Initial report from Signorile's Townhall; White House ostracizing SLDN

Joe and I got back a few hours ago from Mike Signorile's gay townhall meeting he held in Washington today. It was quite interesting. Mike assembled the leaders of NGLTF, HRC, SLDN and NCTE, and a few advocates (Pam Spaulding and Richard Socarides), and had a two hour discussion about our groups and our movement, with an audience.

It was interesting. Much of the time was spent on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which doesn't surprise me. For whatever reason, that issue has risen in importance in the community, even passing ENDA and DOMA in the gay public mind (I think). Much of the discussion was focused on the President, and the fact that he isn't keeping his promise to help us pass repeal this year.

It began with Mike asking the panel to give the President and the Congress a grade. All I remember was the presidential side. Pam gave Obama a D. Aubrey at SLDN gave him a C. Joe Solmonese at HRC gave him a B. The Task Force's Rea Carey gave him a D. The National Center for Transgender Equality's executive director Mara Keisling gave him a B. And Richard Socarides gave him a D.

Many, if not all, of the hard questions were for Solmonese at HRC. Honestly, it was two hours of talk, and they made us turn off our phones, so I couldn't take notes (I use my iphone to take notes). But one bit of news that I found particularly interesting was that the White House has apparently been ostracizing SLDN, our lead "gays in the military" group. I know far more about this issue than what was said today, but much of what I know was gleaned in confidence, so I'll only share what was public today (I'm only saying this to let you know that SLDN wasn't lying, the White House has been playing games with them for a while).

In a nutshell, the White House got angry at SLDN last year for advocating just a bit too strongly (in the White House's view) for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. You see, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina made clear last year that he wasn't terribly interested in moving ahead with the repeal of DADT. Aubrey Sarvis, who heads up SLDN, somehow got the notion in his head that Barack Obama was serious when he said that he planned to be our fierce advocate and fight for the repeal of DADT. So Aubry took the White House on, held a protest outside, and ran an ad in one of the big Capitol Hill papers. Unaccustomed to gay rights groups who actually fight for gay rights, the White House decided to cut SLDN off. (Again, I know much more about this story from a variety of sources - the story is true.)

One of the biggest FU's they gave SLDN was refusing to invite them to a key meeting with Messina earlier this year. That would be the meeting at which Messina made clear, only five days after the President promised in his State of the Union to repeal DADT this year, that he wasn't very interested in proceeding with DADT this year either. (At the meeting, Messina lectured our groups about the US "being in two wars" - yes, he used the GOP talking point that is often used to oppose DADT - apparently implying that somehow our fight for civil rights is unpatriotic, or at best an inconvenient distraction from the important business of our nation.) HRC was at the meeting, but not SLDN, our lead group on the issue. From what we hear, HRC didn't exactly object to what Messina said.

And we wonder why the DADT repeal effort is so screwed up. The White House cut off our top group on the issue, and only dealt with those they felt they could manage. And manage they did.

People weren't terribly thrilled to hear this news at the townhall today.

It's just another example of how the Obama administration, and the Democratic party overall, feels about gay and lesbian Democrats, and our friends and families. The President makes a promise, Jim Messina breaks the promise, one of our groups stands up and demands the promise be kept, so the group is sent to political Gitmo.

That kind of strong-arm tactic might work when it's a secret (or when the group is a push-over more interested in access than actually doing anything), but now that the entire community knows that you're dicking around with their leaders and their civil rights, it tends to really piss them off.

Heckuva job, Messina. Read More...

Sen. Levin says White House and DOD don't want him to act on DADT this year

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. That's the committee that needs to put DADT repeal in the Defense Authorization bill, if we have any hope of getting repeal this year. Levin now says that the President and the Pentagon want him to wait until the DOD study on implementation is done. That won't be until December or later. That means after the November congressional elections. After Democrats lose significant numbers of seats and possibly control over the House. That means we may not see DADT repealed for another generation.

Oh, and forget about ENDA and DOMA too.

