Subscribe via RSS Feed

Tag: "gay and lesbian rights"

A Morning With CSPAN-2

[ 30 ] December 18, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

…World’s Worst Deliberative Body rejects DREAM ACT by 55-41 majority.

…Joe Lieberman — Joe Lieberman! — gives nice, concise pro-DADT repeal speech. World’s biggest asshole John McCain — having railed against “elites” prior to returning to one of his indeterminate number of houses — favors the Senate with pissy, incoherent non-sequiturs about lost limbs.

…DADT repeal cloture apparently will pass with margin to spare. Woo-hoo! Krik and Voinovich joining right side of history on the GOP side with the New Englanders and Murkowski.

…63-33! A great day in American history. Great work by Reid and, yes, Lieberman. Obama’s strategy was vindicated. Plenty of credit to go around.

…as several people have noted, the only Republican to vote “yea” on cloture for both DREAM and DADT repeal was Lisa Murkowski. Thanks Sarah!

…Kos really lets Tester have it over his DREAM vote.

…Final DADT repeal vote: Senators committed to ideals of Declaration of Independence 65, Heirs of George Wallace 31.

Is It Possible to be Too Cynical?

[ 43 ] December 16, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

When dealing with the contemporary United States Senate, I would have thought not.   And yet the stand-alone DADT repeal whose chances for passage I had (with good reason, I think) pegged at “zilch” seems to be an odds-on favorite to pass.  My official position, I suppose, is “I’ll believe it when I see it” — I mean, counting on Brown and the “talk like Lincoln Chaffee, vote like Jim DeMint” Maine twins to do the right thing?   Because Joe Lieberman has been such an effective advocate for a progressive cause?  When does the trap door open?   Still, the good people seem to have the votes, and if it happens, I’ll be thrilled to have been wrong.

…as Malaclypse reminds us in comments, there’s still plenty of procedural nonsense that could thwart reform — getting the necessary number of nominal supporters has never been the problem. We’ll see.

World’s Worst Deliberative Body Votes To Maintain Military Discrimination

[ 40 ] December 9, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

In recent weeks, some commenters have instructed me that DADT repeal was a done deal. I never understood this, since Collins’s position all along has been consistent: she’ll vote for cloture if it doesn’t mean anything. Well, she voted for cloture…and it didn’t mean anything.

Obviously, this is a disgrace, and the near-inevitability doesn’t make it any less so. The only remaining venue for short-term repeal is the courts (which is presumably what the fake-moderate Republicans want to happen.) If they insist on appealing maybe the DOJ can at least tank the oral argument…

…according to Sargent, Reid brought this to a vote because he thought that “moderate” Republicans were bargaining in bad faith. Can anyone seriously dispute this?

…and, of course, the filibuster is an abomination.

You Are the Sucker, Susan Collins Edition

[ 25 ] December 8, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

Nobody possibly could have predicted that getting Susan Collins’s “support” for DADT would involve procedural compromises that would allow the explicit repeal opponents in her conference to kill the bill.    Certainly, we haven’t seen this before.

On the Imminent Failure to Repeal DADT

[ 35 ] December 3, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

Yglesias:

So we should just put it down fo the record here. In 2010 when faced with the opportunity to follow all of our important allies down the road of equality, a whole bunch of conservative politicians just decided that their ethics doesn’t make room for the idea that gay and lesbian Americans are human beings whose interests should count in deliberations. They refused to articulate exactly what it is that they think gay and lesbians Americans are if not free and equal citizens of the United States. But they made it clear through their words and needs that whatever it is gay and lesbians Americans are, it’s not free and equal citizens of the country. They’re some kind of subordinate class whose interests can and should be sacrificed to the alter of political expedience or knee-jerk prejudice or something else. It’s repugnant and despicable.

Waldman:

We don’t know whether “don’t ask, don’t tell” will end this year or next, but we all know it will end, and gay people will be allowed to serve their country in the military, just like they do in almost every other Western nation. And when this debate is remembered, John McCain will be the symbol of fear and bigotry, abandoned by even his wife and daughter, the military’s answer to George Wallace circa 1963, a bitter old man standing in the recruiting office door, shouting, “Discrimination now, discrimination tomorrow, discrimination forever!” That will be his legacy.

