BREAKING: Harry Reid backs DADT moratorium amendment, calls for permanent suspension

Write to support

I've already written to my Senators (even met with Sen. Murray's office) about how much this means to me. Plus I sent a note to Sen. Gillibrand thanking her for taking the lead on this.

With a bill in each house of Congress, maybe we'll start to see some action.

Keep up the noise!

Time to Stand! ProtestForHumanRighs.com

---

by: Enigmas @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 15:52:12 PM CDT

Totally agree...

This article sent on to Daniel Choi and Knights Out.... and a  friend in SLDN so he can see his 'work' on display.

 

 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:03:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wrote too

I sent a thank you to Gillibrand also. The noise is important.

---

by: veendam @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:31:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't get too excited just yet

Sen. Gillibrand's amendment would go on the Defense Authorization Bill, which gives DOD its budget. Right now there is a fight between Obama and the Pentagon, and Congress over money in the budget for an expanded F-22 fighter program. Senators with states in which Lockheed Martin produces the plane want the money in the budget. The Pentagon and Obama do not want the planes and would rather the money be spent elsewhere, like better armored vehicles for troops in the sandbox. Based on the Pentagon's recommendations on the F-22 (WE DON'T NEED MORE), Obama has threatened to veto any Defense Authorization Bill which has language allocating $1.75 billion for more F-22s that his DOD doesn't want or need. Which would mean a veto of this moratorium if it even got through committee, onto the final bill, and it passed in both chambers.

Beware newly-appointed Senators bearing gifts to the LGBT community that may get vetoed by the President on another basis because they are facing a tough reelection challenge in their home state and need to suck up to the left. Beware Democratic Senate Majority Leaders who ostensibly back such a gift knowing that it won't get passed, but for which they can still attempt to take credit with a seriously pissed off voting bloc which has withdrawn a LOT of money recently.

Seriously, guys, this whole thing smells funny. If Kirsten Gillibrand believes in a moratorium, let her office sponsor a standalone bill. If Harry Reid really believes in a "permanent moratorium," let him as Majority Leader sponsor a bill for DADT repeal. Don't attach an amendment for what amounts to an 18 month gay troop entrapment onto a DOD budget that stands a good chance to be vetoed because John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are sucking up to defense industry contractors which bring manufacturing jobs to their state.

(I confess to a personal bias in this. As much as I would love a moratorium on discharges, I also want my little brother in the 82nd Airborne, as well as my other friends on the ground, to have $1.75 billion worth of armor plating against IEDs on their next deployment. Protecting my brother's life in a combat zone is more important to me than being out at work.)

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:56:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Spot on!

This move defies logic.

Why are they trying to pass a moratorium at all? The president is limited to a moratorium. They actually have the power to repeal the damn thing.

Why are they wasting time with this. Just propose a full repeal.

This also looks like its being set up as a political trap for Obama. He's trying to be sensible on defense spending (that the DOD DOES NOT WANT!!!) and congress is trying to force his hand. Thus he has the choice of either supporting unnecessary defense spending, or vetoing a bill with pro LGBT language.

This is a political dodge. Just REPEAL THE LAW...ITS YOUR FRAKING JOB!

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 09:34:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yawn

Sorry, Harry, but I won't hold my breath.

---

by: shaz4005 @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 15:52:47 PM CDT

incremental

How nice that Harry would like to make the suspension indefinite. Trouble is, it still leaves DADT in place. It's like sparing Lt. Choi but leaving him with a question mark where his insignia of rank should be.

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:05:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

really?

harry reid has been incredibly hesitant to talk about our legislation.  i therefore think that when he does decide to speak, he likely means it.  no, i won't be sending donations to the dnc unless i see solid follow-through and real results, but i really don't think this is a yawn-worthy move in his part.  this is a significant announcement, especially since he said he wants to make the end of the ban permanent, not just enact the gay soldier entrapment gillibrand's bill for temporary suspension.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:22:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It IS significant...

...by itself AND because it is the SECOND time Reid, the highest ranking Democrat in the US Senate, has called out the President, the leader of his Party, on DADT paralysis.

Gay groups can huff and puff all they want [and they shouldn't stop] but that's what they're expected to do. The fact is that nongays, mostly in the MSM, are the segment that have propelled the subject of DADT to DEFCON 3, and thus amplified the effect of gays cutting off funding to the DNC.

