Pam Spaulding of Pandagon and her own site, Pam’s House Blend, has just told us why President Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize: to our friends on the left, simply talking about an issue is a good thing in itself; actually delivering on promises would be nice, too, but isn’t really necessary:
On Obama’s HRC keynote—plus watching the LGBT movement in flux
I was live on-the-air for SiriusOutQ’s coverage of the HRC Dinner featuring the President’s historic keynote address Saturday night, and I have to tell you, the low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you’re an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our President was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.
However, I have to agree with Sean Bugg, my fellow commentator during the coverage, who made a great point that if you aren’t a wonk or activist clued in to the messy politics going on behind the scenes, this speech is a huge home run of support from the President of the United States to a kid out in the sticks who watches it can now feel he is part of the American fabric. In our cynical view of the political system, jaded by the hypocrisy and spinning we see each day, as well as outright lying by pols and advocates, you have to remember how this speech can resonate with non-political LGBTs and straight America. The President actually engaged with a segment of our community in his first term to affirm support for the LGBT community. I doubt you’ll see him endure sane, rational criticism from the right on this other than the usual whines from the fringes who already think he’s Satan/Hitler/Muslim terrorist, etc. That’s progress on its own and it should not be minimized.
Miss Spaulding continues at length to note that the President has promised action in the future, but she doesn’t see any evidence that he’s in any hurry.
So that’s my praise. As far as criticism, I don’t even know where to begin. But I’ll first share the news that HRC is happy with the speech.
“Tonight, President Obama told LGBT Americans that his commitment to ending discrimination in the military, in the workplace and for loving couples and their families is ‘unwavering.’ He made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we’re impatient with the pace of change. But these remarks weren’t just for us, they were directed to all Americans who share his dream and ours of a country where “no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.”
“And we heard unequivocally about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: ’I am working with the Pentagon, its leadership and members of the House and Senate to end this policy. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That is my commitment to you.’
“Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President: ’You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.’
“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented.”
OK. What he said about DADT is no different than the message we’ve heard every time the admin is asked about this. Robert Gibbs winds the key in his back and belches that out regularly during press briefings. No news. DADT repeal is the big “gimme” that he could most easily accomplish—all the polling support is there, there’s bipartisan support on the Hill, and the face of the opposition is Elaine Donnelly, for god’s sake? Many service members are already serving openly with their COs looking the other way. How many homophobic retired generals need to go to the hereafter before Nancy, Harry and Barry open the locked chest to find their dusty spines? I wasn’t surprised that the response of Aubrey Sarvis, executive director, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network was diplomaticly muted.
Personally, I am underwhelmed. President Obama went before a gay rights group, and said all of the things they wanted to hear about the nobility of their cause, but gave them no real action. Though it wasn’t her article conclusion, Miss Spaulding hit on what was really said:
This was a well-crafted, oddly familiar address if you’re a political junkie, because it felt like a stump speech, a post-election speech and a WH LGBT photo op address patched together. I understand his support for equality; what I didn’t hear is that civil rights of human beings are any more important than any other political issue he faces.
And there it is: President Obama is a politician, just like any other. As for his timeline for action, that, too, is clear: sometime after the 2012 election!
For me, personally, I think that “don’t ask/don’t tell/don’t investigate” is a stupid, stupid policy. For service members who intend to make a career out of the military, odds are pretty good that they will encounter duty which requires a security clearance at some point; my younger daughter’s selected MOS requires that she obtain a “Secret” clearance right off the bat, to continue in her MOS.
I’ve told you this before: when I was checked for a clearance, I was asked, very specifically, if I had ever cheated on my wife of if I had ever had a homosexual encounter. They weren’t being prudes about the subjects, but needed to know about points of vulnerability to blackmail: if I had ever cheated on my wife, and she didn’t know about it, that would be a point of blackmailability. (If I had, and she knew, it wouldn’t be a vulnerability.) Security concerns that seem unrelated to a job, such as credit or financial problems, also exist.
