 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
June 28, 2009
TIME FOR D.C. TO CATCH UP.... On June 28, 1969, police officers raided a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn, touching off days of riots. Forty years later, federal policy makers are in a position to finally enshrine equality in the law, but they're not only reluctant, they're behind the American mainstream.
The political establishment developed certain preconceived notions of how America approaches gay rights, and as of now, most of those notions are locked in the early '90s. For Dems, that means a fear that a culture-war clash will cost the majority party dearly, seemingly unaware that polls show most Americans already support many of the measures Democrats want but are afraid to seek. For the right, it leads to confidence that the country is on conservatives' side, reality notwithstanding. For example, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a far-right anti-gay group, noted to the NYT that supporters of equality want to see an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but doubts the administration is willing to oblige. "I think there's a reason for that, and that is because I think the American public isn't there," Perkins said. Except, of course, the American public is there. Gallup poll released this month found that 69% of the country supports allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Better yet, a clear majority (58%) of conservatives support it, too. It's time for policymakers to catch up to the rest of the country. Indeed, it's past time. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)Comments
Pick an issue, any issue. The Democrats' posture on it is utter cowardice to do anything except fund raise off it. Polls seem to be so critical during campaigns and are ignored afterwards. Both gay rights and public health care have broad, if not overwhelming, support and both are stonewalled in the Senate. Posted by: mlm on June 28, 2009 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINKSteve, as you obviously know, in politics it's not just the number of supporters that matters, it's the intensity of the support. Most Americans are tolerant of gays, but not emotionally committed to the cause of gay rights. Only a small portion of those people will vote for or against a politician on the basis of their position on DADT or hate-crimes bills. OTOH, the minority opposed to gay rights is intensely opposed - they hate gays with a passion and will vote on that basis. Posted by: ck on June 28, 2009 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINKIt is beyond shameful that our political system will not allow someone to stand up and do what the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney did not have the intestinal fortitude to do; that a fringe aspect of that system continues to punish those with the courage and decency and pure, unadulterated honor-of-homeland to fight for their country while simultaneously rewarding---no, strike that; make that simultaneously lathering in deifying worshipful drool---the likes of the two specifically-above-named, TAIL-TUCKING, CUT-AND-RUNNING, GUTLESS COWARDS. I imagine that D.C. will finally discover the backbone to do what is right when the likes of Cheney and Limbaugh have all been thrown face down into their respective unmarked burial pits, covered with dirt by the backhoe, and pissed upon ad infinitum by a justifiably-relieved populace. Such eventful moments in our Republic's history cannot come soon enough.... Posted by: S. Waybright on June 28, 2009 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINKStraight Obama supporters who have a detached view of Obama's pragmatism (or whatever it is) in neglecting gay supporters might do well to consider this: What inconvenient group will he abandon next? Yeah, Single Payer, then DADT; who will be the next told to stand in the door, in order, to lighten the load? Yes, indeedee do, those speeches on the tarmac were sort of marvelous, eh? Posted by: berttheclock on June 28, 2009 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINKMeh. I long ago figured out that the government in general isn't interested in gay/transgender rights. It isn't urgent because it doesn't affect *them*. *They* aren't gay and don't know anybody who is (of course, that isn't really true, but that's how they see it). Health care? Now *that* affects them, and even with that they're stalled. But an issue they aren't personally connected to? Nah, they couldn't care less. With something like that, our only practical choice has been to work the public and ignore the government in its incompetent efforts to catch up. Posted by: Shade Tail on June 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINKOn June 28, 1969, police officers raided a gay raided a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn ^and got their asses kicked into the Hudson. Fxd. You know, no minority group has ever gotten its rights simply because one person waved a magic wand and said "Wish Granted." That's not how this system works. However, I wish we didn't have to go through the same fucking thing over and over again. I mean, the military was supposed to implode when they started integrating combat units, the world was supposed to end when people of different races were allowed to marry (or go to the same schools or use the same water fountains...) Hell, we seem to have survived allowing women to vote. I just wish the Dems would point this out and force the crybaby bigots and force them to explain exactly what's different this time. Posted by: The Answer Was Orange on June 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINKHow about all concerned go "hike the Appalachian trail", come back from Argentina, and quote the Bible to say it's OK? Posted by: Glen on June 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK My take: http://theworldofhowey.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/remembering-stonewall/ Posted by: Howey on June 28, 2009 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINKThe elephant in the room in DADT is the military establishment. I really don't believe that obama fears republicans enough to drastically change positions as he has on issues like torture photos. After all, obama campaigned on diclosure and won. The motivation, I think, is a desire to keep the generals happy at all costs with two wars going on. I suspect DADT faces strong resistance from the military brass, who have little interest in the media coverage and everything else that would go with ending DADT. I suspect most liberals think the compromises obama had made on behalf of the pentagon are unacceptable. The counterpoint is easy to see, however. Every key military figure (petraes, etc.) publically supported closing the base. Posted by: owenz on June 29, 2009 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINKPost a comment
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
