On Afghanistan, "People at the Pentagon are trying to force a certain outcome"

The situation in Afghanistan is bad enough without "people at the Pentagon" playing games with Obama. A report today that Obama had decided to send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan has been denied strongly by the White House:

Two other senior administration officials flatly told CNN that the CBS report and other similar speculation is false. The Associated Press reported Monday that Obama is "nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan, though not quite the 40,000 sought [by] his top general there."

The two senior administration officials suggested the information is being leaked by Pentagon sources who are trying to box Obama in by setting public expectations that he will send close to 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan as McChrystal requested.

"People at the Pentagon are trying to force a certain outcome," one of the senior administration officials told CNN.

"People at the Pentagon" should have been more forceful on Afghanistan when the previous President took his eyes off that war and led us into Iraq. "People at the Pentagon" really shouldn't be playing these games. This isn't good. Read More......

In letter To Pelosi, 41 House Dems pledge to vote against bill with anti-abortion amendment

Which is good news, since today we also learned that the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs didn't have an opinion on the extreme anti-abortion provision that was added to the House health care reform bill at the least minute.

They didn't have a position.

Unbelievable.

Then later in the day, the President "clarified":

Saying the bill cannot changed the status quo, the President said "there are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

After a contentious debate, the House passed a health care bill on Saturday that includes a provision banning abortion from being covered in the public insurance option contained in the bill. The bill also prevents women receiving insurance subsidies from purchasing private plans that cover abortion. Liberals in the House Democratic caucus were opposed to these provisions but voted for the overall bill.

In an exclusive television interview in the Map Rom of the White House, Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper that he was confident that the final legislation will ensure that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed."

King Solomon strikes again. Whatever the issue, Obama won't defend the core Democratic constituency. He'll try to please the right just as much as the left. And regardless of how much he said he wanted to change politics in DC, he was elected as a Democrat, not a half-Republican. It's not a great surprise that women's groups are now opposing the House bill. (Sam Stein at Huff Post thinks Obama's language shows that he's opposed to the House amendment. I think Obama's language is typically vague, so that he's hoping everyone reads into it whatever they want, in an effort to keep everyone happy.) Read More......

We need more Rachel

Jed compiled some of Rachel Maddow's best lines from her appearance on yesterday's Meet the Press. In just one minute and forty-six seconds, she imparted more wisdom and knowledge that David Gregory and George Stephanopoulos can muster in years -- and more than everyone on FOX has since the network went on the air.
Read More......

Traditional Media covers "Don't Ask, Don't Give"

Earlier today, we launched "Don't Ask, Don't Give," a donor boycott of the DNC:

Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, and soon others.

Since the post went up, we've received coverage across the spectrum of media. Kerry Eleveld wrote a great piece at The Advocate. Ben Smith picked up it up, as did Atlantic Online.

Salon reported on the issue:

The tensions between the LGBT community and the administration have been constantly bubbling under the surface, and at times there have been open battles. Though the White House made some moves to at least quiet the most public of those fights, they've still been unable to bring the gay activists who'd normally be a solid base of support back into the fold.

Now, the fighting's back out in the open, as two prominent gay bloggers -- John Aravosis, who's previously written for Salon, and Joe Sudbay of Americablog -- have announced that they're organizing what they're calling a temporary donor boycott of the Democratic National Committee. Joined by another high-profile figure in the movement, Michelangelo Signorile, they're asking people not to donate "until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed."

It will be interesting to see how the White House responds, if at all. And it will also be interesting -- and instructive -- to see how members of the LGBT community, and voters of all kinds, respond. The gay organizations haven't been at the forefront of the opposition to Obama; instead, it's been people like Aravosis and Signorile leading the charge. Success now might help them further supplant the traditional power structure in the community.

The best response from the White House would be to work on passage of ENDA and the repeal of DADT and DOMA. It was, after all, what Obama promised.

We'll have more later...including the blog reaction. Read More......

