Since when did the EB repeal legislation? Did everyone get confused by the Bush years?

This is a perfect example of where we (us progressives) have to learn to have a basic level of patience and a bit tactical knowhow as well. The temptation of course is that it seems oh so reasonable: repealing DADT is a matter of individual rights, disenfranchizing patriotic soldiers because of their sexuality is an outrage. We have to do something NOW!! And if nothing is done we need to bitch at our team.

And what makes it hard is that something SHOULD be done now. Of course it is an outrage. But bitching at our team is indulgent and counterproductive. There are NO alternatives, the result of bitching on O and congressional dems is increasing the likelyhood of putting the other team in power.

Is that working towards repealing DADT? Is it? Really?

We can with 100% certainty bet our asses that O' and majority of dem congress WANT to repeal DODT as soon as freakin feasible, and they will. Until then the PRODUCTIVE thing to do is MAKING THE IDEOLOGICAL CASE for repealing DODT, attacking THE OTHER TEAM - WHO DON'T WANT TO REPEAL DODT.

And have the insight to realize: quite a lot of ppl in the other team in truth actually believe that f.e. abortion is killing baby kids. They do. Quite a lot of ppl in the other team actually believe that letting immigrants and "niggers" have a say will ruin our country. They actually really do. But these people learnt a long time ago that once you realize what your goals are and once you realize that you live in a diverse society where not everyone shares them:

YOU HAVE TO BE SMART. You have to choose your battles, AND ALWAYS FIRST LOOK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A PUNCH AT THE OTHER TEAM, NEVER AT YOUR OWN TEAM. And you go to war with the army you have and the circumstances you have. No friendly fire.

well, danny, norman vincent peale couldn't a'said it better.

unfortunately, wtf is going on with al the patience about:

Afghanistan (and, you know, Iraq)

health care reform

the shitty half-assed stimulus leading to 10% unemployment

the incessant bail outs of the banksters

no help for the foreclosed

abandoning ACORN

and, of course, DADT repeal...

energy? education? what is happening here?

seems like we're being patient about EVERYTHING except not torturing and not spying on citizens -- you know on NOTBush... (or is that even true?)

Good lord! The health care issue is consuming everything right now. Afghanistan is a mess that requires a whole new strategy not a knee jerk reaction and you people think DADT should be pushed to the front burner? You're crazy. I'm gay and of course I'm appalled by it, but get real. Focusing on that at this moment could bring health care reform down like a house of cards. DADT will be repealed late in Obama's first term.

In realistic terms, Obama will be a smashing success if he leaves office after two terms and has made a dent in the destruction caused by the Bush/Cheney years. The problems wer're facing will take years to straighten out. People who think the door is going to open and everything will turn into techicolor Munchkin Land better get a grasp on reality.

Yeah St Zak, yer absolutely right. The longing for Munchkinland is strong. I have been leaning too heavily on the need for Obama to bring his "LBJ" Louisville slugger to the office.

But the truth is, this country is so fucked, we ALL need to bring 'em, hard and heavy: daily civic service and organizing, locally and support in various ways nationally...

>> well, danny, norman vincent peale couldn't a'said it better.

Well thanks but "the power of positive thinking" is not what i'm going for. I'm trying to preach loyalty to the team and focus on long term goals.

>> unfortunately, wtf is going on with al the patience about:

Afghanistan (and, you know, Iraq)

Iraq is being scaled down in a quite optimal way from where i'm standing. Given what is feasible in the actual real world and everything.

Afghanistan (and Pakistan) is where most of Al Qaida is actually residing presently. Incidentally both sen. Kerry and pres. Obama both made the case in their respective candidacies that AfPak is where we should have put our money and our effort for optimal payoff and for getting Osama.

Sure, I know now we now control the govermint and evrything but I kinda think that was purdy good thinking there by srs Kerry and Obama and anyhow just only appealing to has not historically been characteristic of the democratic party and I don't think it has to be or should be in the future as well. I think the democratic party should be for smart foreign policy and the use of minimal and optimal force.

>> health care reform

They are closer than ever before nitwick. Go out there and MAKE THE CASE for THE SUPERIORITY OF OUR IDEAS. Preferably to ppl who are on the fence.

>> the shitty half-assed stimulus leading to 10% unemployment

Once again - how are you contributing? It's all good with putting some pressure on our leaders. Sure our base should not be pushovers and pussies, then compromise will always favour the repubs and never us.

But even better is putting some FREAKING PRESSURE ON THE OTHER TEAM. Just go out there and make the case for our ideas. It's pedantic and counterproductive to bitch at our guys. We need to win first. We need to go out there and win support for our ideas from ppl who are not won over, and then - when we have won, and won, and won, and won - then we can bully OUR politicians into staying true to the cause.

