Earlier this week, Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) introduced -- and then withdrew -- an amendment that would have prevented the military from using money to carry out Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy that forces military gays and lesbians to stay in the closet.
Please understand that this wasn't an amendment to repeal Don't Ask (another member is carrying that bill). Rather, Hastings was attempting to attach something to the soon-to-be-passed Defense Appropriations Act. This was always a non-starter, and he bloody well knew it, yet didn't care.
Hastings blamed his decision to withdraw on pressure from colleagues and the White House. On Wednesday night, he appeared on MSNBC to talk about this with Rachel Maddow. Her tease to the segment made clear that White House involvement would be a key part of their chat.
Indeed it was, and Maddow began with a recent clip of President Obama: "My administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress." She then looked into the camera: "Why would the White House be putting the kibosh" on this? Fair question.
Unfortunately, it proved to be a hollow one because she never pursued it. Both host and guest bemoaned Team Obama's decision to intervene. As for the reasoning, however, Maddow didn't exactly ask Hastings, and he didn't exactly tell. Allow me.
Neither of them confronted the painfully obvious: We're in the final week of July, with major health care overhaul coming to a precarious head in various committees (or hadn't you noticed?), and a month-long recess just days away. In other words, this is a foolish time to toss Don't Ask into the mix.
Just when the president and congressional Dems have the Blue Dogs quieting down, Hastings would have them howling again.
His goal has merit, so that's not the issue. Don't Ask was always a lousy policy. A huge majority of Americans, 70 percent, want it ended, and it will be. After all, the president himself is on board, even though he hasn't gotten around to it in his first six months. Something about repairing two failed wars, saving the U.S. economy and securing health care reform seems to have demanded his attention.
The point is that when you're already up to your ass in alligators (which Obama was on Day One), it hurts to add more until the current ones get caged. As a Floridian whose district includes Lake Okeechobee, Hastings should at least know that much!
Recently, he sent a June letter to the president about Don't Ask, and apparently didn't receive the cherished coddling from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. His bruised ego then responded, against all wisdom to the contrary, with the late July, dead-on-arrival amendment to the defense bill.
Hastings can do whatever he wants. Still, he's not being a team player when his party needs unanimity and focus to pass historic health care legislation, the centerpiece of the president's first year in office. That's why the White House deemed this an unwise moment to open contentious debate over Don't Ask.
Maddow's coverage gave us no analysis on any of this. MSNBC: "The Place For Politics." Or not.
This kind of patronizingly condescending remark, Mr. Williams, makes it obvious that your disdain for Rachel Maddow extends to the readers of your blog post as well.
I have zero condescension toward Rachel. Love her show, watch it regularly. I was disappointed that her discussion of the Hastings ploy didn't even bother to mention the current political realities, so I wrote about it. Nothing wrong in that.
My condescension is aimed at Hastings himself, or hadn't you noticed? Fact is, many of his Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate -- not to mention those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- feel much stronger about it than I do.
Particularly those who were around in 1988 and '89, when Hastings became only the sixth Federal Judge in U.S. history to be impeached by the House and convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Those who voted to impeach and then remove included John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Charles Dingall, Charles Schumer, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, and Frank Lautenberg.
Ask them about Alcee's showboating ploy on Don't Ask at the very moment that their hard work on massive health care overhaul is at a tricky precipice.
Semper fi
Furthermore, since when does one's employer--in the case of military service members it's (ironically enough) the U.S. taxpayer--determine who is and who is not entitled to full civil rights protections?
All he had do was halt the discharges and investigations while supporting the Tauscher bill. Instead, his administration has fired 326 troops, ignored the Tauscher bill, and argued that DADT is a good policy at the Supreme Court. Speaking of igniting debate...
And, the military has been stonewalling since the 1950s. Its many studies including and following the 1957 Crittenden Report show no justification for any ban on gay troops. We don't need more time to study the issue. We don't need more stonewalling and more firings for homophobia. This is 2009, not 1959.
And, what is at the bottom of all these debates is the scientific fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder. That makes all forms of heterosexism irrational. It means gay people work just as well as hetero people, parent just as well, et cetera. The refusal to acknowledge this basic scientific fact, which has been known since 1956 and consensus since 1973 is a critical factor in American politics. We can see that DADT is just another example of homosexuals being held accountable for the homophobia of others. That's not rational.
It took some realizations before I started showing some leniency on his administration, those being the following: because DADT started in Congress, Congress should repeal it. Also, if Congress repeals it, then its not just Obama taking flack from all the 'phobes, but their elected representatives as well. Most importantly though, having Congress pass it will be like the country as a whole making a decision, not one man, no matter how just and moral that decision may be.