The President is caught in a trap, as Pam has said, of his own making and we must applaud anyone who helps us, however imperfectly in other terms, tighten it until he yells, "Uncle"....or, in this case, "FREEZE DISCHARGES!"

To draw on other metaphors, Pharoah's heart has hardened and it's going to take several plagues of various times to get him to finally say, "Let 'em go."

I'm skeptical of Gillibrand's approach passing, but just talking about it keeps the subject of the damage that DADT does to gay servicemembers and national security alive.

For the record, there was a moratorium on discharges for six months during the 1993 debate by which any gays identified were transferred to the "standby reserves." When it was over and Sam Nunn and Colin Powell and their fellow homohating tribe members had finished gangbanging Clinton, those people were processed for discharge. I am skeptical of a similar result in this case because, as Palm Center director Aaron Belkin puts it, times have changed enough that once they stop discharges by whatever method it will be impossible to put the proverbial toothpaste back in the tube.

Another point. Too many both pro and anti DADT keep assuming that everyone gay currently in the armed services...estimated to be around 65,000...would suddenly out themselves either during such a moratorium or after full repeal. While the percentages would probably be slightly higher today than were found in the expansive 1993 Rand Study, its basic finding in their study of foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments which have a policy of nondiscrimination that relatively few DO out themselves after such a change would, I'm convinced, remain true.

- Michael Bedwell
www.leonardmatlovich.com

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:05:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good point Lurleen

I haven't thought of it that way.  Still, I remain cynical of democrats on our issues.

---

by: shaz4005 @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 20:22:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'm with ya in remaining cynical!

i won't give reid or anyone unlimited time to show that he means business.  






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 20:33:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I said in the original moratorium thread

Wow! Sign me back up!

A whole 18 months where I don't have to hide and be afraid of losing my job, or of being raped as blackmail, only to get kicked out after the expiration date because those cowardly fuckstains in Congress and the White House refuse to move past 1993? Well golly gee whillikers, Batman, I'll get right on that reenlistment paperwork! OH BOY!!

Hey, Harry? A permanent moratorium is also know as a REPEAL, you spineless, clueless fuck. Why don't you and your Messiah grow a pair, quit playing fantasy football with my life, and tell the GOP to choke on it?

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:19:43 PM CDT

"i would make it permanent"

why isn't that acceptable terminology, especially since he wasn't reading a prepared statement but was answering a press question?  granted "repeal" would have been a better word choice, but i want to hear follow-up from him in the next week before crucifying him for being the first senate majority leader (to my knowledge) calling for the permanent end to dadt.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:27:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If Harry Reid wants to "make it permanent" his own office can damn well sponsor the repeal in the Senate

Since the Messiah publicly punted that smelly football back to Harry's desk, then he can jump right on it. His job is even easier since the Military Readiness Enhancement Act is already in the House, and his staff will just have to write an identical companion bill. Fifteen minutes of copy-paste and appropriate numeric changes, and they're done. Fancy that. But like shaz, I won't be holding my breath waiting.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:42:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i agree completely.

and i'm wondering if his willingness to say "permanent" today was because he is at least testing the waters of taking those actions.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:56:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"you spineless, clueless fuck"

So after all that navel gazing about comments and postings, this is what passes as civility?

---

by: mitch wood @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:01:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You have a mod available in this very thread

Please see Lurleen if you are offended by my characterization of Senator Harry Reid.

Personally, I'm far more offended by the fact that I was raped as blackmail while serving under DADT, that I'm being ripped away from my Beloved because of DADT, and by the Democratic Party leadership's widespread indifference to either, than I am by the word "fuck." YMMV.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:23:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As Pam has stated elsewhere,

public figures are fair game so long as nobody incites violence.  If "spineless fuck" were aimed at a specific Blend contributor, we'd be having a different conversation.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:27:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was going to add that comment.

I don't personally approve of the language directed at the Senator. I personally believe we don't have to rail so hard at people we don't agree with to make our points.

However, the Senator is a public figure, no pejoratives or community related defamatory terms were utilized anywhere within Keori's statement...well, it's as Lurleen stated -- the Senator is a public figure.

