It's been 6 days since DADT was thrown out, and no enormous consequences yet

Perhaps it's time for someone to ask the President when exactly these "enormous consequences" kick in - you know, the sky is falling stuff that supposedly will happen if DADT is summarily thrown out, like it was last Tuesday. It's been almost a week, and no enormous consequences. No small infinitesimally small consequences either. So why did the Obama administration claim that there would be? When exactly do these enormous consequences begin? On day 7? Day 30? Day 365? Are they invisible consequences that you can only see with super duper Department of Defense decoder rings?

Our mainstream press needs to be asking the White House every single day when these consequences are supposed to kick in, because they haven't, and the President is looking awfully silly. Read More...

Judge tentatively denies Obama admin's motion to bring DADT back for the time being

At least someone isn't afraid of the Pentagon.

A federal judge issued a tentative ruling Monday denying the government’s request for a stay in the injunction against "don’t ask, don’t tell" but will issue a final ruling by late Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.

During a 25-minute hearing in Riverside, Calif., U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips wasted no time in rejecting the government's position that barring DADT immediately would be an undue burden on the military, calling the arguments "vague" and "insufficient."

Read More...

Former Clinton solicitor general: Obama can appeal DADT and tell judge to overturn it because it's unconstitutional

That would be bold.  And I doubt President Gates would allow it.  But at least now we know we were being misinformed for the past year and a half when the administration and its apologists repeatedly told us that the President simply had to defend DOMA and DADT in court.  No he didn't.

So once again we ask the age old question: Why is the President continuing to defend DOMA and DADT in court?  And why is he refusing to say whether he believes either law to be constitutional?  It's almost creepy how much the administration is avoiding answering that second question.  Which means all of us need to keep asking it, again and again and again.

Fierce Advocates don't duck easy questions about civil rights. Read More...

Profile of Chicago Cubs owner, who happens to be a lesbian

Very cool. Read More...

HRC spokesman says Obama shouldn't issue executive order ending DADT

Fierce advocacy at its best.

Sgt. Alva, in addressing the recent injunction, Obama’s appeal of the decision and the fact that Obama has continued to refuse to sign an executive order ending the policy, stated, “I do not want Obama to sign an executive order, ending don’t ask, don’t tell.” He went on to explain that, if the president chose to end the policy it would put an end to the discussions; discussions he believes are important in light of the recent and highly publicized LGBT youth suicides.

While I agree that repealing the policy is the better option, as executive orders can be overturned by future presidents, there currently is no legislation repealing the policy. The best we have is legislation that gives DOD veto power over any future repeal of the policy (and it doesn't even set a date by which DOD has to consider the repeal).

And even if you're one who thinks the legislation is just chipper, no one thinks it's going to pass. It's highly unlikely it's going to go anywhere during the lame duck session, and after that, it's pretty much toast if the elections go the way they're looking. At that point, there's nothing left other than an executive order and the President either refusing to appeal the individual cases, or if he simply insists on appealing, arguing - and only arguing - that DADT is unconstitutional and should be struck down, with no other arguments made in the brief, nothing supporting upholding the law.  And the same goes for DOMA. Read More...

Marine Commandant did his own 'poll' on DADT... he asked people

Get this.  Your boss, who is really really powerful, says he hates something.  He then asks you for a show of hands, how many of you agree with him.  Miraculously, most of you raise your hands and agree with Big Marine Brother.

That, according to the homophobic and insubordinate outgoing commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway, proves that repealing DADT is a bad idea.  Because he informally asked a bunch of his subordinates how they felt, and what a surprise, they agreed with their outspoken boss.

Then again, this is a guy who suggested segregating, separate but equal style, gay troops. Read More...

In Kansas, anti-gay bigot Lou Engle's very close ties to GOPer Brownback are a big issue

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Tom Holland is blasting his opponent's ties to Lou Engle -- and he should:

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Holland on Thursday called on his Republican opponent, Sam Brownback, to denounce Lou Engle, a controversial anti-homosexual minister, whom Holland compared to Fred Phelps.