>> the incessant bail outs of the banksters

It was the responsible thing to do, and the only alternative. For Bush as well as Obama, should tell you something.

The difference in ideology is apparent in what happens next. WE want to implement a framework where rewards for robbing regular ppl are taken away and Wall St. are constrained by appropriate regulations and taxed to the benefit of middle class america. Go out and make the case for that.

>> no help for the foreclosed

Make the freaking case FOR THE POLICY.

>> abandoning ACORN

MAKE THE FREAKING CASE. EMAIL EVERY TV SHOW THAT FORNICATES ACORN. Think about all that is wrong with beating down on ACORN. It's so easy. They do a freakin good job in urban environments. They employ poor ppl. And here we have some palebread small town folks from "real america" who ambush them to make them look bad. Because those ppl want the US of A to be run in the same manner as Hicksville @ Nowhere. MAKE THE FREAKIN CASE. DON'T BEAT ON OUR TEAM.

Errata: and anyhow just only appealing to [ -> peacenics

@Danny: good defense of the Dims... i'll say that. I don't quite feel as perky about these developments as you...

but, as a registered Dim, i do my part -- worry not about that.

Thanks neill babe. Give it a few years, you'll be all grown up and it will be "Dim" no more, only very clearly what is good for our country and what is very bad.

Cheers :)

Steve-- I love your stuff, but regarding DADT repeal, this is putting lipstick on a pig.

Yeah, if we keep hoping and begging maybe the Democrats will do what we want. Fuck that, burn this party to the ground. Life is fucking hell right now for normal people, and you expect us to keep votinf for Democrats why? Because Republicans are worse? Go fuck yourself and find a good reason.

Dannmy nobody gives a shit what case we make you worthless fucking prick. They just do whatever the fuck they want, which is giving the rich our fucking money. You want us to waste our god damn time pretending we have any fucking power in this system other than the ability to tear it down. We don't, that's the fucking problem you god-damned moron.

Just stand their shrieking "Make a CASE!!!" like that ever fucking did anything.

> This is a perfect example of where we (us
> progressives) have to learn to have a basic level
> of patience and a bit tactical knowhow as well.

The hard right Republicans have been harvesting money and votes from the anti-abortion people for 30 years, always with promises of more action to be taken on their behalf "soon". Political commentators have been pointing out for at least 10 years that the Republicans will never take that last step even when they hold power, because then their ability to fundraise from and control the anti-abortion voters would end.

It is getting hard to believe that the Democrats, and Obama in particular, are doing anything different with gays and various other liberal subgroups. Avarosis may have gone too far in reading between the lines of this particular statement, but his overall analysis is correct as far as I can see.

Fierce advocate!

Cranky

@Danny: i keep getting these encouragements to grow up because my political party is so DIM in its understanding of "what is good for our country and what is very bad." Or many are at least spineless or "have other priorities."

i guess i'll never quite mature into my max baucus, kent conrad, ben nelson, difi, et al. golden years.

So Danny boy, you can hold your tongue at those folks' antics -- shit, you may even work for one of them for all i know -- I wont...

Its not years means it is months, still overdue for sure, but reasonable. Look how long it took to get healthcare going. I know they can do many things at the same time, but this is an issue the republicans will beat us over the head with. And right now we don't need to give them more ammunition to freak their rubes out. It is not much of a stretch to imagine them merging the two issues to rally opposition. How about they take this up the day after healthcare passes? Patrick Murphy is doing a great job, he needs to be remembered at reelection time for some funds.

Soullite:

>> Yeah, if we keep hoping and begging maybe the Democrats will do what we >> want. Fuck that, burn this party to the ground. Life is fucking hell >> right now for normal people

That's a so called "epic fucking fail". You're "normal people" then you choose from voting for the "normal ppl" party and working your ass off to make them even more normal ppl by beating up the pricks. OR you got the "Ralph Nader 2000" option. Choose wisely.

>> and you expect us to keep votinf for Democrats why? Because Republicans >> are worse?

For the love of God, YES!! Or go smoke three joints a night to forget the evil world and be a pathetic hippie. Either ones good.

Cranky Observer:

>> The hard right Republicans have been harvesting money and votes from the >> anti-abortion people for 30 years, always with promises of more action >> to be taken on their behalf "soon". Political commentators have been >> pointing out for at least 10 years that the Republicans will never take >> that last step even when they hold power, because then their ability to >> fundraise from and control the anti-abortion voters would end.

The prolifers worked within the means given to them and they got what?

- Alito, Roberts and Thomas on the SCOTUS.
- Ban on late term abortions.
- Parental notification laws.
- Stem cell research ban.
- A public conversation that acknowledges their dark-ages delusions as a legitimate philosophical position.

That's fucking brilliant payoff considering the fact that the majority of the country actually have not agreed with them for many decades.