But just like in a brick-and-mortar coffee house, you are free to ask Keori to calm down, and please stop using such aggressive language to make her points.

And Keori, that's what I'm asking you to do. Not as a Barista coming down on you for your statements though.

I like my coffee with a bit of cream sometimes to take the edge off the bitter flavor of some roasts. And, I like my conversations in our virtual coffee house lounge with a little less edginess as well. So, I'm asking you to mellow a bit as virulent anger turns off many of your fellow blenders -- the audience for your comments -- because when you are perceived as particularly angry by many in your audience, then many in your audience won't listen to your points.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 20:38:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You misunderstand.

See, we can call other people - even, nay, especially, our allies - any old thing we want to as long as we can represent them as somehow lesser beings** than we are.

**lesser beings - any person who doesn't believe 100% what we believe when we believe it.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:40:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like this 100% of what we believe

For instance, I've always been a firm supporter of Harry Reid's equal rights as an American citizen. If he could actually manage to put his money where his party platform mouth is (page 36, para. 1), I might even consider respecting him professionally.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:08:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

background personality

Isn't that Matthew Shepard's mom in the background of the video?

---

by: Passionforprog @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:31:12 PM CDT

i thought so too

maybe was this part of a press conference in advance of the hate crimes vote expected this week in the senate.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:36:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What I'm wondering is

how no one has commented on Gillibrand's initiative seriously. Can't a journalist ask her exactly how it would work? What will happen with these lgbt members of the military who come out/are outed in those 18 months? They get a carte blanche and everyone pretends like they are still closeted once the 18-month period lapses? Or all of them are summarily dismissed the next day? Or they all get to be out, while those who haven't used this time period won't be able to in the future?

How will this half-measure be implemented exactly?

---

by: avocado @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:34:16 PM CDT

please excuse me

excuse me if I'm wrong on this...

But, haven't there ALREADY been multiple studies completed on the long-temr implications of repealing DADT?  And, haven't they all reached the conclusion that DADT is STUPID?  Why the hell whould anyone need another study?

---

by: timNC @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:35:17 PM CDT

the best answer i've hear so far is...

"because". ;)






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:38:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

studies indeed

All they have to do is check with the Palm Center or with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. Plenty of studies gathered on those sites alone.

http://www.sldn.org
http://www.palmcenter.org/

Just for starters.

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:43:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wrote most Democratic Senators after Choi was out

They need to sponsor or co-sponsor repeal of DADT, or they wouldn't get ONE DIME of LGBT funds or ONE VOTE.

Seems they heard from enough of us to get their attention.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:13:58 PM CDT

Very dsappointed in some of you

You're kidding, right? The majority leader of the united states senate, a Mormon from Nevada, up for a tough election next year, not only supports moving on DADT a year before our orgs had agreed congress would act, but says the liberals senator from new York was being unnecessarily timid and dadt should essentially be permanently neutered until further action, and we get yawns, dismissiveness and dirision?

Unbelievable. Give the man credit. He's being far more courageous than obama.

Alienating and/or abandoning him will only ensure the efforts fail. Completely counterproductive.  

---

by: brunonian @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:15:20 PM CDT

yes.

i agree reid's statement should be taken seriously, as i've said above.  but you shouldn't be too surprised at seeing comments like those above from people used to democrats crying wolf.  because democrats have cried "gay equality" wolf forever.  they've earned skepticism and derision.  so, i can't say that i am surprised that not everyone is taking reid at his word, even though i personally think he needs to be given the benefit of the doubt on this one.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:23:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Credit?

Where exactly does the credit come due? Because he's brave enough to finally give his tepid support to a measure that over 70% of the nation's population also supports?

And "far more courageous than Obama"? That's damning with faint praise.

I'm losing you on where I'm supposed to give credit.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 22:08:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Umm... why not repeal the damned thing?

No endorsement, no money and no vote until Democrats start to make a real effort on GLBT issues.

Obviously, this is not a real effort.

---

by: TechBear @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:21:17 PM CDT

That's my thought......

......if they are putting a moratorium in as an amendment to the defense budget, then why can't they simply put the sister bill from the House (H.R. 1283) instead?

Talk about inefficiency in our government!