Opposition to DADT has nothing to do with being unkind to Obama or members of his administration. What we're talking about is the unnecessary (for homophobia) firing of members of the military.
"...those being the following: because DADT started in Congress, Congress should repeal it."
The Obama administration did not support the Tauscher bill. It argued to the Supreme Court in favor of DADT, saying the policy is good. Obama has had the power from his first minute in office to stop the implementation of DADT in order to allow Congress to repeal the policy without the unnecessary loss of more service members.
By the way, the Pentagon had a secret 1998 handbook policy that said stop loss could be used arbitrarily to retain openly gay troops, in defiance of the DADT policy it helped to force into existence, in defiance of the "unit cohesion" rationale the policy was founded on.
The very idea of Obama taking the heat! What do you think he is, a leader?
Pray tell, when is the "wise moment" you speak of going to roll around. First it was he's trying to fix the economy, now it's he's trying to get healthcare passed, after the recess you know nothings going to get done on anything until after the midterm elections, and than (if Democrats regain control), the onus will move to education, than energy, and on and on and on. So tell me, when exactly is it going to be politically "kosher" to try end DADT, or DOMA?
1. The Pentagon isn't in charge of health care reform.
2. If it's not health care we're told we have to wait for, it will be something else.
3. Already 326 soldiers have been fired for homophobia by the Obama administration. Every call for delay on stopping DADT is a call for more firings. It's that simple. Anyone who fights for maintaining the policy fights for more firings for homophobia. The question is... why?
Ad hominem against Hastings won't change the fact that he tried to do the right thing. That includes the comments about ego and being a "team player". There is a lot to be said for politicians who stand up for what's right and recognize the difference between the executive branch (which is clearly supporting DADT right now with its court brief and stalling tactics) and the legislative branch. Didn't we learn anything from the Republican Congress during the Bush administration about the drawbacks of such team playing? I, for one, would have welcomed more ego from some Republicans in opposing their party's bad legislation and Bush's bad executive decisions. Oh, that's right, Jeffords did exactly that. I wonder if the same people who are attacking Hastings' character praised Jeffords for his conduct? In any case, it doesn't matter. The firings for homophobia must stop. There is no rational excuse for them.
Semper fi
DADT is an example of homosexuals being held accountable for the homophobia of others.
In reality, recent polling has shown strong majorities in all the categories, including conservatives and church-goers for an immediate end to the firings. That reality contradicts all references to "team playing". The careers of people like Victor Fehrenbach aren't hockey pucks or trophies.
Personally, given that up to 75% of the public (depending upon the poll) and an even more impressive percentage of Democrats want the policy ended, I think Obama and the Democrats in general are squandering political capital by continuing to fire these troops and by supporting, in the case of the former, DADT at the Supreme Court.
And you are right. Hastings Bill was NOT a repeal but it was a STOP GAP method of halting DADT Discharges until a full repeal could be brought forward, as was Kristen Gillibrands pulled admendment.
With an almost 70 percent in appoval polls IN FAVOR of DADT Repeal its idiotic, and a threat to national security to keep discharing Gay and Lesbian Soilders because of their sexuality. A freeze on dismissals until such time as a repeal can happen would eleviate alot of the tension surrounding this situation. The behavior of the Congress and the White House on this is just creating more.
PATHETIC.
Your comment "due to a personal lifestyle choice" where CHOICE is the key word. I believe it is important that language is accurate and being gay is not a choice or a lifestyle.
Otherwise, you are on point!
Semper fi
I don’t watch Rachel Maddow or any of the cable “news” hosts enough to comment on her skills. But you can’t be to surprised when a cable “news” star demagogues an issue.
That being said, it’s very naïve to just think Obama is going to take care of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell once he’s done with health care.
The decision to not repeal DADT has nothing specifically to do with the health care debate; nor will it have a specific connection to the next “more important issue”. Inaction on Gay issues is part of a much more general political strategy then counting votes on a specific bill in congress. This is about the red and purple states. The fact is GLBT people are not popular in the swing states. Therefore the DNC and Obama view helping Gay people in any way as bad politics and with politicians winning always trumps doing the right thing. That’s why GLBT people need to cut their losses on the national scene for now and focus on winning state and local elections.
As for Rachel Maddow, she’ll get her chance to take on the administration. Obama’s political people are probably looking to have a very public fight with “The Gays” before the next election. This will be bad for GLBT people and civil rights in general. But it will be good for Obama, the DNC and Rachel Maddow.