Tweet
This is disturbing. Center for American Progress is not only taking credit for what I call the sham ‘repeal’ compromise, they are also crowing about circulating the legislative language two months ago on Capitol Hill — while our primary LGBT national organizations on repeal were still fighting to end discharges right now under a full repeal.
For the past 24 hours, the liberal Center for American Progress has been on a rather public campaign to take credit for the entire Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell compromise that has much of the gay community in an uproar.
CAP’s effort to claim the mantle of glory for the amendment is odd for a number of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, it’s not entirely clear who invited CAP, a non-gay think tank, to the table in the first place – let alone who anointed them the head of the lgbt civil rights movement, granting them the authority to cave on our demand for the full repeal of DADT. Just as odd is the extent to which CAP has repeatedly tried to take credit for the deal in the past 48 hours. Even by the standards of our actual national gay groups, who have raised taking credit for things they didn’t do to an art, CAP’s repeated efforts to hog the limelight, when our actual gay representatives have been rather quiet about just how we came up with this compromise, are unusual to the say the least.
He cites GayCityNews, which has this tidbit:
The amendment, put forward formally the same day by Senator Joseph Lieberman, had been drafted by CAP and circulated among legislators starting roughly two months ago, Stachelberg said.
Winnie Stachelberg is a former HRC employee now senior official at CAP. Who apparently caved two months ago, undercutting HRC and SLDN and SU in their work for real, actual, full repeal of DADT.
Two months ago. While SLDN and Servicemembers United were still lobbying the Hill for the votes for full repeal, CAP was apparently telling legislators not to worry about full repeal this year – at least that’s what CAP is now claiming, in an effort to get credit.
I’m not so sure Winnie wants to be seen taking full credit for undermining the work of organizations much more understood by the LGBT community to be working hard on repeal, especially as this sham starts to blow up, with Robert Byrd’s 60-day additional post-Pentagon-report review that might take things right into Speaker Boehner’s House as well as Admiral Mullen’s statement to troops yesterday that it’s still up to him ‘whether’ to implement open service.
41 Comments
This thing probably won’t come apart, but it sure is ugly.
Oy.
This is our best liberal think tank?
It’s certainly our most Obama-centric.
Which makes me wonder: why is our most Obama-phile think-tank going around the backs of the actual LGBT Veal Pen members to draft legislation that empowers the military? And then brags about it?
Could it possibly be that this is the shitty deal Barack Obama wanted for open service all along? None at all?
Are they saying they are responsible for the 60 day delay too?
And now this is being argued, as we type behind closed doors.
Oh I think the 60-day delay is on all of them.
They are trying to blame Byrd but they didn’t actually need Byrd’s vote. He could have called in sick like he’s done for 90% of this Congress already.
Since they didn’t need his vote, wasn’t it convenient to blame the 60-day delay on Byrd? And — I wonder what Speaker Boehner will do with that 60-day delay when it lands in his lap? Or majority leader Mitch McConnell.
It just passed in the Senate committee
I just barfed in my mouth, thanks Teddy.
Aravosis is a transphobe which to my mind damages his credibility beyond redemption.
YOu have to explain transphobe for me. Please.
Transphobe is like a homophobe but hatred and fear of transgender people, not homosexual people.
There is a subset of gay (usually men) who feel that transgender people are wrongly in our alliance; because their difference isn’t about sexual orientation but about gender identity. Transgender people may be attracted to either gender (or both, as bisexual transgenders) but sexual orientation is separate from their gender identity.
Some activists (a small subset, but a sometimes vocal one) seem to think we shouldn’t have transgenders in our coalition for this reason. But these people forget who fought at Stonewall: drag queens, the gender identity pioneers of our movement, some of whom might be transgender today.
Hope this helps
THanks. I should have figured it out for myself. I do know gay people who are less than enthused about transgender people.
Thank you for asking.
For every person who asks a question, especially about this topic, I’ve learned there are about 1,000 who wish they’d asked and are glad you did.