DC Agenda reports:

Among those noticing a lack of support from the Obama administration to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at this time is Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Asked by DC Agenda on Tuesday what the White House and the Pentagon are saying they want from lawmakers on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Levin replied, “Let them complete the analysis.”

That also means the President lied in his State of the Union when he said he wanted repeal this year. Now he doesn't. What other promises to what other communities, or nations, has the President made that he considers revokable? Does Barack Obama's word mean anything anymore?

I'm reminded of a story John Kerry told about Degaulle and Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis:

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

Diminishing the President's word has serious consequences for our country that go far beyond DADT. Read More...

Wash. Post's Capehart thinks Obama has no role in DADT repeal

Interesting, but not surprising from Jonathan Capehart, an editor of the Washington Post. He is pushing the White House/HRC spin that Obama has no role in the repeal of DADT:

First, change the scene of action from the White House to the Capitol. Repeal of don't ask don't tell requires congressional action. And nothing says "Listen to me!" like civil disobedience in the office of the Speaker or the Senate Majority Leader.

First, I expect more from one of the political editors at the Washington Post. Yes, Congress has to pass the legislation, but it's unsophisticated to intimate that the President plays no role. After all, it was the President who said he wants repeal "this year." That gave hope to many gay and lesbian servicemembers. Then, Obama's staffers basically told gay "leaders" that it wasn't going to happen this year. And, they got that message around Capitol Hill, too. When the President doesn't want something to happen legislatively and his party controls Congress, it usually doesn't happen. The White House has been clear that it doesn't want repeal to happen this year. Robert Gibbs said it again yesterday.

I'd suggest Capehart check in with his Washington Post colleague, Chris "The Fix" Cilizza, to about the electoral prospects for the Democrats this fall. Hint: Not good. I hope Capehart is savvy enough to know that if the Democrats don't control Congress, it will be near impossible to repeal DADT. Think of the period from January of 1995 through the end of 2006, when the GOPers controlled Congress. Not much happened in Congress that was pro-gay, but we did get several votes on anti-gay constitutional amendments. If DADT doesn't get repealed this year, we may be waiting a long time for it, ENDA and DOMA.

Then, there was just a bitchy little swipe at the GetEQUAL servicemembers, who literally put themselves on the fence to demand equality:

Second, if they insist on the White House as a venue, they should at least ensure that Obama is on the premises. He was en route back to Washington aboard Air Force One when the DADT Six were carted away.

Yes, he was en route to Washington -- on his way back from Los Angeles. Wonder if Obama got any messages about DADT in L.A.? Oh that's right, activists with GetEqual interrupted the President's speech at Barbara Boxer's fundraiser so many times he got visibly angry. I think the President got the message. And in any case, does Capehart actually think Obama looks out the window to see what's going on out front when protests happen at the White House practically every day? Seriously? I have a feeling the staffers knew what was happening outside. Robert Gibbs sure did.

For politicos, some gay "leaders" and pundits, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a political issue. But, for the gay men and lesbians who are being or have been discharged, this is about their lives. And, they want to offer their lives to protect the rest of us.

If you're going to try to write snark about people fighting for your civil rights, at least don't make it all sound so simple when doing so. And, there's a fine line between snark that's funny and snark that's just annoying. Read More...

Guy who lobbies White House for money defends White House - duh

Can we please stop quoting people as credible sources who make their money off the WH teat? He lobbies the White House for paid clients. What is he SUPPOSED to say? His business depends on the White House liking him. He's not going to say they suck.

Oh, and he works for HRC too. Enough said.

I will note however that even the WH lobbyist admits that five days after the President promised he'd repeal DADT this year, the White House suddenly became "non-committal." Hell of a turnaround from a promise from the President of the United States.

PS I forgot to mention, he defended the DOMA incest/pedophilia brief too. Enough said. Read More...