Well, if a homosexual is allowed to serve as long as no one knows he is homosexual, but is to be discharged if it becomes known, a point of blackmailability is artificially created. That’s just dumb. From a security viewpoint, either homosexuals should be allowed to serve whether their sexual orientation is known or not, or homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, period. To have a wink and nod approach, but with a serious penalty involved if the wrong people find out, is madness.
As Miss Spaulding said, this would be the easiest issue on which the President could take action, yet, this far, he has not chosen to actually do anything. The thrown-under-the-bus notion is somewhat overused when it comes to President Obama, and even to use it would be inaccurate here. But his allies are definitely laying down in the road, watching the bus approach.
Get real, Dana!
Obama is stating goals, like any good political leader does. He does not have the power to set a time-line to resolve this issue, especially when he has a contentious and obstructionist element in Congress, socially conservative Repubs and Dems alike.
If he does not deliver in good time, then his leadership prestige will be diminished, and he will lose support, perhaps even be replaced.
Nine months in office is hardly enough time to make such a judgment, especially considering the messes he inherited.
He has changed the tone, he has changed the goals, and he has reached out his hand in a manner not seen in the past eight years.
Let us see where we are re President Obama come 2012!
OK, Perry, in your view, at what point in President Obama’s term should he start to be held accountable for not fulfilling promises? At what point will criticism of him for not taking action on what he has said he will do become legitimate?
I’d point out here that President Bush’s major campaign promise, substantial tax cuts, was approved by Congress on 26 May 2001. With an abbreviated transition period, and a 50-50 Republican-Democratic split in the Senate, President Bush still got that done in 126 days (4 months and 1 week) in office.
Actually, at the time, DA/DT was a sensible compromise. Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on gays in the military. Unfortunately, it was one of the first things he tried to do, he hadn’t really built up any political capital, and the military, which was already inclined to “Loathe” him, pushed back, with DA/DT being the result.
When I signed up for the Navy, the old ban was still in place, They DID ask, and you had to tell, right on the enlistment form. If you checked “Yes” that was it. They didn’t let you in. DA/DT was, from the gay perspective, a vast improvement. It meant you didn’t have to LIE to the military, only not openly live the truth. Not a perfect solution by any means, but given the times, a not bad one either.
The truth is their cause is neither noble nor just. It is just misguided.
It’s a “feel good” topic. It’s what Libs live for is the “feel good” result. Just that Afghanistan is going to hell, the economy is limping along, unemployment is still up, but BO delivers every time in the “feel good” department.
And the SNL opening nailed it again last night.
David: “The truth is their cause is neither noble nor just. It is just misguided.”
I disagree! Their cause is both noble and just.
Providing equal rights for homosexuals, whether we’re talking about DADT in the military, or the right to form families in civil unions, or the right to equality in housing, or the right for a power of attorney for medical and financial decisions by the partner or spouse, this is a moral issue, just like, for example, granting voting rights to women and African-Americans.
If you do not subscribe to granting these inalienable rights, there are several words that begin the letter “b” that characterize you and your attitude on this issue!
Where is there an inalienable right to a power of attorney? Where is there an inalienable right to housing? Where is there an inalienable right to form a family?
Perry, to use your words, show these inalienable rights, show credible citations, or lose your credibility. And until you become credible, keep silent.
Dana “Now I can see why President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize: Promises and platitudes are far more important than action.
I’d point out here that President Bush’s major campaign promise, substantial tax cuts, was approved by Congress on 26 May 2001.”
It all depends on how you define ‘action’, and whether you think that the Bush tax cuts were wise or not!
Obama has been recognized and honored for his actions regarding international relations, which was a campaign commitment. On the contrary, the Bush tax cuts were not paid for and they promoted a flow of wealth to the wealthy. I know which of the two I regard highly, and which I think was a big mistake.
And by the end of the year, I feel certain that he will have a health care reform bill passed and signed, to meet this commitment, a major accomplishment for the American people.
John, I didn’t think you would agree. That’s OK with me!
Perry, show me in the Constitution where those inalienable rights are. And give credible sources as to why you believe those rights are there. Otherwise, you have no credibility.
