Dr. Jillian T. Weiss

House DADT Vote "Intention" Signals Good News for ENDA

Filed By Dr. Jillian T. Weiss | April 28, 2010 9:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics, Politics
Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, Pelosi

Ipelosi meter.jpg was extremely surprised and pleased to read the news in DC Agenda (soon to be the Washington Blade again - yay!) that Speaker Pelosi is planning a House vote on Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal this year.

Here's the DC Agenda quote:

"It is the Speaker's intention that a vote will be taken this year on ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] in the House," Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, told the Washington Blade in a statement this week.

I think this is a wonderful development, though not in the most obvious of ways, because it signals that the Speaker wants to appease an increasingly restive LGBT constituency. There were months of major Ignoring, followed by a short Alluding period. "Appeasement" is a step up on the Pelosi Meter.

But I wouldn't mistake her "intention" to take a vote on DADT with an actual vote taking place. I mean, look at how much wrangling there has been with ENDA, which, unlike DADT, clearly has enough votes.

To my mind, her statement on a DADT vote represents a major reversal on the Democrats' LGBT legislative stance. It's also in line with the sudden resurgence of comprehensive immigration reform, which was assumed to be the target of Speaker Pelosi's infamous "no more hard votes" speech to the Democrats not so long ago.

It tends to confirm the notion I've been discussing that the Democrats more generally are trying to lock up their base -- including the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. That is a shift from the "no hard votes" position, which would signal a move to the center in an attempt to appeal to conservative independents. I have an interesting ally in this theory: Phyllis Schlafly.

Of course, a lot of people got very nervous yesterday when President Obama issued a video appeal for organizers to help in getting the "new voters" back to the polls - African-Americans, Latinos, women and young people. No gays mentioned in there.

It's understandable that we're as nervous as cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, given the way we've been treated the last year and a half. But still, I don't see the LGBT community as "new voters." I think we've been getting out to vote a lot in the past decade, on the whole, so I can see why he wouldn't include us in that group. I can also see why he might not want to wear a rainbow tie in that video either. My guess is that he and the Dems are assuming that their actions will make us happy and get us out to the polls. If that's the case, then I'm pleased to accept. You can keep your video.

As for Speaker Pelosi, over the past six months, she has mostly been silent on the issue of scheduling votes on LGBT matters. She hasn't said much about scheduling ENDA, which clearly has enough votes in the House. Scheduling DADT repeal, which clearly doesn't have enough votes in the House at this moment, has never been on her lips.

Why would she issue a statement on a DADT vote now? To my mind, it suggests that she wants to appeal to the LGBT constituency. Appeal for what, you ask? Midterms elections, of course. She wants those 7 million LGBT votes. So if we want a vote as our party favor, she's going to give it to us. Or at least say she's going to give it to us. Of course, she knows and I know that when time comes for scheduling such a vote, the question posed to the community is going to be "There's not enough votes here but do you really, really want a vote anyway?" Scheduling a vote is not the same as breaking your kishkes to ensure passage. She'll give you a vote, but will she give you her heart? I doubt our major advocacy organizations are going to back going into a losing vote. So she'll be off the hook. No harm in offering to take a vote, knowing how that tune goes.

In case you're wondering why I think there aren't enough votes, take a look at the Act On Principles website, which maintains active public whip counts on all LGBT bills. While not really representing hard numbers, the count there strongly suggests there aren't quite enough votes in the House.

But the willingness of Speaker Pelosi to say that she intends to schedule a vote is definitely a major step up. And that rising tide lifts all boats, including ENDA.

By the way, where is that whip count on ENDA? Where is the markup? Where is the scheduling of a vote?

My guess is they're in no rush to accomplish too much right now, because then all eyes will be focused on DADT repeal, and we might even start demanding more stuff, like DOMA repeal. But they definitely want our votes, so it pays to string us along.

As long as I get my string of ENDA pearls, string me along all you want.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

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.

By the way, where is that whip count on ENDA? Where is the markup? Where is the scheduling of a vote?

