visible united and powerful political gay lobby no one will fight for us- we need to fight for ourselves.

What. We did? Well, obviously it is not enough.

The message here is to fight harder, smarter, and create a political power house.

That’s where our efforts need to go.

............

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-9572286

British Army recruiting gays and lesbians.

>MANCHESTER, England, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- Gay and lesbian soldiers joined a gay pride parade in Manchester this weekend as part of an effort to attract more homosexuals to the British Army.

The soldiers, adorned with medals, spoke eagerly with marchers behind an RAF float and banner. The army...<
..........

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/coverage2_10_01.htm

>>

"Homosexual behavior can cause offense, polarize relationships, induce ill discipline and, as a consequence, damage morale and unit effectiveness," the British Defense Ministry said then in its guidelines on the subject.

But contrary to most expectations, Petty Officer Nunn's experience seems to be the rule rather than the exception in Britain's newly inclusive military. Even the Defense Ministry, which fought hard to keep gays out, has acknowledged an unexpectedly smooth transition. In a report last fall, it said there had been "widespread acceptance of the new policy" and "no reported difficulties of note concerning homophobic behavior" among service personnel.

"Before the lifting of the ban, many senior officials predicted that military performance would suffer," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, which recently published a report about the British experience. "But we found that there has been no problem in terms of morale or discipline or recruitment."<<
...........
< who is more enlightened the Brits or the Russ?>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2848467.stm

Russian army to ban gays

Many conscript fear they will be sent to fight in Chechnya
Russia is to introduce new regulations which will ban homosexuals, drug addicts and alcoholics from serving in the armed forces.
The new rules - published in the official Rossiyskaya Gazeta - say people "who have problems with their identity and sexual preferences" can only be drafted during war times.

The ban - taking effect on 1 July - also extends to those who regularly use illegal drugs and alcohol.

Officials say the changes are aimed at tightening health requirements for conscripts - even though they come at a time when the Russian military is believed to be struggling to fill its ranks.

[election_2004]

55. As a gay person, I believe the first priority should be....

...to get out of Iraq and redefine the U.S. military's priorities.

In terms of defense policy, the next step (where LGBT people are concerned) should be to end the "dishonorable discharges" for soldiers who happen to be homosexual, and to end any penalties for servicemembers who are discovered to be homosexuals.

They should also retroactively repeal all dishonorable discharges of veterans who were "dishonorably discharged" simply due to knowledge of their sexual orientation.

I think the Congressional Democrats could enact those policies without selling it as a full repeal of DADT.

[KennedyGuy]

56. Yep..

Focus on getting us out of Iraq..DADT doesn't keep a gay person from serving..just makes it a bit more difficult.
I can live with DADT if I have to..first things first..we are dying over in Iraq.

[Vorta]

58. Sneaky is good.

Taking it a step further, instead of giving the Republicans (and Joint Chiefs, don't forget about them) a showdown on the rule itself- simply strip all the disciplinary actions from the rules.

If speeding remained a crime, but there was no fine or points for speeding, would cops bother to write tickets?

[NMMNG]

57. "Dear GLBTs, your rights will NEVER be a priority.

But please remember to vote for us."

[Not Me]

59. Isn't it strange how our brave allies, the British

manage to serve by our side in Iraq with openly gay servicepeople????????????????????