Jarrod Chlapowski

Can We Collectively Refuse to Grandstand? There's Repealing to Get Done

Filed By Jarrod Chlapowski | November 15, 2010 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics, The Movement
Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Gay Inc, gays in the military, Harry Reid, Servicemembers United

Jesus.

So Friday afternoon HRC put out a press release headless chicken.jpgdemanding the Pentagon release its study. NOW. In all caps, in case you didn't pick up on HRC's anger. This is the same day Tony Perkins freaked out over leaks coming from the Pentagon on its review. The Pentagon committed to investigating the leaks, but held its ground on releasing the study 'when its ready.' Guess what folks? The study is ready. But because the Pentagon was put on the spot by HRC, any hope of releasing the study early has been dashed because to do otherwise would be the military caving in to lefty gay radicals. Duh.

Outserve and Knights Out intend on endorsing stripping DADT from NDAA. No, seriously. Neither org has any Hill presence, is part of any DC coalition meetings, and therefore has any way of having better knowledge on if we have the votes to pass DADT repeal as a stand alone bill in the lame duck. All signs point to We Don't.

Oh, I'm not done. More, after the jump.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, the problem here isn't that either group is that ill-informed on how to get this done this year. It's that it really is a gamble to get anything done this year, to the point where creative options are being thrown out there in desperation in hope that something will stick. And if it does stick, the group shouting that strategy the loudest gets to put its name on it and survive post repeal as an org.

It's Monday. The lame-duck just started. This is not the time to throw away strategy in acts of desperation, to act like a lame-duck vote on repeal as attached to NDAA is already a surefire failure. We need to stick to the plan laid out.

There is cohesive messaging to be found. SLDN, HRC, SU, and others all agree on the list of the swing Senators for repeal, and all but HRC are targeting Reid to schedule the bill. That hasn't changed.

We haven't failed. The week just started. Please, please, DADT Repeal Movement: get yourself together and see this through this year.


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.


Thanks for the update, J. The competing interests among our "friends" just amazes me.

This lefty gay radical (LGR...hmmm...another group of initials by which I can identify...just what I need)called ym senators: Bayh and Lugar.

Bayh's office reminded me he'd voted for the repeal twice. I wasn't aware the Senate had voted on this twice, but...

His staff person was pretty uninterested, nonchalant, whatever description you want to use.

But Lugar's office, now here was an interesting call:

His aide, who, let's just say, sounded every bit like an LGR or LGF-friendly person, if we can ever judge by voices, shallow though it is, well...this aide was very interested in my name, address and view. He said he'd be "pleased to pass this along to the Senator, and you're one of many similar calls today."

I share because I care.

Godspeed.

We measure victories by small steps first. This certainly seems like a very small step.

By the way, bad karma to the Marine general. May be choke on his Thanksgiving turkey. Only enough to scare him.

I had the same reaction when I called Lugar's office too, Rick. It's obvious that Lugar is willing to vote to repeal DADT, but is sticking to the party line in support of the filibuster.

I think the phrase 'sticking to the party line in support of the filibuster' is a misrepresentation, as it implies a certain immovability and loyalty to whatever McCain might spew. That's not the case. Having issue with the procedure used in September has been reflected by the swing Repubs, but that's not party line because of any irrational clinging to party loyalty, it's party line because the R's truly were alienated by the procedure. The way around this hurdle is not to classify the R's as irrational, but to encourage the D's to push forward in a way that appeases those R's.

162 times the Republicans have used filibuster in the 111th Congress. It has worked 160 times. Why do you think on a "moral" issue it might work this time?

We need 4-5 Republicans to break ranks. Who are these "swingers" that you believe may be willing to break rank now?

Let's not get snippy because other groups don't want to follow your lead. In my opinion, you and many of the rest of us want to see what the lame duck session can or won't do. Even though HRC, Outserve and Knights Out are either getting pissy or selling out, you need to focus on the prize. Pointing out their faults (yes, they're faults,) is wasting valuable effort and time, since we only have two weeks.

I believe that the real "Evil One" are not those organizations, but senile John McCain. He's whining again that nothing is going his way and he will be a real ass when the bill hits the Senate floor. He is on the wrong side of history (again) and can't stand being wrong. I'm popping some corn to watch this one play out.

We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. In other words, we can criticize strategies and actions that harm our collective efforts while still proceeding with productive work. It's not either or. They're not mutually exclusive.

Today, Senator Lieberman also called for the immediate release by the Pentagon of the gays in the military study. Once so much of the study had been leaked, I do not think that it was grandstanding by HRC, since in the very brief lame-duck session, every single day counts.

We only have 56 LGBT-supportive votes in the US Senate and the more these self-important activists irritate everyone, we'll have even fewer. I don't think Reid wants anything to do with the LGBT Community after GetEQUAL's childish antics.

Focus on 60 votes in 2012. Senators are not going to change their mind/vote because of emails, calls or childish protests. They never have, they never will. All of these calls to action are from organizations that make a living pretending those tactics are effective - they never provide any evidence.

Well, Andrew, 2012 is probably going to be our only option. Now that the asshat from Arizona has promised a filibuster, and we won't have 60 votes to bust Mr. Cindy McCain. (Sigh)

But I'm having a hard time understanding how 2012 will be any easier: the (new) House would have to pass a bill. Boehner, Cantor, Pence, et al will rulle there. And their stock-in-trade is this:

They'll package DADT in a message, that says to their right-world, "if you vote for this, you're voting for the terroritsts."

Cause that's how they roll.

Ergo: we wait. Again.

I'm putting my hope in the next few days, against my better judgment. Miracles can happen. But 2012?

Please. When pigs fly.

Like you said, we need 60 votes.

During the last 16 years (after Clinton's mid-terms) we ignored the reality of the US Senate and we're still ignoring it. I imagine that will continue another 16 years - unless we wake up. But, it doesn't help to ask people to waste their time, money and energy applying faux pressure. Our collection of wonderful non-profits just want us to believe they are effective. They are not.

33 Senators are up for election in 2012. We need to gain 5-6 votes. That reality will continue to be ignored because all you need to do 'is call, email or protest and a senator will change their mind. That's never happened for us, but hey - it sounds reasonable.

During the last few years did any organization ask you to focus on certain Senate races? This past election we got many request to support Gillibrand, but her seat was guaranteed. She didn't need any help. We could have effected several Senate races, but none of our organizations focused on that.

Kristen was safe? I'm sure she'd be surprised to hear that. In a tidal wave, a two-year-appointed Senator is about as safe as a house made of Kleenex.

We're Senate-screwed in 2012--we have to hold onto 10-12 wobbly-D seats, and pick up a half-dozen. Things can change, but it doesn't look good. I'm hopeful the president can hold on, and I think he can scare his base enough to jazz-up the young folks and pull one out. But the Senate? Wow.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The phrase gives me the heebie-jeebies, but not as much as Judiciary Chairman Jeff Sessions.

Pack the courts now, Mr. President. And Madame Justice Ginsburg, we love 'ya more than our luggage, but given your frailness, perhaps it's time for mint juleps on the porch? While sane adults control the Judiciary Committee?

Just a thought.


Kristen won by a 61-36% margin. It was never a contest.

2012 doesn't have to be fatal, but I imagine Gay Inc. will once again ignore the reality of the 60 votes threshold in the Senate. We'll hear more appeals to call, email and protest - and again it will not work.