Alex Blaze

Congressional Democrats, HRC: DADT repeal won't happen until at least 2011

Filed By Alex Blaze | December 29, 2008 2:30 PM | comments

Filed in: The Movement
Tags: Carl Levin, Congress, Don't Ask Don't Tell, HRC, Human Rights Campaign


"[Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell] ought to be re-examined and it ought to be on the agenda, but it shouldn't be very high on the agenda," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). "There are just too many other more important things to do."

A cautious non-approach to this was also supported by Brad Luna, communications director for the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay-rights group. "There is a strategically correct way to go about this," said Luna. "This policy has been in place for a number of years. It's not going to be repealed overnight."

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

How convenient for HRC. Now they get to tease people for money longer and gloat about a delayed repeal they will likely have no direct effect on.

If the Iraqi troops are recalled before DADT is repealed, I will feel so miserable about the gay men and women who still won't get to greet their loved ones hello, kiss them, and hug them.

On the other hand, I am also pleased with the transparency. Perhaps this millionth time that the Democrats shrug us off will make the gay community get over its fanatic support of the party.

"It's not going to be repealed overnight"

Why not?

I agree that there are other, greater priorities facing our nation right now, but...

Isn't this the administration of the same presidential candidate who once blasted his opponent's stunt "cancellation" of his campaign by saying, "It is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once."

No one has explained to me exactly why we have to be patient and careful about taking down this obviously terrible and discriminatory piece of policy. I admit I'm terribly naive about military culture, but it seems that a direct command from the commander-in-chief or a change in law from the US Congress ought to be a fairly easy order to follow and implement.

It's not like these fights are mutually exclusive. Congress's responsibility transcends examination of a single issue during one session.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | December 31, 2008 3:44 PM

Congressional Dems just aren't up to multi-tasking, I guess. And I suppose it's our fault that we've let them dumb-DLC-down to the least common denominator so much that their average GQ (no, not that one, silly, their Gumption Quotient) has dropped into the negatives, with Levin leading the backwards charge.

"There is a strategically correct way to go about this," said Luna.

I wonder if that would be the same "strategically correct way" the HRC went about defending our rights during the last election?

Congress wants to sit back and just let it expire so no one has to go on record with a position, and the Lucrece notes, the HRC can continue to ask for our money, do nothing with it, and then claim a victory with DADT expires.

And thanks Jere for the reminder that Congress should be able to do more than one thing at a time. What a lame excuse, and once again the supposed "leadership" of the gay rights movement, the HRC, rolls over.

Who the hell do HRC think they are to set time tables for legislation? This shows how irrelevant they have become. Congress will do it when the President wants it. If it happens this year, will HRC whine, saying they don't want it now? "We said 2001!" Get out of the way and let the real activists work this issue.

I have been in the military for many years, and I agree with Luna's comment that this will not change overnight. I predict it will take 18 months from Obama taking office. Why? There are many more important issues for the military that need the new President's attention and political capital.

I have waited all this time to serve my country openly, I can wait a few more months while all my brothers and sisters in combat get the attention and help they need to be successful and come home soon. Take care of them first.

Has it occured to anyone that it will not happen in 2011 because Obama will be campaigning for re-election then, probably against a republican field that consists of Caribou Barbie, Mike Hucklberry, and Rudi 9-11?

And Obama's buddy Rick Warren will be using the gravitas Obama bestowed him on inauguration day to crown one of that field with his endorsement?

They won't dare give us a bloody thing while the campaign is underway....

Has it occured to anyone that it will not happen in 2011 because Obama will be campaigning for re-election then, probably against a republican field that consists of Caribou Barbie, Mike Hucklberry, and Rudi 9-11?

That's what I'm thinking, Maura. There's never a good time for something like this.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | December 31, 2008 4:02 PM

Like he's stopped campaigning now? We don't really believe their 'reaching out across the divide' excuse for Warren, do we?

HRC will be busy doing what they do best, collecting money to pay bloated salaries to their unproductive staff of movement hustlers.

Congress will be much busier. Every time they appropriate a trillion or two more for the rancid uberrich they have to come up with a new excuse to cover their asses. Try it sometime; it’s not as easy as it sounds.

Then there’s the war. Before the ‘06 Congressional elections Democrats said they’d end it. They lied. Then Obama lied giving people the impression, again before the election, that he’d wind it down. Now we know that’s not going to happen. Obama’s going to expand it in a replay of Nixon’s invasions of Laos and Cambodia. Forget the Taliban and Al Qaida, that's just an excuse.

What they really want is that oil pipeline from Azerbaijan on the Caspian through Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. They'll make a mint supplying gas to Pakistan, India and have an outlet to world wide shipping via the Indian Ocean. (The route is a little long because it detours around Iran and Russia. But hey, anything for a buck, including more dead soldiers and more dead civilians. Profits uber alles is the Democrats policy.)

And they, the Democrats that is, have to continue their campaign of imposing austerity by wringing concessions from unions in companies ruined by rancid mismanagers, exporting jobs, cutting benefits, and denying socialized medicine to please big HMOs and Big Pharma.

They’re going to be so busy they won’t have time to deal with piddling little things like rampant homophobia, racism and misogyny, to say nothing of mass unemployment, runaway inflation and all the rest.

Democrats know their priority and its profits. Mere people come in last, way last. So once again, our thanks to Alex and all those who created this mess by telling people the Democrat Party was not a tool of big business and the military industrial complex.

I have heard otherwise. Obviously, the economy, war in Iraq, budget and funding matters, and health care will come first. But elimination of DADT is one of the easier things to do. The votes are there now. Don't be shocked if it's tucked into a funding bill for Iraq withdrawal.

My source is a US Congressman. I think he knows better what Congress is likely to do, than the out of touch satraps in that overpriced edifice on Massachusetts Ave. HRC's been wrong so many times over the years, I can't begin to count, and quite frankly I don't care what Brad Lunatunes might think.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | December 31, 2008 4:10 PM

HRC's vote counting inaccurate? Knock me over with a feather!

Of course the votes are there. The votes were also there for a veto override when the thing originally passed and that wierd combo of the West Coast queer mafia and certain D.C. pie-in-the-sky legal beagles sold us out to the Clinton admin in return for appointments that never materialized.

Will that matter? Only if we refuse to let it not.

We could use a victory to make us look like less of a political albatross around the dems neck; the four defeats hurt us.

Right now, the Christian Right is focusing upon the Trans-Rights bill in Massachusetts. I believe that a win against the Christian Right, particularly on the behalf of their most hated portion of the LGBT community, would earn us quite a bit of political capital, weaken the Christian Right's media juggernaut and shatter their newly developed aura of invincibility, and honestly be a nice boost for our side and give us the initiative again.

We need a win; ths win is overdue for trans-people, helps the entire community politically, and damages the right.

Lets do it, for God's sake...

ONE fucking year. That's what he gets. After working my ass off to help get him elected, and having Rick Warren thrown in my face...ONE YEAR. At the VERY least, we better get DADT changed within one year. He's the goddam COMMANDER IN CHIEF. This isnt' some "vote" issue. This is equivalent to changing a dress uniform from blue to red. He's the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Fuck Congress. Any generals/admirals who don't agree....your resignations are herewith accepted. Jesus Christ.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | December 31, 2008 4:14 PM

Currently, there's statute in the way of your plan, Kary -- but it will expire ere long.