Did I Ever Tell You About the Tortoise and the Hare?
Andrew posted what I consider to be an uncharacteristically stark comment yesterday about Obama’s intention to go to a Human Rights Campaign fundraiser and his corresponding support for gay equality,
If Obama wants to support gay equality, he knows what to do. If Pelosi and Reid want to support gay equality, they know what to do. If HRC believes in gay equality, they also know what to do.
So spare us the schmoozing and the sweet-talking and do it. Until then, Mr president, why don’t you have a nice steaming cup of shut-the-fuck-up?
Whether you agree with Andrew or not, I think it is fairly evident that the above comment is “uncharacteristically stark” when compared to Andrew’s previous sanguine approach to Obama’s tactics,
In an ideal world, I’d favor a Sarkozy style carbon tax, an end to employer subsidies for health insurance, a swift departure from Afghanistan. I’d also like marriage equality in Alabama, an end to agricultural subsidies and a flat tax.
…
In this, the tone of his discourse is critical. He would lose it all if he followed MoDo’s advice. He needs to stay bipartisan, reasoned, and centrist to succeed. Despite the fulminations of an unhinged GOP, he is doing all of that.
Many of us supported him not to revive a right-left war, but to try to move past that divide. He has kept that promise. We need to reward him with our support.
No doubt, Andrew’s vehemence is born out of a combination of his well-documented disdain for HRC and the personal fashion in which this particular issue affects Andrew’s life. And, you know, I get Andrew’s frustration. From my own perspective, I continue to find the kind of discrimination that gay men and women experience in a variety of of foray as fundamentally mind boggling and incomprehensible.
But in this particular instance, I’m inclined to avoid frothing at the mouth and see this move by Obama for what it is: prioritizing.
In fact, I think this is just the kind of exercise that the Obama administration hasn’t seemed to do enough of over the past nine months, somewhat to it’s detriment perhaps. There is no doubt that Obama came into office with a mandate, not an iron clad mandate, but a mandate all the same. And it is, of course, both Obama’s responsibility and his prerogative to fulfill that mandate over the course of his term with the unspoken assumption that while he might be favoured to receive another four years in office, he has to act as though this is his one shot.
But one increasingly feels like it is the opinion of the administration that it is their job to assess all of the problems facing the country and solve them: NOW! And it remains true that there are many terribly important issues facing the country, but government can only do so much — the country itself, can only do so much. So there is an exercise of prioritizing that needs to take place, the decision to move some issues to the front of the line and others to the back and then go about the work of trying to get through that line via a schedule that seems doable and not too ambitious.
That’s an important exercise because it is an invariable truth that overly ambitious schedules make a sizable preponderance of Americans nervous, including people of Andrew’s political persuasion.
So as much as every single issue in some sense deserves priority, it is important to recognize that they all can’t have priority and figure out which one’s need to be the focus of efforts for the next period of time and how much one administration can believably take on in one term. As distasteful as that calculus might seem (potentially seen as pitting particularized interests against one another) and as much as all of us are going to have times where our issues aren’t going to wind up in the spotlight, I think it is deadly important to the success of any administration — and so remains a necessary evil, if you will.
Part of Obama’s slip in approval is merely the nature of politics and the wearing off a honeymoon period, but the degree to which that slide has become historically precipitous may well have to do with just his do-everything-now approach inside the first six months of his term. People voted for change, but how much and how quickly is still a live question to which Obama et al. have to remain attuned. Part of me wonders how much differently the healthcare debate would be going if Obama had held the reins on it for a little longer and buckled down to keep focused on what seems to remain at the forefront of most Americans’ minds: the economy.
I know that there is a credible argument to be made that healthcare reform is nothing new, which is true. And many would argue that this reform is, in fact, well overdue, which I think it is. But at a time when real economic recovery remains the primary concern for many families — recovery that continues elusively just out of reach — it seems obvious that there will be a cooling to any government action that doesn’t deal directly with those concerns. And as much as I think Obama’s framing of healthcare reform in economic terms is smart framing, I just don’t know that it has a lot of traction or salience right now.
