Bill O'Reilly is now to the left of President Obama on DADT

O'Reilly - yes, that O'Reilly - is now more liberal than President Obama on the issue of gays in the military. O'Reilly says to stop the discharges now. It's not clear when the discharges will actually stop, even if Congress does pass the legislation currently being debated. The President has it in his power to stop the discharges now. Read More......

Kathy Griffin's confusing comments on Dan Choi

I don't have any idea what to make of this Kathy Griffin comment — either in the context of her beliefs about gays, or the context of her career. Here’s the clip; she's talking with Joy Behar on The Joy Behar Show (h/t Lisa Derrick):



The first part of her remarks just don't match the second, which are admittedly very positive. But given this opening:

He was honorably discharged? I don’t know what that means, because to me if he was discharged for being gay, then I don’t know how honorable that is.

— what can she then say that spins this into a positive? The second half of her answer seems to just ignore what she said in the first part.

As to the implications for her career, I don't know much about Kathy Griffin. She came into my life one New Years' Eve alongside Anderson Cooper — the Night of the Snappy Comeback — and left it when they cut to commercial.

So I only suspect I understand who her audience is. But if what I suspect is true, didn't she just diss a good chunk of them who pays her bills?

Again, not judging; just confused.

To add to the Griffin–Choi madness, there's this from the Wash Post — a profile of Griffin that includes a scene of her filming outside the White House just as Dan Choi and Co. started chaining themselves to the fence:

At the rally, Griffin is approached by Dan Choi, a gay Army officer and radical opponent to DADT, who asks her if he can come up onstage with her. Once there, he takes the microphone and implores the crowd to walk with him a few blocks to the White House.

"I am in uniform, I am still fighting, I am still speaking out, I am still serving, and I am still gay," Choi declares. "Will you all here join me? Kathy will you go with me?" he asks Griffin, whose face freezes in PR horror.

Griffin answers yes, but she means no. She chooses to stay behind and deliver the crowd a text message she says has just been sent from Cher, which she dangles before everyone like it's gay catnip. Choi marches over to the White House, where he and another soldier handcuff themselves to the Pennsylvania Avenue fence and are promptly arrested.

It looks like the Post has it in for her in the article, so who knows what's going on?

But definitely a puzzle, all this. Is Griffin's material really just a shtick, and not much more? I guess I'm not the one to say.

GP Read More......

Harry Reid on DADT and ENDA

Joe Sudbay got a chance to ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and ENDA at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas, Nevada on July 24, 2010. Nothing earth-shattering in his response - just wanted to let folks know we're still pushing our congressional leaders.

Read More......

Dan Choi found out today that he has been discharged under DADT

I posted about this news at AMERICAblog Gay. And, I was able to talk to Dan, who is in Las Vegas for Netroots Nation. Here's the video:
Read More......

I just took DOD's confidential DADT survey of the troops - three times!

I think we have a problem...

So much for the Defense Department's super secret $4.5 million survey of the troops to ask them how they feel about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I, an avowed gay activist, just took the survey - three times in fact. Perhaps DOD should reconsider just how good and informative, and accurate, this survey is. (They also might want to get their money back.)

Read the entire story over at AMERICAblog Gay. Read More......

Pentagon responds to my post about segregating gay troops

Apparently, the Pentagon feels I'm not being very helpful. Read More......

Does the White House not understand that a black president cannot institute a policy of segregation? Apparently they don't.

Joe and I have friends who don't understand why we get so upset with President Obama, who we supported in the primaries. This post is an excellent example of why we do.

The Pentagon confirmed on Friday that it is considering segregating gay troops, specifically with regards to creating separate showers and/or barracks for straight and gay troops.

Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld just transcribed the following quote from Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell at Friday's briefing about the new "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" survey:

"We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn’t try to address these types of things. Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."

Segregation, folks. Separate but equal. In the year 2010. And from a black president, no less.



How do you feel about the segregation of blacks in the first half of the 1900s? Did you think it was disgusting that African-Americans weren't permitted to drink out of our fountains, swim in our pools, sit at the front of the bus, share the same bleachers at a game, as the rest of us? Then why is it okay to even talk about segregating gays and lesbians? What would have happened to an Obama administration spokesman who talked about segregating blacks?



