-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/08/white-house-saying-gay-ban-will-be.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
It's long past time someone in gay media finished the job of exposing their impotence and strategic bankruptcy that the Washington Blade began with a story a couple of years ago about how many respected employees quit shortly after Aubrey Sarvis took over, continued with a story about Sarvis telling the Washington Times in November of last year essentially that Obama could take his own sweet time in attacking DADT, and then more or less abandoned save for part of a recent article in which Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin revealed that both former and present SLDNites have been among those described in the Center's scathing report, "Self-Inflicted Wound: How and Why Gays Give the White House a Free Pass on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
If you don't want to ask them, then ask yourselves why none of our three out members of Congress bothered to attend SLDN's tiny March rally in front of the Capitol building for the DADT repeal bill. Why even the bill's then lead sponsor, Ellen Tauscher, didn't bother to show up for the event about her own bill. Why none of them, save Polis, showed up at SLDN's annual dinner the next night, nor anyone representing the administration.
Why Sarvis and SLDN communications peeps Kevin Nix, whom AMERICAblog has exalted twice in two days, and Paul DeMiglio, et al., continually push the glacially slow legislation line while dissing a stop-loss order in (at best) disingenuous language that could be written by any Kool Aid-saturated Obambot.
SLDN long ago became a part of the problem not the solution, and, respectfully, AMERICAblog has been ennabling them by perpetuating the illusion than they are anything else.
1. joe solomonese DOESN'T speak for me, nor do i trust any "closed door" meetings that HRC has had with the administration. AREN'T WE ALL ADULT ENOUGH TO NEGOTIATE WITHOUT DOING IT IN "THE CLOSET", so to speak?
2. next spring. yeah, right. i guess the reasoning is that the ponies we're to each receive with the repeal of DADT were on back order until next spring.
funny, but it's taken 47 years and FINALLY having what i thought would be a president for "hope" and "change" to turn me into a raging cynic. thanks alot, "fierce advocate".
Sounds like a great plan to me -- it's working so well already. By all means stay the course.
/righteous snark off
Either Obama has lost control of the messaging coming from his staff, or he simply doesn't give a shit about controlling it. So far, he hasn't given much of a shit about anything other than keeping "Brand Obama" alive on the talk show circuit. Does the man ever stay in town and actually do any work?!
This is going down about as easily as all that Pharm-back-room-dealing messaging that went completely FUBAR on them.
I'm guessing the people surrounding Obama are finding him easy to roll. The man is so wrapped up with not causing hurt feelings and trying to go along to get along that he's lost his power. Rahm probably walks all over him.
Sincerely
Brandi Parker
White House says the Easter Bunny is a real person, too. Will be proven in April of next year.
White House says the tooth fairy does exist and will be proven next time someone at the White House loses a tooth.
How about ACTIONS instead of talk?
don't you get tired of all that sucking . . . up?
But I want to take issue with the statement that, when it comes to lifting the HIV entry ban "There's been a lot of foot-dragging on that too in the past eight months."
As someone who has worked on this issue for more than a decade, I think that is an inaccurate characterization -- the administration has moved as fast as practically and legally possible in removing the ban on HIV visitors and immigrants.
Previously (while Bill Clinton was President) Congress passed a law placing HIV on the list of medical conditions that would deny one entrance to the US. (Normally the question of what conditions are on this list is decided by public health authorities, not Congress).
Last year Congress passed a new law that returned to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to decide if HIV would remain on the list. (Not, as some have misinterpreted, removing it from the list).
Making this change is not as simple as striking HIV from the list -- it requires a whole set of legal and programmatic revisions to immigration regulations, changes that must be drafted and reviewed by numerous government agencies, and that must be opened for a public comment period.
(Part of the complexity is due to the fact that the ban involves not just visitor travel to the US, but all types of entry, including permanent immigration, temporary work permits like H-1 visas, student visas, refugee claimants, family class entrants, etc. - each of these already had procedures and regulations in place about how they deal with HIV+ applicants.)
Unlike many of the other issues we're frustrated about, the Obama administration began work on this almost immediately after taking office, and successfully drafted the changes and got internal review and sign-off accomplished in only 5 months. John, you know how slowly internal government mechanisms actually work in DC - especially when a new administration takes office. Getting this done in 5 months is not the sign of foot-dragging, but actually a pretty impressive feat when all is considered.
These proposed changes were published in the Federal Register on July 2nd, and are open for public comment.
People can see the proposed new rules at the link below (and looking at the regs will give everyone a sense of the regulatory complexity and why this takes time in drafting and analyzing the changes.)
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-15814...
Nothing new here - time to move on.