And if anyone wants to chime in here to better my answer, please feel free. If I’ve said anything incorrectly I’m happy to have the record set right.
Not an expert, just a learner like you.
They don’t forget. They use and pretend to be allied with transgendered people until they view them as a complication or a liability, then they throw them under the bus.
Aravosis doesn’t believe that transgendered Americans belong in the LGB community and are, in fact, at the root of all legislative failures in and for that community. I’ll bet if you go to Salon and do a search for John Aravosis, you’ll find that bigoted screed that Joan walsh allowed him to publish.
That was last year’s fight. Barney Frank says ENDA will be inclusive this year; that’s if we have an ENDA at all, of course. I expect it’s just as likely that Obama and the Democrats will tell LGBTs — ‘look what we did for you with DADT! that’s all for you in 2010!’
I didn’t agree with Aravosis over his transphobia; as you may know, I am a fierce advocate for transgendered people. But I am willing to find an alliance here because, frankly, it’s difficult to find any truth-tellers on this DADT sham.
John and Pam seem like they are close to being truth-tellers on this. That’s worth welcoming, I think.
But I agree with you about last year’s battle and I respect your continued opposition to him over that issue. It’s hard for me sometimes, too.
I overlooked his transphobia long ago after his meltdown at gayadvocacy over it but never again. Would you ally yourself with the KKKlan because it is convenient? How about the Nation of Islam? AIPAC? Sorry but I don’t see any difference.
Here’s the thing: Barney Frank held a very similar position to Aravosis, but he’s shown a willingness to learn that I think is admirable. He’s hired a trans man on his DC staff. I’m hoping Barney has set an example for middle-aged gay men who aren’t comfortable with transgenders.
I mean, our team has forgiven Robert Byrd and we seem to have forgiven Barney Frank, who used to say people “had transgender” like it was a disease.
Perhaps by allying with Aravosis on issues, he can learn to see the error of his ways. But I completely respect your views if you wish not to make such an alliance; shunning is all too infrequent in American society, and I applaud anyone who undertakes it for the right reasons.
Which yours are.
I have to go back to the old axiom: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. He’s fooled me twice. I’m not about to give him a third opportunity.
And I completely respect that.
He went nuts with the inclusion of transgendered people in ENDA. He kicked people off his list for their disagreements with him. Short answer, he doesn’t think transgendered people should be part of our team.
Teddy when I was in DC, I went to an SLDN get together. I could see the anxiety with all of them, the gay military, about what their futures were going to be like. I personally defer to them and the folks who are there in DC doing the repeal work. Don’t believe I have a vote on this one. All the gay military does and they are speaking through their leadership.
While I don’t support the military complex I will step aside to honor their sacrifices and support what they want.
I believe I have to disagree about who is telling the truth about this since there are many truths in play.
Here’s why I think I have a vote: because passage of this sham will endanger servicemembers. They will have no statutory non-discrimination policy, just at the whim of the Secretary of Defense. And the Secretary of Defense — Obama’s SecDef! — has permitted his service chiefs and Joint Chiefs Chair to stray quite far from his reluctant statement in support of this.
I think servicemembers are much more at risk under a non-statutory policy that can be changed under the next Administration.
This won’t permit open service, and it won’t stop the discharges.
Additionally, I think this is an unconstitutional ceding of authority by the legislative branch to the Executive, specifically the military. We all have a stake in our constitution, and an obligation to speak up when it’s being abrogated. Not just those directly affected, who (in this case) are being misled by the national organizations entranced by access to Obama.
It’s a raw deal and I hope to see it defeated to protect those servicemembers who are being told this is the best we can do.
Finally, Gates has locked down his service chiefs before. That he hasn’t done so on this means he tacitly approves of their insubordination. And that he approves their insubordination being used by John McCain and the GOP. When Mullen said yesterday that this compromise will allow him to decide “WHETHER” to allow open service, that was Gates speaking.
I’m not sure if a future Administration could go back on the parts that were certified. They could certainly continue all the aspects of discrimination already in this compromise and any Gates and Mullen might want to add on after the report they commissioned comes in.