They're talking about the possibility of segregation, people. Of instituting a policy of separate-but-equal in the year 2010, under a Democratic president.

It's what they did to Barack Obama's father. Does no one in the White House get the irony here? And does no one understand the political danger here? Does Jim Messina really want to see people showing up at Obama 2012 campaign rallies with the word "Colored" written in ink on their foreheads? With signs saying "Barack, would you segregate your own father?" and "George Wallace Obama"? Or how about simply a crowd of protesters at every event - and every fundraiser the President does for congressional races - wearing signs saying "I am a man"?



A Pentagon spokesman had the audacity to suggest that segregation was an option, and mind you this wasn't the first time that someone at DOD has suggested it. President Obama is the commander in chief. He's also the President of the United States. If one of his own administration spokesmen says segregation is an option, and President Obama doesn't shut that conversation down immediately, and fire the bigot who had the audacity to even suggest such a thing - and he clearly hasn't, as this segregation talking point keeps coming out of this Obama administration - then President Obama is to blame.

Still wonder why people are so pissed off? Ask a black person how they feel about segregated drinking fountains, then get back to us.

Read More......

DADT troop survey a mess; asks about sharing showers. Lead gay group warns gay troops about participating in survey at all.

The repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was thrown into further doubt today when details of the Obama administration's survey of US service members was leaked to the media.

It's bad enough that the Commander in Chief is asking his subordinates what they think of his order to integrate the troops (imagine a Republican president asking the troops for permission to issue an order). But now we learn that the survey has been so botched by the Obama administration that the lead gay group on lifting the ban, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is warning gay service members about taking the survey at all.

What's more, in contrast to repeated assurances from the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the survey is not simply about "how" to implement the repeal of DADT, it is also about "whether" to repeal at all. A full one-third of the survey is devoted to the titillating, and irrelevant, issues of showers, bathrooms, sleeping arrangements, and whether repeal will hurt morale and cohesion.

And to top it off, the lead gay civil rights group working on the issue has been cut out of the process (again) by the Obama administration.

Late last week, SLDN asked the Department of Defense and the Pentagon Working Group for the text of the surveys, more information on possible certificates of confidentiality, and whether DOD or PWG could guarantee immunity from DADT and other armed services rules and regulations for service members who are inadvertently "outed" by the surveys. The Department of Defense was unable to satisfy our request.

One could understand why George Bush's Pentagon would want to cut a civil rights group out of the process, but Barack Obama's? A man who promised to be the gay community's fierce advocate, and a man who recently bragged at the G-20 summit about how he kept his promise to repeal DADT (when it hasn't been repealed, and the law currently being debated does not repeal it at all)? Why is President Obama cutting the lead gay civil rights group on this issue out of the process? And make no mistake, this is all about President Obama. He is after all the commander in chief of the US military. He issues the orders, the Pentagon works for him.

As a result of the Obama administration cutting SLDN out, the administration screwed up the survey. There is no guarantee for gay servicemembers taking the survey that the survey results won't be used to out them, thus destroying their careers. Kind of an obvious point.

While the surveys are apparently designed to protect the individual's privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy and DOD has not agreed to provide immunity to service members whose privacy may be inadvertently violated or who inadvertently outs himself or herself.

So if by taking the survey you out yourself, tough luck.

This is no small point. If the survey that is the entire basis of the decision how (and now apparently if) to repeal DADT is screwed up, then the entire implementation of the repeal (if it even ever happens) is going to be screwed up. The Obama administration has just put the entire repeal of DADT in jeopardy.

What genius came up with this screwed up process? White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, or the self-appointed leader of the gay community, who has personally claimed credit for the entire DADT compromise, the Center for American Progress' Winnie Stachelberg? If this thing gets screwed up - and it already is - and we do not see a full 100% repeal of DADT next year, if we are still discussing separate-but-equal options about segregated showers and barracks in 2011 (while the Pentagon continues to discharge gay troops and the Dept of Justice continues to defend DADT in court), Messina and Stachelberg are going to have to explain to the President why his pissed off that he never seems to be able to keep his word.