I've been wondering this too. Since you're in regular contact with Chairman Miller's staff, have you heard anything?

Nada. It's wayyy quiet out in Miller-land.

SkepticalCidada | April 28, 2010 10:33 AM

I don't understand the swooning tone here. Are we supposed to celebrate the empty symbolism of the House passing a standalone bill that has no chance of even coming up for a vote in the Senate before the party suffers massive losses in both houses this November?

I won't even consider donating more money or doing more get-out-the-vote work for the party until either DADT repeal or ENDA is signed into law by the President. Symbolic bullshit isn't enough.

Lead or Lose.

Skeptical Cicada, you DO have a heart! I thought you were the cynical one saying neither bill had any chance of passage?

SkepticalCidada | April 28, 2010 11:17 AM

No, I'm just a bigot, remember?

Go post non-responsive replies to someone else's comment.

MalognaSandwich | April 28, 2010 10:34 AM

If Nancy says that she will schedule a vote, it means that she intends on passing it. She has never brought a major piece of legislation to vote without passing it. If she will bring a bill to the floor for a vote, it will pass. The larger question is what the language of that bill will look like. We need to be lobbying our representatives to make sure transgender provisions are included.

It not her "saying" she will schedule a vote that signals commitment to passage, MalognaSandwich, but actually scheduling one. There is a difference between the menu and the meal.

SkepticalCidada | April 28, 2010 11:20 AM

Regardless, it's empty symbolism unless attached to a must-pass spending bill, whether Jillian bothers to respond to that point or not.

The DC Agenda article also contained Barney Frank's honest assessment of this Sunday's planned protest by GetEqual:

But at least one lawmaker was skeptical about the impact of the Sunday protest. Gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), when asked about the effectiveness of the White House protest, replied, “You think President Obama is going to cave because people are demonstrating in front of the White House? No.”

“If presidents were going to change because people demonstrate, then what happens when people demonstrate in the opposite direction?” he said.

“Do you count the number of demonstrators? I continue to be frustrated by people trying to take the easy way out — the way that gives them an emotional release — instead of calling senators and calling representatives."

Of course, nobody actually counts those "calls" either, Barney.

SkepticalCidada | April 28, 2010 11:10 AM

It's also a false choice. We can BOTH demonstrate AND call our members of Congress.

Nice try, Barney. He's clearly in "say anything" mode because he wants to suppress the demonstrations.

Kathy Padilla | April 28, 2010 11:32 AM

"was extremely surprised and pleased to read the news in DC Agenda (soon to be the Washington Blade again - yay!)"

I hope this means that they have possession of the electronic archives of all the old Blade editions/articles. And that they'll make sure they get saved somewhere available to folks, perhaps


There's way too much important community history that could be lost if those archives evaporate. I know they have way too much on their plate starting the new venture - but I hope they can spare a little time to look at this.

SkepticalCidada | April 28, 2010 11:38 AM

Yes. They say they have 10 years of electronic archives that they hope to get online, and they're planning to solicit funds and set up some kind of permanent archive for the first 30 years of non-electronic archives.

As a born in the USA T I will give the Democratic Party Hell if it passes immigration reform before I can fully enjoy the benefits of my birthright as a US citizen.I would also think this should be an issue for the lgb as well.I fully realize the importance of immigration reform but will immigration reform allow the foreign partners of LGBT people to immigrate to the States? Are LGBT people in uganda allowed political asylum in the USA? How about from Iran a place with a homosexual death penalty? We need to be careful that are voices are heard in the immigration debate but in the right way. I question if supporting illegal immigration meets that standard because that would basically be supporting an open border something that isn't in America's best interest for many reasons.

Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | April 28, 2010 2:36 PM

Sorry, Jillian, I can't agree with your simple linkage of the "first-time voters" section of his video with, "It will be up to each of you to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women, who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again."

The first three demographics did vote in significantly higher numbers but, per Census Bureau analysis, the number of votes by women "was [not] statistically different from 2004."