The right wing's "C Street House" in the spotlight as Ensign moves out

What happens when a bunch of right-wing theocrats in Congress live together in one house on Capitol Hill? It's better than the "Real World" -- with more drama. And, embattled Senator John Ensign (R-NV) was right in the thick of it until he moved out:

As many six lawmakers — senators and congressmen — reside at the multistory town house just a few blocks from the Capitol. Group residences are common in Washington, where rents are high and elected officials typically support a residence in the capital and one in their home state.

A timely book, “The Family,” by religious writer Jeff Sharlet, described the organization that runs the house as a longtime, backroom power player in Washington, grooming lawmakers as spiritually chosen political leaders. Men often gather there for spiritual fellowship.

The C Street home became central to the Ensign saga when Cynthia Hampton’s husband, Doug, who was one of Ensign’s top aides at the time of the affair, arranged to confront Ensign there.

At that meeting in February 2008, one of the senator’s housemates and friends, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., urged Ensign to end the affair. (Other lawmakers who live at the home were not present.) During that meeting Ensign penned a letter to Cynthia calling off the affair, but immediately afterward phoned her and told her to ignore his note. The eight-month affair ended in August 2008, the senator’s office has said.

It's all just good clean spiritual fellowship at the C Street House den of inequity. Read More......

Don't Ask, Don't Give

Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, and soon others.

It's really more of a "pause," than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends - President Obama and the Democratic party - who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.

So please sign the Petition and take a Pledge to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends.

You can find our Frequently Asked Questions, below, that explain the entire campaign. You can use our "Tell a Friend" page to tell all of your friends, family members, and coworkers about this effort (and we won't keep any of the email addresses you enter, they'll all be deleted after the emails are sent).

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is this?
We are asking voters to pledge to withhold contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed -– all of which President Obama repeatedly promised to do if elected.

Why are you asking people to take this pledge?
Candidate Obama promised during the campaign to be the gay community’s “fierce advocate.” He and the Democratic party have not kept their promise.

Can you give examples of how the President and Democrats have not been fierce advocates for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans?

• Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been “cured” of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.
• Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.
• Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.
• Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
• Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.
• Refusing to appoint an openly gay Cabinet member.
• Abolishing the LGBT outreach position at the DNC and never reinstating it.
• Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).
• Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.
• Asking for a study on “whether” repealing DADT would hurt national security, rather than a study on how to repeal it, as promised.
• Deleting his gay civil rights promise from the White House Web site.
• Changing his commitment to “repeal” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, to “changing DADT it in a sensible manner.”
• Repeatedly defending DOMA in court, including just a few weeks ago, even though he didn’t have to.
• Making jokes about marriage equality, which President Obama claims he doesn't support, even though he once did.
• Comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia in a Justice Department brief.
• Joking about gay protesters upset about the DOMA brief.
• Refusing to provide health care benefits to the partners of gay employees, and then claiming that DOMA precludes it, when it does not.
• Refusing to meet with gay legal groups to discuss how to provide such health benefits within the confines of DOMA.
• Claiming that health benefits for partners of federal employees were new, then being caught in a lie. 
• Showing visible discomfort when asked about gay civil rights.
• Suggesting he won’t get to DADT, DOMA or ENDA until his second term, if ever.
• Refusing to suspend implementation of anti-gay laws, like DADT and DOMA, while suspending laws that hurt others.
• White House staffers worked against amendment proposed by Rep. Alcee Hasting (D-FL) to defund Don't Ask, Don't Tell investigations
• Saying won’t repeal DADT until wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have finished.
• Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had to beg President Obama to help on DADT repeal.
• A White House official referring to gay civil rights advocates, marching on Washington, as part of “the Internet left fringe” whose opinions don’t matter.
• Saying he won’t touch DOMA in his first term.
• Refusing to release list of gay attendees at hate crimes reception.
• Refusing to mention Maine or Washington state, or anything of substance, in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner.
• Saying gays are “naïve” for wanting the president to keep his promise. 
• Refusing to issue a statement specifically opposing anti-gay ballot measures in Maine and Washington state.
• Attorney General Eric Holders flubs question on Maine, twice -- once while in Maine.
• DNC/OFA emailed supporters in Maine and Washington state, but didn't ask them to vote against anti-gay ballot measures, then lied about it.
• Senator Durbin (D-IL), a very close ally of Obama, says Senate probably won’t repeal DADT in 2010, as promised.
• Senior DNC official accuses gays and lesbians of “helping Republicans” by simply asking Democrats to keep their gay civil rights promise.
• Refusing to publicly endorse marriage equality for gays.
• Continuing to dawdle over DADT.
• Refusing to this day to interview with the gay press.
• Refusing to apologize for any of these slights.