I also want to know why Republicans hate the IDF.

See If You Can Spot the False Dichotomy: Rank Bigotry Edition

[ 11 ] November 9, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

Shorter Verbatim one of the Powerline stooges:  “The purpose of the Marines is to fight America’s enemies. It is no [sic] part of their purpose to facilitate the self-actualization of gays.”

For further grim amusement, consider his additional claim that “[i]n this context, any appreciable risk to the fighting capacity of the Marine Corps is too much.”  Of course, non-bigots can ask exactly the same question: in this context, it’s particularly stupid and dangerous to turn away qualified military personnel in order to accommodate the discriminatory prejudices of an increasingly small minority of Americans.

More on the Politics of DADT Repeal

[ 25 ] November 9, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

What Drum says here is correct:

Democratic spinelessness on this is worth mocking. But let’s get real: the problem isn’t with Senate Democrats, 97% of whom voted to repeal DADT in September. The problem is with Republicans, 100% of whom voted against repeal even though, as the Gallup poll above shows, repeal is favored by 60% of Republicans, a majority of conservatives, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

100%. Not one single Republican was willing to buck the tea party hordes and vote for DADT repeal. Even Susan Collins of Maine, the only Republican who publicly supports repeal, concocted a transparently bogus excuse not to vote for it.

Democrats may not be profiles in courage here, but they aren’t the villains on DADT repeal. They just aren’t. Republicans are. They’re willing to unanimously filibuster funding for the military in order to pander to the small percentage of their own party that thinks gay people are icky.

Right, as far is it goes. Certainly, DADT repeal is a poor example for those trying to claim that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. But:

But not only are they getting away with the filibuster, they’re turning their obstruction into a political winner by forcing the progressive community into circular firing squad mode. I try really hard to think of politics in terms of the substance of things rather than the quality of the performances, but from a sports fan type perspective you really have to admit that Mitch McConnell has delivered a gutsy virtuoso performance as a legislative leader. It takes a real kind of vision to recognize that relentless obstruction even of overwhelmingly popular progressive ideas can be turned into a political winner by creating fractures in the other side’s coalition.

For a moment, let’s also stipulate for the sake of argument that Drum is also right that the Obama administration shouldn’t use its discretion to refuse a repeal to the ruling overturning DADT, certainly a reasonably position (certainly, legislative repeal would be preferable.) This puts all of the direct blame on Republicans, who deserve at least 90% of the blame in any case.  But this still doesn’t explain why the Democrats are pre-emptively capitulating on an issue on which they hold the political leverage. As Matt says, filibustering defense appropriations bills is unpopular, and DADT is unpopular. Certainly, if the shoe was on the other foot McConnell would force the Dems to filibuster multiple times and put intense pressure on the moderates. It’s entirely possible that there’s nothing Reid can do to get “moderate” Republican frauds to do the right thing, but at least Dems  could get a political victory out of it.   By just surrendering when they hold the political cards, the Democratic leadership must bear some responsibility for the circular firing squad.

Actually, I Don’t Know That

[ 28 ] November 8, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

Defending the Obama administration’s decision to appeal the ruling holding DADT unconstitutional, Joe From Lowell asserted:

The GOP is going to vote for the Defense Authorization bill. It is a must-pass bill, and DADT is already in it. They can only delay at this point, but they can’t not pass the bill, and even the most optimistic scenarios don’t give them enough votes to remove DADT repeal.

But you already knew that.

I assume many of you have already spotted the flaw in this analysis — to state the obvious, legislation can be re-introduced in different forms.  Given this, it would seem implausible in the extreme that the GOP would suddenly agree to a repeal of DADT from a stronger political position. And what do you know:

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it. With a repeal attached, and amid Republican complaints over the terms of the debate, the defense bill had failed to win the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate in September.

[...]