Therefore, I believe the larger message of the video was about his coalition of supporters and, while fewer self-identified gays [actually, LGBs] in exit polls said they voted for him than Gore and Kerry, respectively, in 2000 and 2004, the vast majority of self-identifed gays did vote for him, so, yes, the case can be made that it was at least inappropriate to leave us out if not also politically motivated.

Note, too, he referenced Obama Inc.'s asking people to identify sometime back what his priorities should be for 2010. Nowhere in the list of suggestions THEY suggested people rate were any LGBT issues. That was as inexcusable as it was telling.

I submit that both the video and that poll reflect the homophobic mentality of those who crafted his 80+ page "blueprint for America" distributed across the country during the primaries and general election that [unlike a separate position paper distributed to LGBT media similar to those published by Clinton and Edwards] contained NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE ABOUT LGBTs or LGBT ISSUES. Not ENDA, not hate crimes, not DADT, not DOMA [of course], not UAFA, ad infinitum.

My conclusion: to general audiences like those that this video, the poll, and the blueprint were directed, expression of support for LGBT issues is seen as a political disadvantage and I say FUCK THAT!

I do agree, however, that Pelosi's statement is encouraging at least in terms of recognition that they have a problem, but, so far, it is only words and we've seen what little currency those have had the last 15 months. It could just as easily have the sole purpose that Obama's words typically do: sedate restless LGBT natives. As he's proven again and again, one pro-gay word is worth a thousand thorazine to gullible gays.

It is curious, and a little troubling, that she did not specify what would be voted on as failure to specify the more viable DEFAUTH could be interpeted as conversely not wanting to encourage it...OR contradict so quickly the unequivocal statement by Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer a couple of weeks ago that repeal would NOT be inserted in the House DEFAUTH bill.

While the spectacular current lead sponsor of the House standalone bill, Patrick Murphy, has said he has more commitments to vote for it than cosponsors, per an April 9th "New York Times" article, he, too, is now focusing on DEFAUTH:

"in gathering votes for its repeal, Mr. Murphy has upped the co-sponsor tally by 40 in the past year to 191 and counting (including two Republicans). He gained a dozen new supporters last month.... Mr. Murphy is predicting he’ll have the needed 216-vote majority in time to add repeal onto the huge defense authorization bill when it comes up next month. He is already conferring on strategy with Joseph Lieberman, the Senate’s repeal leader. Over in that chamber, the 60-vote filibuster barrier could be turned back onto opponents as the minimum they would need to strike repeal from the defense bill."

A quick recap for those unfamiliar with the process: each house creates and votes on their own DEFAUTH bill. Then, a committee made up of members of both houses meet to work out differences and create a joint bill each house will then vote on separately. The Matthew Shepard hate crimes amendment which initially existed only in the Senate version ended up in the final version that way, as did the addition of James Byrd, Jr.'s name. In short, failure of one house to include repeal in its version of DEFAUTH doesn't mean it can't end up in the final joint version.

While the standalone bill has repeatedly been introduced in the House for five years, the biggest obstacle has been the obstinate chair of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton who clings like an ancient vulture to the rotting carcass of homophobia that led him to introduce a bill to the House in 1993 that mirrored the bill creating DADT in the Senate.

Movement on repeal either by standalone bill or DEFAUTH will have to be over his objections, but if anyone other than the President [hint hint] has the power to do that, as well as over Hoyer, it should be the Speaker of the House, and not just because she represents the gayest district in the nation.

I'm skeptical that DADT repeal or ENDA passage will move forward without further direct action, but this is proof that it's working.

[No, Andrew Whatever Your Real Name Is, don't even bother.]

You credit the above to "direct action?" Nothing you outlined above is any different than what we've heard for the last 18 months. Where's the proof? Your self-described activists have pissed on the President, the Speaker, Chairman Miller and told John McCain they were angry. None of that silliness was helpful or effective - it was, as Barney Frank said "childish and stupid."