But won’t your pledge hurt Democrats?
It never hurts Democrats to keep their promises to the voters. The American people respect strong leaders who have the courage to stick to their beliefs. And it will only help Democrats in the next election to stand by their commitments to a core constituency. If Democratic voters aren't motivated, they won't vote. We are concerned that the President's failure to fulfill his promises may suppress voter participation not only from gay Democrats, but from our families, friends and allies. In a very real way, this is an effort to ensure that we get-out-the-vote in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

But if you don’t give money to the DNC, won’t that help elect Republicans who are even worse on gay issues, and other issues Democrats care about?
We are not calling for a boycott of donations to the DNC. We are simply calling for a pause until the party follows through on its campaign promise to repeal DADT and DOMA, and pass ENDA. The party will get the same donations it would have gotten, when the promises are kept. The Democrats could choose to make good on their promise today. And by doing so, they will only further motivate the Democratic base to again turn out for the next election, a decidedly good thing.

You have to admit, gay rights is controversial – wouldn’t it be political suicide for Democrats to push gay rights?
Democrats should not have promised to support gay civil rights rights in exchange for our votes if they never intended to keep the promise. If we're not controversial during the campaign, when politicians are happy to accept our votes and our money, we cannot accept being labeled controversial after our candidates win. We kept our part of the bargain, we voted for Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress. It’s entirely reasonable for us to ask our elected officials to keep their part of the bargain too.

What's more, gay rights are not controversial. Americans favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military by a margin of 69% - 26%.  By a margin of 57% - 37%, "A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples." That can't happen if DOMA is the law.  And in fact, if these civil rights promises were controversial, they would have hurt candidate Obama at the polls. But, he proudly and loudly proclaimed his support for LGBT equality, and he won.

No matter how disappointed you are, aren’t Democrats still better than Republicans?
The Republican party is terrible on gay issues. That doesn’t excuse the Democratic party breaking specific promises to the gay community made in exchange for our votes. We didn’t break our promise at the ballot box, the Democrats shouldn’t break theirs after we helped put them into office.

President Obama has only been in office less than a year, why the rush?
In less than a year, serious damage has already been done to the President’s commitments to the gay community. The problem isn’t only that he hasn’t been quick enough to fulfill his promises, it’s that he has actually backtracked on his promises and hurt the cause of civil rights and our community, as detailed above.

But aren’t there bigger priorities than gay rights for the Democrats to deal with, like health care and the economy?
Would President Obama, the DNC and the Congress tell other minorities that their civil rights aren't important? The suggestion is that Democrats have more important things on the table. When won't Democrats have more important priorities than the civil rights of gays and lesbians? Will there ever be a day, a year, an administration, when the President and the Congress won't have serious crises to deal with? Suggesting that gay Americans and their friends and families wait until the President and Congress have nothing else to do is not only insulting, it's a recipe for never. And regardless, we trust that this President, unlike the previous, can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Who is behind this effort?
John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay, two longtime political operatives in Washington, DC, and the editors of AMERICAblog.com. AMERICAblog has raised over $300,000 for Democratic candidates and progressive causes, including nearly $50,000 for then-candidate Barack Obama, supported by AMERICAblog early in the primaries. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, and soon others.

You can contact us at: dncboycott@gmail.com

How can I help?
Sign the pledge, tell your friends about this campaign, read the blog, and stay tuned for updates and action alerts on how you help make sure that the President, the Congress and the Democratic party keep their promises to the LGBT community, our families, our friends and our allies. Read More......