OTOH there you are, holding a view that the majority actually DOES agree with, but if you were to go out on the public stage and say "Why should we even discuss or make a fuss about what some woman chooses to do" - how would that go down?

That should teach you something. It should teach you that conservatives back in 60s were shockfull of racists and bigots that learned how and when and in what way they could advocate and they learned to do it well. And that in raw skill you aint got shit on them.

>> It is getting hard to believe that the Democrats, and Obama in >> particular, are doing anything different with gays and various other >> liberal subgroups. Avarosis may have gone too far in reading between the >> lines of this particular statement, but his overall analysis is correct >> as far as I can see.

Once again, you got two choices - one want as few gay rights as possible, the other wants as many as possible. OUR team are fucking pussies, but realize that's because YOU don't back them up, YOU ain't got their back.

What Cranky said. They will keep wanting to repeal it, but alas, it will never be the "right time." I fully expect DADT to still be in place as of the 2012 elections.

dadt isn't like redesigning a weapon: taking beaucoup bucks and time...

ya just stop. ya just stop weeding out people. ya just stop persecuting/prosdecutin' and hurtin' people.

sweet jesus, it's a bleedin' money saver: there's yer answer to the vast majority of the mostly sane-if-slightly homophobic citizenry...

Once again, you got two choices - one want as few gay rights as possible, the other wants as many as possible.

Horseshit.

DADT was the product of a Democractic president, and DOMA was signed into law by that same Democratic president.

The choice LGBT people really face is between outright hostility and benign neglect. I know which one I choose, but please stop insulting my intelligence. The Democratic Party wants me to give them money, vote for their candidates and then go away and shut up.

Uncle Kvetch:

I'm on the fence if you guys are trying for the olympic gold in disingenuity or if you're a bunch of undercover Glenn Beck fans doing some Operation Chaos gig.

Let's try an analogy - it should be familiar.

1) Spinelessly going along with and voting to authorize GWBs Gulf War II.
2) Planning, demagogueing, lying to the public and by premeditation making Gulf War II a fact because IT IS YOUR ACTUAL GOAL to make it so.

Now which one is democrats guilty of? That would be 1). Would 2) ever have happened if Al Gore was elected president? No.

With Clinton w/r to DADT and DOMA, he came blazing into office, gunning for getting homosexual servicemen to be allowed to serve openly and proudly in our military. Then he got caught between conservatives with a common goal (keeping gays out of the armed forces) and message discipline on the one side, and on the other side (his side) he got sniped in the back by backseat driver libs who'd rather piss on their knight than go out and be a good soldier.

Add to that that the general public back then was not on our side. They are starting to come along, and that is because of the good stuff that we do and that Clinton did. DADT was a step along the road, it made it a little bit more familiar to "common folks" that homosexual ppl serve and that it does not have to be a big deal. In the long run DADT is unacceptable and it will have to go during Obamas precidency. But it will never go thanks to Repubs.

DOMA well thats the fucking same thing all over again isn't it!? Clinton getting into a bind because dems (politicians AND supporters) cant stick up for one another on Hillarycare, on gays in the military. The american public seeing how the dems are backstabbing, ineffectual dorks voted in the loonies and they pushed, of course, THEIR FUCKING AGENDA, of which I'm sure you're aware DOMA was a part!?

And being spineless given their unfocused and counterproductive base, and their humiliating loss, the dems to a large extent went along and Clinton signed it.

So it's your choice: if you want to keep shooting yourself in the dick while proudly waving the rainbow flag rather then wise up and work methodicly towards the goals we all share - go ahead.

damn danny, yer good!
you ought to be on staff for the dnc -- high up...
(& here i thought steve ought to be gettin' a little regular check...)

he got sniped in the back by backseat driver libs who'd rather piss on their knight than go out and be a good soldier

No idea who this is referring to. None whatsoever. Got any names, cites, anything?

DADT was a step along the road

It was nothing of the kind--unless you count a step backward as a "step along the road." Discharges actually went up in the wake of DADT.

DOMA well thats the fucking same thing all over again isn't it!?

Sure is...once again, it's everybody else's fault. Poor Bill Clinton's hands were tied. What could he do? He was only the President; it's not like he had any power or anything. You can't expect a President to lead--that would be crazy. A President's job is to follow.

So it's your choice: if you want to keep shooting yourself in the dick while proudly waving the rainbow flag rather then wise up and work methodicly towards the goals we all share - go ahead.

Thanks, it's good to have options. And you have fun being a good little soldier in the trenches--every one of your all-caps laden blog tantrums brings us that much closer to our common goals.

>> No idea who this is referring to. None
whatsoever. Got any names, cites, anything?

It's 16 years ago, hunting down the internet for contemporary coverage of the DADT debate is to much work. We remember it different, and that's that.

>> It was nothing of the kind--unless you count a step backward as a "step along the road." Discharges actually went up in the wake of DADT.