GetEqual hasn't made a difference unless you want to count "embarrassment" as progress.

SkepticalCidada | April 28, 2010 8:38 PM

Poor AndrewW. He so wants to believe that all you have to do is suck hard enough at an HRC champagne-and-tuxedo party and the equality will just spurt out of Congress and the White House like a big ol' ejaculation of justice. He thinks the problem is that we aren't sucking hard enough.

In contrast, it was Dr. King who said, "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

We're not Black. We're not oppressed.

I never suggested HRC was effective, in fact mostly the opposite of that.

We win by changing minds or votes. These stunts do neither.

Wait a sec.

Um, kinda drifty topic-wise, but I'm curious about two things, and rather than leap to conclusions, I'd like clarification, if you don't mind.

Why do you say we are not oppressed?

Why do you say we are not black?

Why do you say there has been no evidence of change as a result of direct action?

Why do you say we are not oppressed?

Many members of our community suggest our struggle is just like the Civil Right struggle of the 1960s. Today, in 2010, not only are the circumstances dramatically different, so are the issues. We are not oppressed, we are repressed.

Why do you say we are not black?

Because we're not.

Why do you say there has been no evidence of change as a result of direct action?

There is no evidence that the GetEqual publicity stunts change any minds or votes. Many have said the same, including Barney Frank. While there are historical references for direct action being useful - there is none when the direct action is simply a publicity stunt. Comparing these childish stunts to Rosa Parks 9as some have done here) is lunacy and it demeans the very real courage she had.

There is nothing courageous about GetEqual's childish stunts. Several people have begun writing editorials asking GetEqual to end the nonsense:



Ok. Thanks, AndrewW, for answering the question.

Wow. *just shakes head*

SarasNavel | April 30, 2010 4:17 AM

"We're not Black. We're not oppressed."

No AndrewW, YOU are not black and YOU are not oppressed.

But that really speaks to the real problem our side is facing doesn't it? The problem of the most privileged in our subcultures not wanting to lose what they have and possibly be associated with those that are oppressed or black...or trans, or any other less privileged subset.

Please AndrewW step aside as the rest of us have work to get done, with or without your blessing from above.

Well time and our efforts as a group will tell.
Two things that we know won't work is saying no to every idea and calling everything a silly stunt. As for Obama, I have little to know hope for change.

It is called being honest and objective Rann. It is required if we want to succeed.

I said there is NO evidence that these stunts are effective or helpful. NOBODY has provided any evidence to the contrary. Keep looking.

SkepticalCidada | April 28, 2010 8:40 PM

Go suck harder if you want, AndrewW. Just get the hell out of everyone else's way.

Brilliant. Why am I not surprised you are a protester?

SkepticalCidada | April 29, 2010 12:40 PM

Oh, are you still here, yapping at the ankles of people trying to actually accomplish something?

Now, now, Skeptical Cicada, that's not very nice. I disagree with Andrew too, but it doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable.

SkepticalCidada | April 29, 2010 12:19 PM

I don't need a hypocritical lecture about civility from someone who relished in calling me a bigot. Get out of your glass house, Jillian.

Go away your ranting against everything and everyone is such a tired old old old cliche

SkepticalCidada | April 29, 2010 8:50 PM

Thanks for the feedback. I'll give it all the consideration it merits.

Before we rejoice on any thing show me the fine print in this version as I understand it they havent even written the bill yet? I still remember what they did the last time on this.

Politics is a contact sport with no rules.

Your bill if you please!


This statement is followed by several Whereas clauses in conjunction with a resolution. and it is signed by a local authority who support us.

Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | April 28, 2010 9:23 PM

Someone's feeding the cockroach again....

Dakotahgeo | April 29, 2010 7:39 AM

Good God, SkepticalCicada, what is your problem? A big reason most people give us short shrift is our "attitude" stand. Take a pill, a cup of coffee, and relaxxxxx.

SkepticalCidada | April 29, 2010 12:21 PM


LOL. Just kidding. Or am I?