"In order to pass this work, we need to be re-elected, we want to do this, but we need the votes, and your support so we can help you, so please donate or else you wont have right"
Call me 'Pollyanna' but I believe that the Obama administration will use DADT as a 'wedge issue' - but not the way most of us think. They will overturn DADT and when the Republicans go ballistic, Obama will use that to show just how out of touch the Republicans are.
With high percentages of the public supporting lesbians and gays serving in the military, and with each passing year, more hateful old farts dying off, this is a winning strategy. I'm a little pissed that we are being used this way, but I'll accept the outcome if it works.
AND civil disobedience!
As for DADT, public opinion may be at 75% for the repeal. But what is the opinion of the top level military hierarchy? Obama maybe commander in chief, but he has not "earned" his credibility in the eyes of the military. DADA won't be repealed until we have more top level military stepping up and calling for its repeal.
b) You, however, are wrong about DADT, and, are in fact doing what Obamabots tend to do - namely move the ball. The ball is not what you describe and it will never occur as you describe. Anyone studying the previous history of integration with race can tell you that's a load. The reality is that it came first from outside, and then over time the military brass accepted it and implemented it. Indeed, if you look at the Palm Center report on gays, that's what they are essentially advocating as well. The reason is because it works. It worked in a military that was even more anti -black (and yes the polling data bares that out that they were more anti-black when integrating blacks into the military than anti-gay).
As for DADT, I read a strategy that sounds pretty good and sums up where we stand with DADT.
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/20...
When someone promises one thing and continually takes actions that are a 180 from what they said, we have a right to call them on it and ask them what the hell they are doing.
Just for the record: I am not GLBT, but as a veteran of the US Army, I will stand with them for their civil rights, and that's exactly what this is -- a denial of their civil rights. They pay taxes, work, and contribute to our society in very positive ways, so to deny them any of their constitutional rights is unaceptable. It's what we in the military took an oath to protect and defend from all enemies -- foreign and domestic.
Also, did JC warn about putting one's trust in "non-profit groups." They make their money not solving problems but dragging them out, better to milk their consituencies.
When does Solmonese retire anyway?
Yeah, sounds like McCain's super-double-secret plan to get Bin Laden.
you know, the "you'll see! how dare you question OUR president! he knows what he's doing and you're getting in the way of his BRILLIANT, SUPER-SECRET plan to solve every crisis by making it ***look like*** he's actually screwing it up first!"
i'm so sick of the obama appeasers.
See, if you "don't ask" about their plan to repeal DADT, they "don't tell" you when they plan to do it, and then we all get ponies.
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2009/08/hrcs-solm...
sure would be great if HRC showed the rest of us this road map.
I hate to say it but when it comes to the HRC it's time to "Speak truth to Stupid". The Democratic Party is NOT our friend. They many not be working against us, but they sure as hell are NOT working for us either.
Am I saying we should vote Republican? Well to be honest I don't really know. The sad truth is, it seems like the DNC and the DCCC were far more committed to the LGBT Community when the Democrats were in the minority. Maybe putting them BACK there for two years might get it through their heads you can't keep yanking the ball away and smiling sweetly as you say "Now just isn't the time for your issues."
Part of me would rather deal with honest enemies who I know are going to try to stab me in heart, than have dishonest friends who I have to constantly worry about them stabbing me in the back.
Sigh.. I really wish we had a viable third party.. (Sorry Libertarians and Greens keep dreaming . I said a "Viable" third party and neither of you are there yet.)
"Then there's including transgender people in the federal government non-discrimination policy. That's great. It wasn't one of our Obama's promises to the community"
Obama vs. McCain
How They Differ on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights
Employment Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a piece of legislation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act and prohibit employment discrimination based on same. At present time, it is perfectly legal under federal law for any employer to fire, punish, or refuse to hire an employee on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexualit...
A Quick Guide to Obama and McCain's Stances on the Hottest Issues
August 13, 2008 by
eunice
eunice
Barack Obama
Supports sexual orientation and transgender-inclusive ENDA
- Sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/936209...
Obama’s 2008 HRC Questionnaire:
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.down...
I believe the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. I sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.
==============================
I'll disagree on the opinion that inclusion wasn't a priority - I know it's certainly not one of John's.
And note with a bit of wryness (and apologies to frizbeefz to adding this here) that the Charlie Brown analogy was most often stated by the trans communities and addressed to HRC on their evolving ENDA stances. I remeber using it in 1999. maybe 1998.
That hell hole couldn't RUN without gay people, and the sooner all the gay people leave the sooner the rest of the world will see that. America is doomed. DOOMED!