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." ~~~ Thomas Jefferson

---

by: SD_Dave @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 23:35:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm astonished

that when a politician as powerful as Harry Reid, makes a statement supporting us, he gets attacked as strongly as I read here. (And I'm neither a fan nor a constituent of his.)   It should be obvious by now that "overnight solutions" are not coming out of Washington any time soon (on any issue).  To think that a proposal floated by one of the most junior senators would be publicly supported--and even expanded--by the majority leader in less than a week is pretty amazing.  We need to hold them to their words--but we can't shoot them for every incremental step they have to take to achieve the result.

---

by: Gianpiero @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:23:20 PM CDT

I'm not.

As I said just above, we're all accustomed to being lead down the garden path by the democrats.  Factor into that people like Keori who have suffered personal repercussions of laws passed and signed into law by "friendly" dems.  I'm giving Reid the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I'm also not going to pretend to be surprised that people question his sincerity and respond with anger and mistrust.  We're not Vulcans, after all. :)






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:35:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I _don't_ understand this

Giving him the benefit of the doubt? I'm going on the premise that he'll actually do this thing. This tiny, incremental thing that poses absolutely no risk to him, or his re-election prospects. It is - literally - the absolute least he can do. Are we supposed to be jumping for joy because they might finally take this small, no-risk step?

And - sorry - I'm with the people who say "Fine, we're good enough to die for you, but we're not good enough to marry each other."

Nah. No credit, no benefit, no respect from me. Not for this.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 22:15:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How many votes would this take to pass?

If it will only take a simple majority, it would explain why they're starting with this instead of a full repeal.

If it requires a supermajority, the only thing I'll say is that they don't half-ass half-assing.

Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:27:54 PM CDT

does any bill need more

than a simple majority?  i'd be surprised if they faced a cloture vote on this, but then again, the gop won't necessarily act rationally (as in, voting for something their membership supports: dadt repeal).






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:30:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They can force a cloture vote

on the amendments (DADT, hate crimes) like they can on any bill, so you need 60 votes just in case they try to call your bluff or are trying to waste time (there won't be any votes on amendments on Friday, so they don't have an awful lot of time to be voting on cloture on these). My guess is they'll do a unanimous consent so that Republicans won't filibuster but it takes 60 votes to approve the amendment, thereby accomplishing the Republican goal of forcing more Democrats to take votes they can then be campaigned against on (particularly re: hate crimes).

The reason it's better to offer these as amendments as opposed to as full bills is not because the vote threshold is different but because if it were a standalone bill the Republicans would force votes on all sorts of embarrassing amendments (like adding preachers, and veterans to the list of people protected by hate crimes, for example, or outlawing pedophilia, etc.) that would waste time and give the Republicans more talking points.

---

by: brunonian @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 17:38:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A supermajority isn't a requirement for any legislation

It's just a change to the federal code, so only a simple majority is needed. A supermajority isn't required. Well, at least it wasn't until the GOP as the minority party decided to filibuster every. single. piece. of legislation they don't like. These days, even though legislation only requires a simple majority, party hacks are determined to keep bills from reaching the floor for a vote at all via the filibuster. Back in February, Steve Benen over at the Washington Monthly wrote a good analysis on filibuster abuse.

One of the striking aspects of the political process on the Hill is how quickly everyone has adapted to a once-rare tactic becoming routine. Senate filibusters used to be exceedingly rare -- a dramatic challenge only to be used under extraordinary circumstances. Only recently has the political world accepted, without so much as a discussion, the notion that literally every key measure must enjoy a 60-vote majority if it hopes to become law.

His February 17th follow-up two days later was also quite good.

With that in mind, let's focus the discussion a bit. The status quo is a mess. The American electorate can give a party the White House and sizable majorities in both chambers, but that party will still struggle badly to pass its agenda. A 41-member minority party can block legislation -- controversial or not -- by abusing an obscure procedural tactic that was never intended to be used to necessitate supermajorities on literally every piece of legislation...

Those who approve of keeping the filibuster around as a "check" -- despite the fact that it was never intended to block congressional majorities from passing legislation -- envision a cyclical dynamic: Republicans win voter approval, but are limited by the Senate minority. Democrats win voter approval, but are limited by the same obscure legislative tactic. Government through obstructionism. Everyone has a credible excuse for failing to deliver on a policy agenda.

What was once an exceedingly rare challenge, used under extraordinary circumstances, has become -- after no public discussion at all -- a mandatory supermajority simply to govern.