Folks, what I want to know is...."How many of you have taken the time to write a proposal for a resolution with all the Whereas Clauses for your City Counsel, your County Commissioners, or your State Representatives addressed to Speaker Pelosi or even the President of the United States"? Using a draft letter provided by Waymon Hudson (Florida)just such a resolution has been drafted and is scheduled for a vote on May 4, 2010 before the Lane County Oregon Commissioners in support of repealing DADT and replacing it with HB 1283. A similar draft letter has been scheduled for debate before the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon in the same vein. I for one am getting sick and tired of the sit-ins, the over-running of a legislative offices, the ranting and raving and getting us absolutely nowhere. As a gay veteran I reflect disappointment on all of you who have not taken the time to be productive in this vein or get off your proverbial asses. Quit the ranting against each other as well. All of you are getting us nowhere and should be ashamed of yourselves writing nonsensical dissertations longer than all the comments combined that do nothing nothing nothing. Please just do something or at least think about enlisting the help of the communities in which you reside. Contact me privately if you want a sample draft of a resolution [email protected]

That's a great idea Daniel. Making the repeal of DADT a local issue invites conversation and probable support. Many local City Councils are much more progressive.

Conversation beats confrontation every time. Our fellow citizens are willing to support us, but we're doing very little in that regard.

We need to people to support us and the best place to start is by asking, not yelling.

SkepticalCidada | April 29, 2010 9:06 PM

If this were still 1995 and the public opposed repeal of DADT, then initiating a multi-year grassroots campaign of changing minds by lobbying local officials for resolutions of support would be a great idea.

But it's 2010, we've already had 15 years of public education, and the public already broadly supports DADT repeal. The problem isn't lack of public understanding or lack of public support. The problem is lack of political will on the part of stonewalling Democrats in Congress and our stonewalling Democratic president.

We have a few more months until the Democrats suffer massive losses in the midterm elections and repeal is impossible for another generation. The obstruction is at the top, and that's where the pressure must be applied.

Sorry Cidada, we haven't spent the last 16 years "changing minds." Those minds have changed with culture in spite of our obsession with politics.

We lose politically because of 45 US Senators. They only way to ever change their votes is to change the minds of their constituents. We haven't done that. In fact, we haven't even tried.

Instead, we have put all our eggs in the Democrat "basket." We'll achieve nothing before the mid-terms and then we're back to 1994. Get ready to start over. This time, I hope we're smarter.

Andrew W., I applaud you for your level headedness in gaining support for our interests with and by local governing bodies. We cannot continue to be thinking that starting at the top is the answer no matter how much we want to believe that the winds of change have taken control. Individual supporters are a mixed bag and to fairly often lip service gets us nowhere. No it isn't 1995 anymore and we I fear have stood to long on one foot spinning in a circle. Don Quixote had better luck fighting windmills than we have with all our demonstrating and pissing people off who may have been willing to listen to a constructive argument. I will not be getting anymore of the comments on this subject you have my email address if you want some ideas and support. Dr. Weiss has done an admirable job in bringing the subject into the light of day. I have offered a sample draft of a resolution that will enlist local governments in support. Using one is a first step. Open mic at the city Counsels and for commissioners but it will take one of them to bring the subject full circle of constructive dialogue. I remain amused but disgusted with the ranting that has occurred on this subject over 24 hrs and we learned nothing it seems from most of the comments.

SkepticalCidada | April 30, 2010 9:57 AM

I completely disagree.

I'm mystified where this rhetoric about "starting at the top" is coming from. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what advocates have been doing for the last 16 years on DADT. Nor, for that matter, does it matter whether the source of changed minds is debating a local resolution or "cultural change," whatever that means.

We have also been advocating for employment non-discrimination since about 1972, and we've done so vigorously at both the state and local levels. We've enacted not just resolutions of support but actual civil rights laws that cover about half the workforce, exist in a large plurality of states, in just about all major cities, and in many mid-size cities. And ENDA polls in the 80-85 percent range.

