 |
 |
   Read the story and see the video discussion by the authors about why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods.
 A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.
|
   |
|
|
July 8, 2009
PATRICK MURPHY STEPS UP ON DADT.... Former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) was the lead sponsor of a House bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." With Tauscher having stepped down from the House to serve in the State Department, it's good to see Patrick Murphy picking up where she left off.
As of last week, the bill (H.R.1283) had 150 co-sponsors, with additional members signing on all the time. The Hill added that Murphy's efforts have given the legislation "new momentum." Since Murphy became the lead sponsor, the bill "has attracted six additional co-sponsors." This may have something to do with Murphy's background: "In addition to serving two deployments in Bosnia and in Baghdad, Murphy was awarded a Bronze Star and his unit earned the Presidential Unit Citation. He is also a former West Point professor and an ex-military attorney." Republicans might try to argue that Murphy doesn't understand issues like unit cohesion, but it's not likely to stick. Then again, the congressional minority probably won't care. DADT is, fundamentally, an indefensible policy. It's not only discriminatory and fundamentally unfair to Americans willing to put their lives on the line for all of us, it also undermines our national security interests and military readiness. But for most House Republicans, the culture war matters more. Of course, the bill doesn't need to pass with a bipartisan majority; it just needs to pass. Murphy boasts that H.R.1283 supporters "will have the votes in the House," though he expects passing to "take a few months." President Obama will sign the measure into law, though it's unclear how the Senate would handle the bill. —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)Comments
DADT is, fundamentally, an indefensible policy. Such things haven't stopped the Republicans yet. Posted by: TonyB on July 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINKOf course, the bill doesn't need to pass with a bipartisan majority; it just needs to pass. I would even argue it's immeasurably better for the country if it isn't bipartisan. The more people know the truth, that Republicans are willing to actively obstruct the will of the public, the better. Posted by: doubtful on July 8, 2009 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINKthis one, i hope, is going to come in sooner rather than later, and a guy like murphy is gonna make it happen without the hate-circus clowns causing a stench, a spectacle, and, of course, asses of themselves. Posted by: neill on July 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINKThe Senate should put it in the Defense Appropriations bill and dare the Republicans to vote against the troops. That's what the Republicans would do anyway. Posted by: atlliberal on July 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINKOf course, the bill doesn't need to pass with a bipartisan majority; it just needs to pass. Yes, but does it need 60 votes? And what will the Blue Dogs do? Posted by: noncarborundum on July 8, 2009 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINKDADT is, fundamentally, an indefensible policy. Bigotry of any sort is indefensible. Yet when it comes to LGBT people, Republicans and a hefty portion of Democrats, including POTUS, keep finding ways to defend it. Out of those fabled over 150 co-sponsors, only 77 of them managed to muster enough spine to recently send a letter to Obama urging him to act on his promise of leadership in getting the ban repealed. Forgive me for not holding my breath on this one. In related news, Anthony Woods is running for Congress to replace Ellen Tauscher. He's an Iraq combat vet, a West Point graduate, and a graduate of the JFK School of Government at Harvard, where he was resoundingly anti-Iraq war. He's worked on David Paterson's staff, and as an economic and business analyst for Booz Allen Hamilton. He's also an out black gay man. We should be learning more about Anthony Woods. He and Patrick Murphy could do great things for all our troops. Daily Beast on Anthony Woods: "Best Political Resume Ever". Posted by: Keori on July 8, 2009 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINKI've met Rep. Murphy several times, + came away very impressed w/him both personally + as a Representative. I'm very glad to see him take such a common-sense position. -Z Posted by: Zorro on July 8, 2009 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINKi luv ya steve, but saying "President Obama will sign the measure into law, though it's unclear how the Senate would handle the bill," kinda gets the chronology messed up... Posted by: dj spellchecka on July 8, 2009 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK"will sign .. if it reaches his desk, though..." would be better. The list of co-sponsors is impressive -- especially the number of black co-sponsors. (I have been recently arguing on LawDork against a few commenters -- mostly trolls from Pajamasmedia -- who insist that Obama will never support gay rights because he is afraid to lose the support of the black community -- supposedly extremely homophobic. The list -- particularly of those from safe seats who would lose nothing by opposing the bill -- is a convincing counter-argument.) Btw, does anyone have a quick link to the list of members of the Black, the Hispanic, and the GLBT Caucuses? I could Google it, but one of my very busy days. Inspired me to give my congressman a nudge. Done. Posted by: Algernon on July 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINKGiving a dubious Congressman a nudge is important, but how many of you whose Representatives are co-sponsors have bothered to call, write, or e-mail them to thank and encourage them. Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) on July 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINKDADT is a fundamentally unsound approach - probably the worst combination possible from a security perspective. In an atmosphere where being gay meant severe social consequences, one could make the argument for not allowing closeted gays (which, back a ways, was most) in the military - it allowed an obvious opening for blackmail and espionage. Now, however, the issue for gays is 90% employment based. Given that being gay is much more accepted on a societal level, the principal issue for many will be that they want to serve in the military, that's their career. Blackmail opportunities exist today almost entirely because military careers can be eliminated in a heartbeat by anyone 'telling'. Posted by: Fides on July 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKEither put it in a DoD appropriations bill or do it at night when nobody is watching and nobody will care. It's not that Dems are ashamed of this, it's just that it's real audience is a very small part of the electorate. It certainly shouldn't be a big deal. Post a comment
March 2010
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 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