Let's not forget who our worst enemies are in the Senate. Yes, DINOs, I'm looking at you. Even on a policy change that almost 80% of the country supports, there will always be conservadems who can't get past 1993, and who can't see past their own bigotry. They can't reasonably be counted on to support legislation for a moratorium, let alone a complete repeal of the ban.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:00:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Knowing what a coward Reid is

that he's calling for this probably means it has a good chance of passing. That or he thinks he'll lose next election and so has nothing else to lose.


Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:11:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Either that, or it's guaranteed to fail, so he can take credit for trying but still put forth no effort

See my comment at the top. There is already controversy over this Defense Authorization Bill, and Kirsten Gillibrand is trying to up her chances for re-election. Harry Reid must have plans for her or else he wouldn't be publicly backing her up. What favors will she owe him, I wonder?

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 19:00:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is a good thing...

This is the step we wanted President Obama to take. Since he's unwilling to do the right thing. This is a good interim step until DADT gets repealed. The reality is that it will take a long time for the military to figure out the best way to handle the repeal. We're talking primarily about inherently homophobic men (who are from an older less-enlightened generation) that would rather pretend that gay people aren't amongst them.

We all know how long these things take to play out. This intermediate step is the best thing to do right now. I don't see a down side to this amendment.  

---

by: obtusegoose @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:01:02 PM CDT

Caught in between...

I am caught in between a feeling of "finally what we have been doing and saying is starting to pay off", especially since it has only been a few weeks between that heinous misstep of the justice department and this amazing step. The other feeling I am having is "show me the money" and looking around in anticipation of being stabbed in the back over the next few weeks through some other legislation. It is almost to good to be true and when it comes to civil rights in America it usually is. So I will hope for the best but I am going to keep looking over my shoulder.

Always thinking about it...

---

by: kudo451 @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:33:52 PM CDT

This seems like the right balance to me

---

by: joneke @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:49:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Something to Consider

A lot of people bring up the desegregation of the military when discussing DADT. It is an apt comparison, but how many people know the details?
From Sep. 1945 when Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson appointed a board to study how African Americans could be efficiently used to July 1951 when the last Korean units were integrated, there was much hand wringing and outright hostility to the act.
What finally pushed the generals to accept that this had to be done?
"January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation."
And what pushed Truman to put his neck out there and risk such animosity from the military?
"November 1947: Clark Clifford presents a lengthy memorandum to President Truman which argues that the civil rights issue and the African-American vote are important elements in a winning strategy for the 1948 campaign."

And he still didn't actually sign the Executive Order until the next year. During the campaign for President.

It's all a back and forth. Until the LGBT leaders that have the President's ear actually challenge him and his scaredy cat administration, they have no reason to move.

So along with calling Congress and the White House, why don't we start calling HRC, GLAD, GLAAD, SLDN, and any other group that got an invite to that White House cocktail hour. We demand the community put out a letter saying unless we get actual movement on LGBT civil rights, then we're not doing anything to help the Dems.
They listened to the gAyTM, otherwise we wouldn't have Reid making this announcement.
So get on those phone and fill up these organizations email boxes. Unless we present a united front, we won't get anywhere.

*All quotations come from the Truman Library, http://www.trumanlibrary.org/w...

Time to Stand! ProtestForHumanRighs.com

---

by: Enigmas @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 18:40:37 PM CDT

and Truman paid the price

The Democratic Party split in 1948 over civil rights, and although it looks fine in retrospect, it's worth remembering that Truman looked like a "gone goose" before Election Day, and as it was he had to do without the Southern electoral vote.

Worth also remembering that when the Dixiecrats walked out of the convention, one delegate asked them (Sen. Russell?) why are you doing this, the civil-rights plank was in the 1944 platform. The reply was, "Yeah, but this time Harry means it."

I wonder if Sen. Reid means it?

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 19:41:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So?

If we lose Obama, we've lost what? So far our fierce advocate has shown precious little difference from our fierce enemy. On pretty much any front.

LGBT rights addressed? No.
Civil rights restored? No.
Patriot Act gone? No.
War crimes prosecuted? No.
Administration secrecy ended? No.
War crimes even investigated? No.

Gone back on pretty much every promise he made to the electorate? Yes.