Yet ENDA has gone nowhere either, and for the very same reason: stonewalling by congressional Democrats and stonewalling by the Democratic president.

Sorry, but I don't buy your theory that if we just keep begging long enough, self-interested politicians will eventually have mercy and pass our bills because it's the right thing to do. The final stretch requires pressure by way of direct action.

I'm inferring from AndrewW's comment, moreover, that he believes we must persuade the Republican Party to our cause. Well, good luck with that. They're busy purging the last remaining moderates as we speak. The idea of bipartisan support for gay rights is nice, and it's something I used to imagine was possible. But the truth is most of our legislative advances have come when Democrats managed to gain unified control of the legislative and executive branches. See the slew of states enacting civil rights and relationship-recognition laws after Dems gained unified control in 2007. I'd love to be able to play the Dems against the Republicans and gin up support, but the religious right has the GOP in a stranglehold and will continue to for the foreseeable future. Even Republican officeholders who are sympathetic to our cause won't cross them.

But at least we seem to agree on one thing. This once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass some of our highest priority legislation is going to be squandered by the Democratic party.

SkepticalCidada | April 30, 2010 10:00 AM

By the way, Daniel, I really could not care less how amused or disgusted you are.

As I mentioned last night and as I try my best to keep a level head on this conversation; at the risk of once again getting sucked into the fray coming out looking like you have been tossed into a lawn mower? I sincerely question why you believe that this is not 1995. Yes this is 15 years down the tube and it is 2010. However do you know for certain with references, of course, that the head nodding of our supporters who are, "not gay" really support us as we seek equal civil rights as 1st class citizens according to the constitution; or if they simply for simplistic sake say one thing and then continue on their paths of life feeling somewhat good about how they say they support us even when they know it is for not. I want to know how many have actually supported us in our efforts. I don't holdout much success for repealing DADT or anything else for that matter after November when the "Tea Party" with all its ranting becomes once again the Party of No and all this good work we say that we have done goes for not. 15 years of what I simply ask? Look at California 15 and 17 or 50 years down the road and see what happened when churches added their 2 cents into the conversation. So far that best that I have heard is, "Don't drop your soap in the shower". I am certain that those people will raise their ugly heads and use the same tactics that worked so well for their cause to keep us 2nd and 3rd class citizens still paying taxes, still voting, and still hoping that what we want will be handed to us on the proverbial silver platter. Finding that it was simply banging our heads against the brick wall because when all is said and done we find it feels better than to stop.

We won't win our full equality until we realize we need people to join us in this effort and support us. We are not doing that now and we haven't been doing that.

Political disappointment is once again on the horizon. Maybe then we'll wise up about how we "fight" and instead think about results - real, verifiable, sustainable results.

At the ultimate, yet expected, risk of upsetting Cidada again with the ranting of and about local support over publicity stunts. We know where for certain that to date we have a lot of lip service from John Q Public. The ranting is immature seeing the previous comments about comments. It just goes with the flow of and in the immaturity that lies there. We need to understand that individual lip service goes for knot with the exception to be filling the in-boxes and tying up phone lines. Sometimes this works and it does generate a tally that I myself have used in the past combined with the necessary support of local governments in writing letters of combined resources that must be our play on the chess board of our movement. The ranting has not worked (two steps forward and three steps back) cannot be the single issue. Local governments as entities can be helpful in providing the help that we need for our issues. This combines the thousands of citizens within a jurisdiction, as a voting block, as we faithfully seek to become first class citizens no matter where our racial heritage lies. This has not been tried as far as I can gather and it is a positive approach which takes a fair amount of effort and energy. So what if it isn't 1995 where I ask has change occurred over these past 15 years? When Waymon Hudson (contributor to Bilerico Florida) expressed his passion for local issues seeing that his husband is in local government I joined in with a request for a sample resolution pushed to this point by one of our County Commissioners who has been mentoring me for 4 months now. Bringing to a full head of steam a resolution to support us on this the first real issue that they can understand of our need. One or two letters as resolutions are better than none and much better than all the ranting, office takeovers, and arrests for publicity sake as our supporters shake their heads. Wondering how was this helpful? 4 May is only 4 plus days away. We will once again present our argument in a positive way to gain real support. I stand ready to provide as would Waymon sample copies of resolutions that can be tailored to a specific group in our governments. These resolutions are not automatic it takes time but time is not a luxury that we can count on as we prepare to change the hearts and minds of national governments before November.