"I am calling on Sam Brownback to formally denounce Lou Engle -- not just `some' of his statements -- but his entire message of violence, hate and bigotry.

"Lou Engle sounds a lot like Fred Phelps," Holland said referring to the anti-homosexual preacher known for his protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in war. "But the difference is unlike Fred Phelps, Lou Engle lived with Sam Brownback in Washington, D.C.," Holland said.

Brownback can't and won't denounce Engle.

And, there's an ad highlighting the Engle's role in Uganda's "Kill the Gays" law:

Brownback/Engle: Making Kansas the next Uganda? Read More...

How the White House strategy on DADT 'backfired' -- with some help from bloggers and activists

UPDATE (and note from John): Some of the readers were confused by Josh Gerstein's reference to me and Dan Choi in the story, below. I asked Gerstein what he meant, and he responded. What I understand his reference to mean is that the White House thought that by dealing with a handful of traditional gay advocacy groups they were dealing with the entire gay community - and that those groups would be able to keep the entire community in line.

What happened instead is that when the gay Netroots, as I'll call it, which includes GetEqual, the blogs, our talk radio (Signorile), saw that the Obama DADT strategy was heading south, we informed the community and our allies and got everyone pretty ticked off at Obama and the Dems, to the point where it's become a problem for them. Again, these are my words, not Gerstein's, but they're my understanding of his point.
______________________

In an article titled "W.H. 'don't ask' plan backfires," Politico's Josh Gerstein has an examination of the White House approach to the repeal of DADT -- and how the White House screwed it up.

I think Gerstein captured it quite well. The White House let Robert Gates call the shots. And, whoever agreed to the drawn out process, whether it was Jim Messina or the President himself, didn't think through the political consequences of waiting. And, no one factored in the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit. It also seems clear that at least some groups, most likely HRC and CAP, but not SLDN or Servicemembers United, went along with the White House strategy. Apparently, none of the so-called "leaders" thought through the political ramifications. And, they all underestimated the activism of LGBT blogs and GetEQUAL in holding Obama to his promises, and informing the community that things weren't going so well:

Obama now faces his own political crisis over the issue that threatens his support from key Democratic constituencies, undermines his relationship with the Pentagon and puts him in the odd position of defending a practice he has denounced as discriminatory and harmful to national security.

“It’s crazy that all this is happening 2½ weeks before a national election,” said Richard Socarides, an adviser to Clinton on gay issues during the ’93 fiasco. “The timing could not be worse for them, but it was fairly predictable that their strategy of postponing and delaying getting into this stuff was, at some point, going to come back to haunt them.”

What the White House’s slow-but-steady approach failed to anticipate was the rise of online activism by repeal advocates and the impatience those advocates would show based on polls indicating as many as 75 percent of Americans support “don’t ask” repeal.

While many organized gay groups deferred to a greater or lesser extent to the White House’s strategy and timeline, bloggers like John Aravosis and in-your-face protesters like Dan Choi did not. The online activists and upstart groups never bought into the wait-for-the-Pentagon approach, even after Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented historic testimony in February endorsing an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

And after Democrats began to suffer electoral defeats earlier this year in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, gay advocates began to fear that Obama’s plan to defer legislation on the subject to 2011 might doom the repeal effort altogether if Republicans took one or both chambers of Congress.

“We started to worry it’s not going to get done if we don’t get it wrapped up this year,” said Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United.

This is one key point:

The White House’s Plan A involved a Pentagon study for release in December 2010, followed by legislation thereafter.

The President said in the State of the Union that he was going to work to repeal DADT "this year." But, that didn't really mean it would be accomplished "this year." Not at all. But, some of us realized that next year would be impossible given the unfolding political situation.

Bottom line: It's a mess. There's a hearing on the DOJ's request for a stay today at 2:30 PM PT in Judge Phillips' court. That process still has to play out. And, we'll hear a lot about the lame duck session. But, unless the President does become "actively involved," as promised by Robert Gibbs, it won't happen. Plus, Obama has to make sure Robert Gates approves. Gates is in charge here. Read More...