Pam Spaulding on news that WH effectively killed DADT repeal effort in February

In response to the news that the White House effectively killed DADT repeal in February at a secret White House meeting attended by HRC and other groups, here is what Pam Spaulding had to say:

[N]o less important story about how our lobbying organization on the Hill conducts its business. One of the core definitions of non-profit institutional rot is when an organization's leadership crosses the line, willing to abandon the core mission in order in favor of sustaining its bloat. This has nothing to do with the hard work of the people doing the work on the ground in good faith, true believers accomplishing work that advances equality goals. That's what makes it so insidious.

Is that what is happening here? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Why, for instance, would Joe Solmonese purposely, definitively, go on the road, before cameras, before donors at all levels with their checkbooks out, and say that DADT will be repealed this year? Well, the cash flows in if people sitting at those tables believe HRC has the influence to make it happen then goals of one kind are achieved, but it certainly isn't mission

based.

Is this the best we can do here? Is there any accountability? Think - would this be acceptable in any other non-profit? If true, I think this kind of leadership is at best sleazy and at worst outright fraud. Re: DADT, unless you know you have all the political ducks in a row to make it happen why would you make such a definitive statement like that? Do you just tell donors "oops" when it all goes down in the crapper -- then ask for more scratch?

Read More...

Today is 'The Path Forward: An LGBT Leadership Town Hall'

The Advocate has an interview with Mike Signorile about the town hall forum that he'll be hosting later today. First, some background on the event, which runs from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM Eastern:

Billed as an "emergency summit," The Path Forward: An LGBT Leadership Town Hall will feature National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey; National Center for Transgender Equality executive director Mara Keisling; Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis; former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights Richard Socarides; and blogger and activist Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend in the Sirius/XM studios. Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese will join the conversation from London, where volcanic ash has prevented him from flying home.

And, here's the first question Mike answered:

The Advocate:Why did you decide to hold this forum?

Michelangelo Signorile: At this point, looking ahead to the next few weeks, it’s a critical time on so many issues and there has been so much discussion, debate, and dissatisfaction with how this administration has moved on the big issues that people elected the president on: “don’t ask, don’t tell,” ENDA, and [the Defense of Marriage Act]. There’s been a lot of frustration with how LGBT leaders interact with the White House and engage with Congress. This event is about trying to get some answers, have a discussion, and get information about what is going to happen. It’s important to get everyone all in the same room with people who can ask questions.

It sure is an important time, so I hope we can get some answers, too.

John and I will be at the forum. We'll be livetweeting from the event (AMERICAblog Gay is here, John is here and I'm here.) I'm hoping to post from the event, too. and posting about it, too. Read More...

ADVOCATE: White House backed away from DADT repeal in early Feb.: 'It was a definitive shut-down from [Jim] Messina'

Kerry Eleveld has a blockbuster article tonight exposing what many of us have been hearing for quite awhile. Shortly after Obama told the nation in the State of the Union that he wanted to repeal DADT "this year," a meeting was held at the White House with gay "leaders" where Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina basically said it wasn't going to happen this year.

Yet just days after the January 27 speech, White House officials convened a meeting on February 1 with LGBT advocates in which they said the policy would not be included in the president’s recommendations for the Department of Defense authorization bill, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the meeting.

“It was a definitive shut-down from [Jim] Messina,” said a source, who was present at the meeting and agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, referring to White House deputy chief of staff. “He said it would not be going into the president’s Defense authorization budget proposal.” The news was a blow to activists since the Defense funding bill is the best legislative vehicle for including a measure to overturn the policy. “It almost seemed like the bar on the hurdle got raised two or three times higher,” said the source.

That was a huge blow. And, Messina would have been the one to deliver the blow. He's overseeing DADT strategy at the White House.

Even the Human Rights Campaign, which tried to downplay how devastating the Messina meeting really was, had to admit that right after the President promised in the State of the Union to repeal DADT this year, the White House began to back off the President's clear promise:

But the Human Rights Campaign’s David Smith, who also attended the meeting, recalls it differently.

“They were noncommittal about legislation in that meeting, but not definitively one way or the other,” said Smith, vice president of programs for HRC.