We were promised a fierce advocate. This is bullshit. Read More......

DOJ asks judge to 'defer ruling' in DADT case because of legislation that hasn't passed and doesn't repeal the law

This is why so many in the gay community are so increasingly ticked off at the Obama administration. Because the Obama administration is acting like the Bush administration. They're acting no better than the Family Research Council or the American Family Association. They continue to defend the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law in court, and today they even outdid themselves.

The President's Justice Department had the temerity to tell the court that it shouldn't rule on the constitutionality of DADT because Congress was working on repealing DADT as we speak.

Of course, as I explained last week, Congress is doing no such thing. (And even if it were, the law hasn't passed yet, so it's moot.) What Congress is debating is legislation that would permit the repeal of DADT at some unspecified future date should the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the President all agree that it should happen. There is no requirement that it ever happen, nor is there a requirement that the law be replaced with anything better. The Defense Department could still rewrite the regulations even worse than they are now.

So it really is the height of chutzpah for the Obama administration to basically mislead a federal court in defense of discrimination. President Obama doesn't have to defend at-gay laws in court, but he does anyway (of course, he ignores others laws he finds inconvenient, but not ones discrimination against gays).

Such a disappointment when an African-American president who campaigned on "change" defends laws that would have made George Wallace proud. Read More......

Ike Skelton wants to keep DADT so 7-year-olds don't hear about 'the gays'

Senility should be a disqualifier for holding public office. Read More......

My thoughts on the DADT compromise

I've written a rather long piece over at AMERICAblog Gay, explaining why I believe the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise is, on par, a good thing.

We had to pass something this year on DADT or, I think, the fall congressional elections would have precluded action on DADT for years to come. Most observers, all really, think that the Democrats are going to lose seats in November. The question is how many, and whether it will be enough to lose control of at least the House. Some people say it will be enough. If Democrats lose control of the House, you can kiss pro-gay legislation goodbye for years to come (the last time we lost the Congress it took 14 years to get it back). And even if we don't lose the House, but "simply" lose a ton of Democratic seats, we all saw how Democrats flipped out after simply one electoral loss in January (to Scott Brown in Massachusetts). Imagine how they'll react to even larger losses in November. They won't want to touch what they call "controversial legislation" until they rebuild their super-majority, which again could be years.

Simply put, this compromise keeps DADT repeal alive. It permits us a vehicle for seeking full repeal in December of this year, after the Pentagon study is completed, and after the November elections. Had we said "no" to this compromise, I challenge anyone to explain how we could have gotten anything better this year, or for years to come.

Why do I think this compromise protects a future repeal option? Because as weak as this compromise is, most of the media, and a large swath of the American people, think that Congress just voted to repeal DADT. Even the President's own Organizing for America group is calling this a "repeal" vote:

The House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee have already voted in favor of repeal...

And what's more, everyone knows for a fact that the President repeatedly promise during his campaign, and as recently as during this year's State of the Union, to fully repeal DADT. When the Pentagon finishes its study in December as promised, most of the country - and most of the Congress - expects the Pentagon to immediate prepare regulations fully repealing DADT once and for all. If that doesn't happen, the President is going to face a serious political problem just as he launches his re-election campaign.

Whether you agree with my assessment, no one can accuse Joe or me of being soft on this President. We came out swinging for Obama during the primaries, before it was cool, and ended up raising $43,000 for candidate Obama, a sum that usually makes you at the very least a well-respected donor. But when the President went back on his word on health care reform, went soft on the stimulus, and seemed to be backtracking on his gay rights promises, we publicly held him accountable when the easy thing to do would have been to sit back, shut up, and ride his victory to our good fortune. If I thought this compromise were the end of the world, I'd say so. I'm not happy with the compromise, to be sure, and I'm not happy that the President chose half a loaf instead of just lifting the ban now and being done with it. But I do see a path forward under this compromise. And I see no chance whatsoever if we reject it.