Eric:
You dodged this, so I assume you agree with it!
Perry, how many of my links disproving you have you dodged? By your disingenuous standards, you have effectively agreed with me that liberals have death-wishes on conservatives. Or were you being something less than credible?
Perry wrote:
No, actually, it doesn’t. If the criterion is whether a candidate fulfilled his promises, and how efficiently he got that job done, then whether or not someone agrees with the policies is irrelevant. If you try to include policy approval as part of the mix, you wind up with a system in which no one in opposition can ever agree that a president got something done efficiently.
By the standard you just suggested, if President Obama gets his health care plan passed, I would have to say that that action was horribly inefficient in keeping his promise, because I don’t agree with his promise; that would be a ridiculous way to gauge it. If he gets it passed, I will have to concede that he kept his promise, even though I think it a bad thing to do.
Perry wrote:
The problem isn’t equal rights; the problem is that special rights are being requested. Power of attorney? Mrs Pico and I got power of attorney for the older Miss Pico before she went off to Basic, because certain things needed to get done before she returned to college; we knew in advance that the schedule would be very time-compressed between returning home from AIT and restarting Penn State. There is nothing that would prevent one person from gaining power of attorney for another, if the other consented.
Form families? Oddly enough, we have no laws against people living together in this country, in any number or combination they should choose, save restrictions concerning the age of consent. There are many families which have been formed without the government recognizing them as a family.
It’s interesting that you listed practical issues, but defined it as a moral issue. The practical issues are easily met, and pretty much have been met.
My position on DA/DT is precisely what I said above: it is a stupid policy, because it is an impractical one as far as security is concerned. But I recognize the riht of the military to exclude certain people: those unable to meet the physical or mental qualifications would be one group reasonably excluded, because the mission of the armed forces would be compromised if such people were included. Whether the inclusion of homosexual in the armed forces would be detrimental to the mission of the armed services has been the reason for past exclusion; that is a subject for debate. My guess is that there is no proof that homosexuals would really be detrimental to the armed services, bit this, to me, is an issue of practicality, not of civil rights.
Bill Clinton was called the first Black President and he was White. So since that spot has already been taken, why can’t Obama be the first gay President? He talks too much and he does seem to have a difficult time making decisions.
Dana:“The problem isn’t equal rights; the problem is that special rights are being requested.”
No Dana, the GLBT movement is demanding equal rights, equal to those which the rest of us have. Couples desiring to be united legally is one. Non-discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual preference, is another. One partner being able to act legally in all manners such as making medical decisions when the other is hospitalized and unable to communicate, is another, using for example a power of attorney. These are not special rights, because heterosexual couples enjoy these rights, homosexual couples often do not, depending on the state in which they live.
On the DADT issue, we pretty much agree.
No. I was too busy arguing with Blu on her 9/11 Twoofer stuff. Sorry about that.
Eric:
No. I was too busy arguing with Blu on her 9/11 Twoofer stuff. Sorry about that.
I have a hammer to send you to hit yourself with it. It will feel so good when you stop.
One thought I just had – Why don’t they have a Nobel Freedom Prize instead of or in addition to the Peace Prize? Of the two, I know which one I’d rather have!
I followed you from Pandagon Dana. So far Obama has been all talk, no action. He’s reached out to everyone but the people who raised/donated money to him and believed in change. That said, at least the left is willing to call him out when he’s wrong. I didn’t see anyone on the right doing that with Bush. Also: Goldwater must be rolling in his grave at the way the Republican party has moved. We need to get away from the us vs.them mentality that has taken over in this country.
Welcome PBG65!
Then you must’ve missed it. Most of our complaints concerned how much money the Republicans in Congress were spending, and the fact that President Bush went along with it, even instigating some of it himself.
That really didn’t get much play; perhaps you’ll remember the more politicized example of the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court.
I don’t get Same Sex politics. As a humanist, I find it quite conflicting the need to appreciate humanity but accept behaviour that is inimical to my understanding of nature and life itself.
I have a dividing policy line with any politician who advocates what evidently contrast with my understanding of nature and upbringing.