Non-committal only five days after the President was quite committal in his speech.

Let's be realistic: Everything we've heard from the White House and the Pentagon over the past few months is that repeal isn't happening this year. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum. There's always a political consideration and when Messina and his boss, Rahm Emanuel, are involved, they're usually craven political considerations. Rahm and Messina made the calculation that they won't pay a political price for blocking the repeal of DADT this year. The only problem is that if the Democrats suffer heavy losses in the November elections, which everyone expects, DADT won't be repealed during Obama's first-term, and it may not be repealed for years after that. (The last time we lost the Congress it took 14 years to get it back, and even then we had to wait two more years for a Democratic president -- and even then, we're having an extremely difficult time being taken seriously.) Another 14 year wait is brutally unfair to the gays and lesbians who serve and want to serve their country. And it's unfair to the millions of gays and lesbians, and our friends and families, who voted for, campaigned for, and donated money to the Obama campaign.

Back to "noncommittal." Just five days before the Messina meeting the President said he was going to have DADT repealed this year -- he even said "this year" twice. But, by everyone's recollection at this White House meeting, the indications were certainly otherwise. That should have set off alarms. Yet, at the end of February, HRC President Joe Solmonese told his organization's donors at a fundraiser that DADT would be repealed this year. HRC already had indications to the contrary. The warning signs were there. The White House has played us for fools. And HRC did nothing, said nothing, other than repeatedly reassuring the gay public that everything was on track, when they knew it wasn't because Messina had told them it wasn't going to happen.

What's really frustrating is that we could repeal the law this year if the President would simply follow through on his promise:

[SLDN's Aubrey] Sarvis added that President Obama could boost repeal efforts by stating his desire to see the measure passed this year but, more importantly, by getting personally involved with lobbying senators.

“We need the president to become actively engaged in this vote, not unlike the way he is engaged with financial services reform right now,” he said.

Earlier this week, Sarvis wrote a letter to Obama, which included this line "I am very disturbed by multiple reports from Capitol Hill that your Congressional liaison team is urging some Members of Congress to avoid a vote on repeal this year."

Now, we know that the decision not to proceed with the repeal of DADT this year before the potentially devastating mid-term elections in November, was made by senior White House officials and conveyed to gay leaders several months ago, while most of us were still thinking Obama actually meant what he said in the State of the Union. And a large part of the reason we believed it is because HRC kept telling us the President had our back, when they knew he didn't.

NOTE FROM JOHN: One final point. Things are so bad that even HRC has now felt the need to criticize the White House. You'll recall that HRC has been defending the White House's mis-steps on gay issues for over a year now.

Gibbs also laid the responsibility for whether a repeal vote is taken at the doorstep of Congress.

“The House and the Senate are obviously a different branch of government,” he added.

Smith took exception to the remarks from Gibbs.

“Those comments were not helpful and the White House needs to clarify that,” he said. “The president said he wants to work with Congress this year to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' and we take the president at his word. But as we continue to put pressure on Congress, the White House needs to speak with one voice and not send us mixed messages.”

So yet again the White House is putting out the line that the President is weak and powerless, and has no influence with Congress. It's not only pathetic that any employee of the White House would think it wise to spread the word that the President is weak, but it's also a lie. And it's one the White House, and frankly HRC, has been spreading for a while now. The notion that Congress passes laws, the President only executes them. It's a cute high school civics approach to explaining how Washington works, it's also incredibly naive.

As we saw with health care reform, when the President dithered for a good year, the reform effort spun out of control and the entire thing was almost lost. When the President finally got engaged, finally put the full force of his presidency behind lobbying for the bill, suddenly the bill became law. It is flat out wrong, a lie, to suggest that the President has no power to influence legislation. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to you, or has no concept whatsoever of how Washington works.

That is why even HRC had to finally admit that Gibbs' most recent statement was not helpful, and seemed to contradict the President's earlier promise to work with Congress to get the law repealed this year.

It's astounding how badly this White House has fucked over our community. Read More...