That is why I say that, on balance, this compromise does more good than bad, and is certainly better than the alternative - doing nothing.

Read More......

Charlie Crist supports compromise DADT language

This is interesting for a variety of reasons, that go beyond the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy itself. Crist, like Lindsey Graham has had to face longtime rumors that he's gay. So, siding with a compromise that is perceived as pro-gay poses either a risk, or an opportunity, for any politician, depending who exactly he's trying to woo. Crist seems to think being pro-gay woos him the votes he needs to win the Senate seat in Florida. So much so, that he's willing to flip-flop on his previous opposition to changing the current policy. Read More......

DADT compromise adopted by House 234-194

It's been added to the Defense Authorization bill, which is still being debated by the full House. You can watch a number of the speeches here and here. Read More......

Senate Armed Services Committee pass DADT compromise

It's not a repeal, Dear NYT. It's legislation that will permit the Pentagon, working with the President, to repeal the language in the future, if and when they so choose, if ever. The vote was 16-12. Webb (D-VA) voted with the bigots. Collins (R-ME) voted with us. Read More......

Two of the four joint chiefs wrongly think DADT compromise repeals the law immediately; send letters to Congress about the wrong legislation

I'd like to think that you have to be pretty smart to be chosen to run an entire branch of the military. But yesterday, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz brought that assumption into question when they wrote letters to GOP Senator John McCain suggesting that the compromise "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" legislation being debated today before Congress would immediately repeal the anti-gay law, before the Pentagon's implementation study is completed.

That is utterly false. And a simple read of the rather short amendment, even by a non-lawyer, would clarify this point beyond a doubt.

You can read more about this on AMERICAblog Gay. But it really is disturbing the lengths to which our military leaders will go to subvert their own commander in chief, and to meddle in the democratic process. We're supposed to have civilian control of the military. But somehow, whenever a Democrat becomes president, the military conveniently forgets this fact and believes, instead, that we live in Bolivia. Read More......

Rachel talks DADT repeal with Rep. Patrick Murphy; UPDATED: Ben Nelson will vote for repeal

UPDATE: Senator Ben Nelson will vote for DADT repeal in the Senate Armed Services Committee. Adam Bink at Open Left broke the news late this morning. SLDN's Aubrey Sarvis explained the significance of this development to Greg Sargent:

"We believe Chairman Levin is pretty much there with his vote count," Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, tells me, in a reference to Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the committee.

This appears to bring the amendment much closer to a full floor vote in the Senate, which was anything but certain as of this morning.

______________
Definitely worth a watch. Excellent analysis followed by an interview with Murphy, the House sponsor of DADT repeal:
Read More......

A brilliant synopsis of where we are on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal

Kerry Eleveld of the Advocate isn't just the unofficial dean of the gay press corps, she's also a damn good journalist in her own right. Her summary of where we are on the question of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and her analysis of where all of this is heading, is simply a brilliant piece of journalism. It sums up where I think many in the gay community, and our allies, are one day after the White House offered us a compromise that compromises a tad too far. Joe has more on this over at AMERICAblog Gay. Read More......

Scott Brown (R-Teabagger)

Scott Brown has just announced that he's going to vote against the DADT compromise that the Pentagon and the White House came up with yesterday. His reasons, however, don't make sense, as his concerns are already address, directly, in the legislation itself. It sounds like Brown is simply afraid that the Teabaggers who put him into office are going to be upset if he once again votes for something good. Having said that, even the Teabaggers support DADT repeal to the tune of nearly 70% of them in a recent poll. So, again, Scott Brown makes no sense. Read More......

Text of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal legislation

I've gotten a copy of the DADT repeal legislation that the White House endorsed today. It's posted on the gay blog, with some more details. Read More......

Levin, Lieberman, Murphy ask White House for 'official views' on DADT repeal proposal

Just posted this at AMERICAblog Gay. The three key lawmakers pushing for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell have asked the White House to weigh in on their proposal. This should result in an official statement from the Obama administration. Votes were going to occur later this week on the House floor and in the Senate Armed Services Committee anyway.

Letter to Obama asking for "official views" on DADT repeal Read More......