I think a new de-certification would be Job One for Sarah Palin’s Secretary of Defense. Certainly Mitt Romney’s as well, and probably Newt Gingrich’s too.
@ 13: Wow, I did not know that. Many very enlightening comments here today. Thank you!
Thanks for participating, please ask away.
Tripped over a book signing going on at a bookstore with Leslie Feinberg who wrote, “Transgendered Warrior.”
Curiosity got me thinking, I decided to stay, treat Leslie with respect like any other human being and learn something. It was worth it. I did learn something and went away with greater respect. Takes a lot of courage for folks to be themselves, especially these folks. Why deny them their self-respect?
So, with respect to John A., seems to me that a tentative, conciliatory approach + an invitation to dialogue re trans-gendered people *with* a trans-gendered representative up to the task (the individual must have an open mind, diplomatic skills, deep self-acceptance and a thick skin) might be mutually mind-opening, hence mutually beneficial even if there is no accord reached. What is there to lose?
Senate committee voted out DADT.. A wee start at eliminating all this gender crap.. a baby step but until all people can be who they truly are there will be those who will be disenfranchised from full citizenship by this bias!
With no mention of transgendered service members. I’ll bet John A is ecstatic over that at least. I’ve gotta do my workout. Laters. :-)
Have fun Peg ☺ ☺
OK Teddy, understood. I still think we will disagree on this.
If the people being most impacted by this step are not hollering about it, I won’t either. Besides, when was the last time you saw some legislation remain completely untouched after emerging from a committee? That giant butthole McCain is surely going to try and strangle it so I am glad we got a win today. So are the gay military folks.
There is a great tendency among humans to celebrate a win.
I hope I am wrong and they are right. I would nothing more than to see them openly serve. When, I wonder, will they be allowed to without facing discharge?
I believe that in the sober light of day this compromise will be seen for the sham it is. Then the disappointment will set in, and the outrage will arrive next year.
Well after the midterms, and well before Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.
This could be said as well of the Obama presidency thus far.
Pretty much, huh?
So the CAP quislings got a seat at the negotiating table, because they negotiated away any actual repeal.
Nice.
Sure seems so.
I remember the promises made when DADT compromise was proposed (by the military commanders, if memory serves): that it would allow gays to serve, if they didn’t “advertise” their sexuality.
However, it was used as a means to a witchhunt.
We have no repeal in this compromise, but a compromise in which the witchhunt can continue until the military and President are satisfied that all the witches have been burnt.
There’s also no statutory non-discrimination clause, so no requirement that those servicemembers harassed for possibly being gay have anywhere to go with their complaints.
Teddy – your analysis about this issue has been the best, and it’s really disgusting how many supposed morally bankrupt progressives are just apologists for the cowardice and outright betrayal of this administration and Congressional leadership.
I have been trying to wrap my mind around what has happened to the Democrats on both ends of Pa. Ave. beyond the simple cliches of elitists and corporate sellouts. I came across this short interview with Chris Hedges in which he articulates what perhaps is the most succinct explanation of the moral vacuity of this administration and Congressional leadership that I’ve found. At about the 9:00 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_quWatFkY there is this question and Hedges really amazing answer that start as: Q: President Barack Obama is not a stupid man. I’m sure he understands history the way many other people do. Why would he beef up defense spending and escalate troops and increase these wars that America is waging if he understands the significance of the economic recession that is taking place here? Why would he do such a thing? A: Because he’s weak. Obama is a brand. He functions as a brand. By the way, in this talk he gave in Seattle in 2009, at about the 39:45 min. mark: http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=18067 he relates how even though he is straight, he founded the Lesbian-Gay Alliance at Colgate University at the insistence of his minister father whose brother was gay. That must have been the mid-70s, not too many years after Stonewall. Pretty striking stuff.“Winnie Stachelberg is a former HRC employee now senior official at CAP. Who apparently caved two months ago, undercutting HRC and SLDN and SU in their work for real, actual, full repeal of DADT.”
The Pro-Active Veal Pen to the rescue!