So what do we lose? Cocktail party invitations? Easter egg hunts? I can live without them.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 22:25:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So nobody means it

You've checked every failing so far. And if Obama and the Democrats cave on health care reform or any meaningful regulation of the financial sector, then we've got less than nothing.

Why try to govern a country when you can become a saint?
-- "Evita"

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 22:42:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here is my e-mail to Senator Gillibrand

Dear Senator Gillibrand,

It has come to my attention that you intend to introduce an amendment to the Defense Budget that will place a temporary moratorium (18 months) on service member discharges under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue policy of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I want to thank you for this amendment, but I do have a question.

It appears (from the outside looking in) that our government is inefficient as it is, why add to this inefficiency? Please hear me out on this. Senator Majority Leader Reid went out on a limb today saying that he would like this to be permanent, this phrasing could be construed as meaning a "repeal" of the policy. So my question is, instead of offering a moratorium, why not introduce the repeal legislation which already has a sister piece of legislation (H.R. 1283) in the House? All that should be required is changing the wording to reflect that it is legislation in the Senate.

Again, I appreciate everything that you are doing for the rights of LGBT Americans as well as the rest of the American people. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Best Regards,
Dwight Hershey
Your neighbor from the "left coast"

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." ~~~ Thomas Jefferson

---

by: SD_Dave @ Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 00:07:00 AM CDT

There is an alternative to breathless dependence on the Democrats or trying to figure out what are chances are with them.

The central question has nothing to do with the ins and outs of their 'inside the beltway' Byzantine right centrist politics. It has everything to do with figuring out what to do to force them to accept our agenda.

Congress and the White House can't be reformed or 'used' to reform society. The unhappy supporters of Obama's hopey-changey BS are beginning to figure out they were the ones used, not the Democrats. And not for the first time.

Clinton used the law to shove LGBT service members into the closet where they were defenseless from the ravages of military/christian bigots, including murderous thugs. Then he promoted DOMA, strong arming it through Congress and boasting about it in campaign ads. Those two worst laws created a firestorm of bigotry that gave Rove and Bush the chance to extend DOMAs to most states.

No case at all, based on their record, can be made for calling federal Democrats our allies or friends. The reason is simplicity itself.

Bigots vote and both parties pander unceasingly to bigots. Right now Obama, aided by resourceful experts like Leah Daughtry and Joshua Dubois, both ordained pentecostal bigots, is winning. We'll continue to pay the price for that.

To counter that we need an action program and an elected leadership to implement it.

That's a proven formula for success that describes That describes the movements that rose up to win Suffrage, win union rights, end the Vietnam war, win reproductive choice, demobilize GI's in 1945-46 and win other fights. It describes the Minutemen of Concord and Lexington and the Committees of Correspondence from 1760 to 1783. And it describes long battle of freedmen and abolitionists who compelled the US government to be a force for progress from 1860 to 1877. (In 1877 the last federal troops were pulled from the south, Reconstruction was betrayed and the iron fist of Jim Crow settled on the nation.)

We need to create, and events are making that easier every day, the base for a massive action coalition, openly and firmly independent of political hustlers like Obama. The abject failure of No on 8 is a case in point.

We need a nationwide organization that can hammer out a program and a strategy in democratic discussion and elect a leadership to carry it out. Mass actions and hard hitting legal challenges are the key here. They energize, activate, help us get organized and get people used to fighting for their rights.

Both of the major parties, under the impact of a soon to be Depression and a spate of unwinnable wars are politically extinct. They don't know it yet but the radicalization attendant on economic collapse and unending war is going to politically bury them.


The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 16:00:33 PM CDT

So much for breathless dependence on Democrats.

"Gillibrand's 'Don't Ask' amendment off the table
N.Y. senator sought moratorium on military discharges
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade Jul 22 2009  
The New York senator who once said she was considering an amendment to a defense bill mandating a stay on discharges under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has decided against introducing the measure after determining there aren't enough votes for passage, according to her office."

With Democrats like these who really needs Republicans. Actually the only ones who really need the Republicans are the Democrats. They pretend that the Republicans are worse than they are, instead of kissing cousins when it comes to all the big issues. Believe it or not, sometimes people are foolish enough to fall for that.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 16:04:06 PM CDT