Catholic Bishops have become political operation fighting social justice

Who knew one of the most aggressive political operations in the U.S. in the year 2009 would be the Catholic Bishops?

Last week, Maine's Bishop, Richard Malone, gloated after his campaign to repeal Maine's marriage equality took away the rights of same-sex couples in that state. In Maine, the Bishop turned his church into a political operation.

This weekend, the Catholic Bishops are getting credit for undermining women's rights in the new health care bill through the Stupak amendment:

Both sides credited a forceful lobbying effort by Roman Catholic bishops with the success of the provision, inserted in the bill under pressure from conservative Democrats.

The Bishops also led a sustained campaign on this issue. And, Obama and Hill leaders acquiesced:

Beginning in late July, the bishops began issuing a series of increasingly stern letters to lawmakers making clear that they saw the abortion-financing issue as pre-eminent, a deal-breaker.

At the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy in August, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, stole a private moment with Mr. Obama to deliver the same warning: The bishops very much wanted to support his health care overhaul but not if it provided for abortions. The president “listened intently,” the cardinal reported on his blog.

Bishops implored their priests and parishioners to call lawmakers. Conservative Democrats negotiating over the issue with party leaders often expressed their desire to meet the bishops’ criteria, according to many people involved in the talks. On Oct. 8 three members of the bishops conference wrote on its behalf to lawmakers, “If the final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill.”

The Bishops have made themselves into a political operation. That means they warrant the same kind of scrutiny every other political operation receives. No hiding behind the collars.

The Bishops want to take away people's rights. Members of Congress and the Obama administration have to decide just how closely they want to align with the protectors of pedophiles. Read More......

Health insurance reform moves to the Senate: Battle looms over public option

Ever painful Joe Lieberman, who has had taxpayer funded health insurance for most of his adult life, is threatening to filibuster any Senate bill that includes a public option. Of course, no one in the traditional media or punditry would ever question Lieberman's hypocrisy. No, not Joe. He's one of their favorites.

On the other hand, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) isn't promising to support a bill that leaves the public option out:

Asked if he will support Democrats on procedural votes once the healthcare bill hits the Senate floor, Sanders was repeatedly noncommital, twice telling The Hill that he intends to push for a bill that includes a government-run, public-option insurance component and refusing to guarantee his support on cloture votes.

“All I’ll say for now is that I want the strongest public option possible in the bill,” Sanders said. “Beyond that, we’re going to have to look at what develops.”

Here's hoping Sanders will play hard ball. But, the conventional wisdom is that the liberals in the Senate, like those in the House, will ultimately cave. The White House sure expects that. The pundits expect that -- and it's even true for Sanders:

Yet since Sanders usually follows the lead of Democratic leaders, other observers say he is likely simply being stubborn as part of an effort to win some kind of concession for his state, as many senators do.

“I'd be surprised if Sanders decided to be a thorn in the leadership's side on healthcare,” said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor who covers the Senate for The Cook Political Report. “On the big issues, he is generally with them.”

See, inside "the Village," it's only a threat if Lieberman does it. Read More......

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The Catholic Bishops, who covered up all those horrible sex abuses cases, are now dictating legislative policy in Washington DC. Obama and House leaders let the Bishops rule the health care debate on Saturday through the Stupak amendment. Women of American should understand that the Bishops are now making decisions of their health. Meanwhile, Dioceses around the country are filing bankruptcy over the sex abuses cases. Yet, in Washington DC, the Bishops still have some kind of moral authority. It's warped and very disturbing. LGBT activists should be very worried. Because, the Bishops really hate the gays.

Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall fell. Seems so long ago and almost hard to believe that the Communists actually built a wall to keep their people in -- and it happened in Europe not too long ago. Okay, maybe not so hard to believe. Totalitarianism regimes are brutal.

And, every time I hear a new utterance from Joe Lieberman, I'm convinced he is just evil.

Let's see where this week leads us... Read More......