Bullshit. You would rather go back to when it was illegal for gay ppl to serve in any capacity?

Even if a Jim Crow of sorts, as disgraceful as it is, it still puts smack dab into the public sphere the fact that gay ppl ARE serving.

>> Sure is...once again, it's everybody else's fault. Poor Bill Clinton's hands were tied. What could he do? He was only the President; it's not like he had any power or anything. You can't expect a President to lead--that would be crazy. A President's job is to follow.

In 1996 the polling went like this:

"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Should be valid 27
Should not be valid 68

It passed 342-67 in house and 85-14 in Senate.

I.e. the proposal was as sad as that is "wildly popular".

Had it been vetoed, the veto would have been overridden.

The law was signed one month before the '96 election. How many presidents do you think would have acted differently on that polling data, republican or democratic?

>> Thanks, it's good to have options. And you have fun being a good little soldier in the trenches

Thanks, I will. Fighting for what's right and for a better country is plenty fun.

>> every one of your all-caps laden blog tantrums brings us that much closer to our common goals.

Caps is a convenient way to communicate emphasis when i don't know if html tags will work. I'll have to live with offending your sense of style.

Have a good life & enjoy the PBRs.

Bullshit.

Not bullshit, fact. Discharges went up every single year from 1994 to 2001. Twice as many people were discharged in 2001 as in 1994. They only went down subsequently because of the military's need for warm bodies after 9/11.

You would rather go back to when it was illegal for gay ppl to serve in any capacity?

I realize the facts conflict with your preferred narrative, but you really sound like you don't know what you're talking about here. It's still illegal for gay people to serve in any capacity. That's why people are still being drummed out of the service for being gay, as we speak. And it's not treacherous, sniping liberals who are doing issuing those discharges, it's the US military, of which Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief.

Had it been vetoed, the veto would have been overridden.

Exactly right. If Clinton really felt strongly about the issue, he could have done the right thing, and vetoed the bill, and let the chips fall where they may. A veto could have had real significance on the debate over the long-run. But that would have required expending political capital on something he obviously didn't really give a shit about. So instead he put his presidential seal of approval on an act of overt bigotry.

"It would have been overridden anyway" is a pathetic cop-out.

>> Not bullshit, fact.

Ok, you would rather go back to pre-DADT laws, good for you. I'd rather not.

>> Discharges went up every single year from 1994 to 2001. Twice as many people were discharged in 2001 as in 1994. They only went down subsequently because of the military's need for warm bodies after 9/11.

Are you able to prove or support causation - not just (partial) correlation?

>> It's still illegal for gay people to serve in any capacity.

Gays are not allowed to serve openly, whereas previously they were not allowed to serve at all - openly or not. That should be pretty fucking obvious one would assume?

Apparently this issue is of supreme importance to you and you refuse to see any shades of gray. Fine, I agree with you on what the only acceptable policy is in the end.

The difference between us is you - being a de facto one issue voter and refusing to acknowledge the reality of real life politics in a two party system - would rather sacrifice all the other policy goals in the agenda of one of those two parties than have to wait another couple of years for a repeal of DADT.

>> Exactly right. If Clinton really felt strongly about the issue, he could have done the right thing, and vetoed the bill, and let the chips fall where they may. A veto could have had real significance on the debate over the long-run. But that would have required expending political capital on something he obviously didn't really give a shit about. So instead he put his presidential seal of approval on an act of overt bigotry.

An act of overt bigotry, yes indeed it was. An act of overt bigotry resoundingly supported by the american public at the time, which is the really sad part.

So let's see, who do you choose to indict?

1) The american public, who by ~70-30% prefered to take away the rights of a minority, the right to marry the person they love.
2) The conservative movement who are out there working their ass off to convince more people that gays should not have that right.
3) The republican politicians who gladly wrote, pushed and voted for the law.
4) The democrats in congress, who voted with the republicans.
5) The president who did not veto on the eve of the election.

Now the correct answer is all of the above. But for some fucking reason you choose to focus exclusively on (5) which is arguably the worst and least constructive place to put the blame. But you need to hang someone right, so let's hang our guy. We'd been much better off with Dole.

So I'm asking you: can you dig up, or even just suggest a plausible scenario, in which a real world politician - anyone - took such a stand in the face of public opinion, on the eve of an election? It was a cynical trap set by the republicans to make clinton and the dems either go against public opinion and pay the price at the polls or else support imoral legislation with demoralizing effects for the dem base.

You're holding Clinton up to a fantasy ideal of how you think it ought to work. But it doesn't, ever. On either side of the aisle. That's why the repubs haven't dismantled medicare or social security. They have to convince the public FIRST.

But there are many people - pundits, bloggers, you - who are not bound by the realities of politics; who can freely and efficiently make the case to the rest of the american people. Just saying.