UPDATE: Kevin Naff's editorial in the Washington Blade likewise notes that Democrats must be held accountable in November if DADT repeal does not occur this year. Betrayal needs to carry a hefty price.*
In a very disturbing article at The Advocate, Kerry Eleveld describes the doubt that has arisen that the repeal of DADT will go anywhere this year - largely because of the peevish letter authored by Defense Secretary Gates who has forgotten that the military reports to civilian leaders and not vice versa. What I find perhaps most upsetting is the fact that I doubt Gates' letter was released without President Obama's advanced knowledge. In short, Obama may well be deliberately working to torpedo DADT repeal while voicing platitudes to LGBT Americans out of the other side of his mouth. If this ploy works, I and the boyfriend are likely to sit out the November elections and urge our friends to do so as well. What is the point of working to elect Democrats when all they do is throw us under the bus? Such betrayal merits no money contributions, no grass roots campaign efforts and no votes. At least with Republicans we know who are enemies are out in the open. Here are highlights from Kerry's article:
*
Capitol Hill insiders continue to assess the fallout on “don’t ask, don’t tell” following a potentially game-changing letter in which Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged House Armed Services Committee chair Ike Skelton of Missouri not to vote on repeal before the Pentagon completes its implementation study in December.
*
“Clearly the world changed dramatically with the Gates letter,” said one Hill veteran who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Everyone is trying to figure out how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”
*
The source said that prior to Gates’s letter, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee was just one to two votes shy of the 15 needed to attach a repeal measure to this year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in committee. Folding repeal into the must-pass Defense funding bill in committee would place the onus on those who oppose repeal to find 51 votes to strip out the measure on the Senate floor.
Multiple sources worried that moderate Democrats such as Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia would now be nearly impossible to sway. “When people are asked to vote against the recommendations of the Defense Secretary, that makes it a very heavy lift,” said the source.
*
Both sources said it was difficult to know where the votes stood now in the Senate Armed Services Committee, but that things should become clearer in another two to three weeks. They both agreed that Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, chief sponsor of the House repeal bill (H.R. 1283), had the 216 votes to pass the measure as either a stand-alone bill or an attachment to the Defense authorization bill on the House floor. “The question is, does the House want to take a vote on something that might go nowhere in the Senate?”
*
Another alternative to full repeal might the fallback of putting a moratorium on discharges. The second source said suspending discharges might gain traction even though advocates have been reluctant to settle for anything less than full repeal. “If you buy into the idea that the Pentagon study is not about if but when, it makes perfect sense.” Though Pentagon officials have consistently opposed suspending discharges, some Democratic leaders on the Hill continue to support it, suggesting that it may be a potential alternative to voting on full repeal this year.
*
Pardon my French, but I am OVER Obama's bullshit and constant betrayals and lack of leadership on both repeal of DADT and passage of ENDA. I BOTH are not accomplished prior to November, the Democrats will have brought election disengagement by LGBT voters on themselves and deservedly so.
*
“Clearly the world changed dramatically with the Gates letter,” said one Hill veteran who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Everyone is trying to figure out how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”
*
The source said that prior to Gates’s letter, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee was just one to two votes shy of the 15 needed to attach a repeal measure to this year’s Department of Defense authorization bill in committee. Folding repeal into the must-pass Defense funding bill in committee would place the onus on those who oppose repeal to find 51 votes to strip out the measure on the Senate floor.
Multiple sources worried that moderate Democrats such as Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia would now be nearly impossible to sway. “When people are asked to vote against the recommendations of the Defense Secretary, that makes it a very heavy lift,” said the source.
*
Both sources said it was difficult to know where the votes stood now in the Senate Armed Services Committee, but that things should become clearer in another two to three weeks. They both agreed that Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, chief sponsor of the House repeal bill (H.R. 1283), had the 216 votes to pass the measure as either a stand-alone bill or an attachment to the Defense authorization bill on the House floor. “The question is, does the House want to take a vote on something that might go nowhere in the Senate?”
*
Another alternative to full repeal might the fallback of putting a moratorium on discharges. The second source said suspending discharges might gain traction even though advocates have been reluctant to settle for anything less than full repeal. “If you buy into the idea that the Pentagon study is not about if but when, it makes perfect sense.” Though Pentagon officials have consistently opposed suspending discharges, some Democratic leaders on the Hill continue to support it, suggesting that it may be a potential alternative to voting on full repeal this year.
*
Pardon my French, but I am OVER Obama's bullshit and constant betrayals and lack of leadership on both repeal of DADT and passage of ENDA. I BOTH are not accomplished prior to November, the Democrats will have brought election disengagement by LGBT voters on themselves and deservedly so.
No comments:
Post a Comment