SkepticalCidada | April 30, 2010 3:32 PM

Gee, I go out of my way to explain my position and--surprise!--neither of you has anything of substantive to say in response.

Let me repeat my main point for you: We have been doing exactly what you suggest on employment discrimination since 1972. We have gone from city to city and state to state, built coalitions, educated citizens, and enacted scores of state and local laws. Yet ENDA is faring little better than DADT repeal. Your theory of causation is flawed.

The problem is that politicians are self-interested cowards who must be pressured into doing anything that is novel or involves even the slightest controversy.

Sorry, Daniel, no ranting here or in my previous post on this matter. Continuing to complain about that is your way of avoiding the substance. What's more, I'm not even sure why I'm arguing with you. My original objection was to AndrewW's dictatorial instruction that everyone in the movement is to henceforth do as he says. If you want to generate local support for DADT repeal, I have no objection to that. Every little bit helps.

"My original objection was to AndrewW's dictatorial instruction that everyone in the movement is to henceforth do as he says."


SkepticalCidada | April 30, 2010 10:20 PM

Amazing how you play victim while wallowing on condescending arrogance.

And I quote: "Your self-described activists have pissed on the President, the Speaker, Chairman Miller and told John McCain they were angry. None of that silliness was helpful or effective - it was, as Barney Frank said 'childish and stupid.'"

SkepticalCidada | April 30, 2010 10:24 PM

Oh, and how about that ENDA, AndrewW? I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how 40 years of state and local organizing has been insufficient and how we need another generation of it. I take it from your resort to simple grunting that you have no substantive response.

Scroll up and actually read my comments.

SkepticalCidada | May 1, 2010 12:40 PM

Um, I just quoted your first attack post above.

Then there is the gem in which you manage, in one post, to characterize GetEqual activism as the following: "publicity stunts," "a publicity stunt," "childish stunts," "lunacy," "demean[ing]" to Rosa Park, "childish stunts," and "nonsense."

I responded to your rhetoric in kind. Look who could dish it out but didn't like receiving it one little bit!

As for ENDA, my point remains unanswered, still. Forty years of state and local work, yet obstructionism at the top of the party. You're going to get mighty frustrated continuing to refuse to tolerate any gay criticism of your president and party leaders.

Andrew W, with the nose farts that are coming from Cidada it would be best to just leave them babbling. All they want to do is pick a fight like first graders if they got that far. Next thing you know well it is a spiral down and just simply getting nonsensical and we won't or shouldn't be pulled into this less than a debate by childish immature nut bags. I just signed off as this has gone on far to long it would be best if as I say leave them babbling and just leave them be. Certain persons can't comprehend any sort of argument that does not fit into their tiny little brains. Dr. Jillian is probably right Bigoted is a mighty nice word to describe their attitude. Save your rant Cidada I won't hear you babbling any more and taking up valuable space in my inbox.

SkepticalCidada | May 1, 2010 12:30 PM

Let's see, Daniel, I say I don't have any problem with your idea of generating support at the local level and you respond with ranting personal invective?

I don't think I'm the childish one.

SkepticalCidada | May 1, 2010 12:45 PM

Here, Daniel, you should read the new post on civility: http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/play_nice_the_comments_section_reminder.php

I would be very cuirious to know how the post above where a person call another person on this site names such as nut bags was allowed to end up being posted? This is the tyoe of thing that should never end up approved for posting. Am I missing something? I have had a post rejected where it was deemed to personal but had no name calling so just curious how this happened.