Tommy Sears, executive director of the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes a repeal, rated the chance of action “extremely low.” Richard Socarides, an activist and former adviser on gay rights to President Bill Clinton, said it was “extremely unrealistic” that Congress would take it up this year.

Who saw that coming? Why, next thing you’ll tell me that John Boehner isn’t planning on sitting down with Obama and working out a cap-and-trade deal.

If you want to defend the Obama administration’s decision to appeal the DADT ruling on the merits, go ahead (although I disagree.) But let’s not kid ourselves about the consequences: if the appeal succeeds, we’re stuck with DADT for a minimum of two more years. The chances of legislative repeal during this period are essentially zero.

[via]

…Serwer:

Look, if Democrats can’t repeal a policy more than two thirds of the American people, including a majority of conservatives want gone then they can’t expect people to vote for them. Preserving DADT is rank absurdity, even in 1993 the RAND study commissioned by the government showed that combat effectiveness would not be harmed by allowing openly gay servicemembers to serve, and the fact that DADT investigations are sometimes delayed when servicemembers are deployed undermines the notion that openly gay servicemembers harm the war effort.

The GOP shouldn’t be let off the hook here — it is, after all, their unanimous obstruction that prevented the repeal — but it is nonetheless true that the Democrats have leverage in the form of a defense bill they’re refusing to use, and the Obama administration’s opposition to DADT appears to be entirely nominal.

The Past Is A Grotesque Animal

[ 4 ] November 3, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

Because there wasn’t enough bad news last week, the forces of discrimination strike back against three of the Iowa Supreme Court’s historic Varnum ruling. The good news is that the discrimination restoration faction faces an uphill climb, so with an effective struggle the ruling should remain in force.

This Is What Support of DADT Amounts To

[ 17 ] October 25, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

I had forgotten whether or not the Washington Times was still in business.   Apparently, it is, and it has a revoltingly homophobic editorial in support of DADT. The thing is, none of this irrational rhetoric is in any way unusual — “radical homosexual agenda,” “ramming [non-discriminatory] policy through and/or down throats,” etc. — is how movement conservatives, including Republican public officials, talk about gay and lesbian rights. Which helps to explain why every Senate Republican voted to filibuster the perpetuation of the unpopular and unjust policy that Moon’s minions defend in such rancid terms here.

Does the Obama Administration Have to Appeal the DADT Ruling?

[ 58 ] October 21, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

Absolutely not.

There’s nothing particularly complex here. The DOJ has no legal obligation to do appeal the DADT ruling, and there’s ample precedent for allowing a ruling of unconstitutionality to stand. And the case for making an exception here couldn’t be more compelling: the law unjustly burdens minority rights and lacks both popular support and the support of legislative majorities. (This case, therefore, can be easily distinguished from refusing to defend the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.) Whether or not one agrees with me on this, however, when the administration claims it doesn’t have discretion here they’re not telling the truth.

Next Stop For The Straight Talk Express: Hateville

[ 4 ] October 18, 2010 | Scott Lemieux

Despite the staunch support for gay and lesbian rights that somehow must be lurking behind his relentlessly reactionary voting record, John McCain reasserts his determination to deploy counter-majoritarian tactics to ensure that that the highly unpopular and morally indefensible exclusion of gays and lesbians from the military:

When asked how far he would go to prevent an attempt to repeal the controversial policy from being approved in the upper congressional chamber, McCain responded by saying, “Absolutely I will filibuster or stop it from being brought up until we have a thorough and complete study on the effect of morale and battle effectiveness.”

The longtime senator said that it doesn’t matter to him that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen have both voiced support for stopping the enforcement of the ban on gay troops.

However, back in 2006 McCain communicated a distinctly different stance on the issue when he said, “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”

It should be added at this point that the primary is over. In some sense, seeing McCain as merely a hack politician (while certainly an improvement from the utterly embarrassing fawning-over he received from the press for decades) is too charitable. While he’s certainly a ruthless hack, he also has an extensive history of endorsing appalling positions absent any actual political necessity.

Page 5 of 10« First...3456710...Last »

    • Switch to our mobile site