As they say, anything worth doing is worth dong right. Part of that “right” means: at the right time. Of course, the above is just me wondering out loud and now that we’re (you’re) in the thick of the healthcare debate, I think the only responsible thing to do is keep the debate at full-steam ahead — making this modestly good news to my eyes,
Anyhow, the take away here is that of all things that we should be criticizing Obama et al. over, I don’t happen to think a clearly prioritized agenda is one of them.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Erik:Thanks for the plug!...
- Really interesting articl...
- Trumwill, I clearly state...
- I read Mysterium by Rober...
- Somewhere in my library i...
- Regarding: "This is a goo...
- I should add that there a...
- Presumed innocence is for...
- As a diehard Dick fan, I ...
- I'd recommend checking ou...
-
31 comments
“And it remains true that there are many terribly important issues facing the country, but government can only do so much — the country itself, can only do so much.”
Of course, an alternative would be institutional reform so that government is more capable.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Details?
You can’t actually hold the “reigns” on anything. Reins, yes. Also, Sullivan has just posted an extremely intemperate, and, in my view, profoundly misguided, denunciation of Obama’s trip to Denmark.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Good point, thanks for the note.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Do you have a link on that post?
On an idealistic level, I agree 100% with Andrew. One finds oneself inclined to read from MLK Jr’s letter from a Birmingham Jail and focusing on the part where it saysI must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
On a pragmatic level, one cannot help but wonder if the tactics used and speed with which we have progressed with issues regarding LGTBQQIA has not resulted in such things as “State Constitutional Bans on Gay Marriage”.
I think it’s also fair to understand Andrew’s anger as a reaction to the ways in which this prioritizing is actually kind of anti-democratic. A very large majority of Americans oppose DADT, and I’m fairly certain that there is pretty broad support for employment non-discrimination as well. Not to mention that lifting the HIV travel ban is an utter no-brainer. But it remains the semi-official position of Washington that gays are yucky and it’s dangerous to even talk about them.
So Andrew’s anger is also motivated by the fact that, despite very strong public support for some extremely easily-enacted gay rights legislation (ending DADT and the HIV travel ban require basically one-sentence bills that you could vote on in 5 minutes if you really wanted to), HRC and the entire Democratic caucus have basically failed to do anything of value. I can’t say I’m not also pissed off about that.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Good point.
Is it fair, then, to dump that anger specifically on Obama’s lap? I mean, some of it needs to head in his direction, sure. And pressing him on these issues is an important part of getting anything done on them, so push away. But telling him to have “a nice steaming cup of stfu” because he is consumed with the economy, healthcare, and Afghanistan and, therefore, is going to a fundraiser to indicate he is still supportive of the issue but not able to do anything substantial on them at this time?
Unless, of course, one thinks that Obama is all show and no tell on gay equality, which is quite a different argument altogether.
North
October 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Remember Scott, this is far from the first time Obama’s administration has knocked the gays. That minister, what’s his name, at the inaguration was just annoying but their justice department argument was like a knee to the crotch.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
What you mean by “their justice dept argument” isn’t coming directly to mind for me. Could well be I missed it. Could you elaborate?
North
October 6th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Bloody hell, I’m going to have to dig it up. Essentially the administration had to defend current policy re: marriage in court. Now they’re of course obligated to defend the law but some genius let them crank out a screed that pretty much was carbon copy of the republican line including comparing gay marriage to incest, bestiality etc…Suffice to say the gays were less than amused.
Here’s a link I think. http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/20/obama-administration-moves-to-dismiss-lawsuit-by-gay-married-couples-over-federal-benefits/
The issue is several months old now so it’s stone cold cycle wise.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Okay, yeah this is ringing a bell now.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Just following up a bit, easily enacted and easily implemented are two different things. It might be easy to repeal DADT legislatively (even that is arguable), but implementing that repeal effectively doesn’t strike me as so cut and dry. And what is the point of repealing something when you don’t have the focus to implement the decision effectively? Which is not to say it shouldn’t be done, but more to push back on the idea of this all being just so easy.
North
October 6th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
It doesn’t seem hard to me. DADT says you don’t ask if people are gay and if told they’re gay throw them out. Eliminate the throw them out portion and rehire any of the previously thrown out ones if they’ll come and be done with it.
Kyle
October 6th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Yeah…if you could flush out the implementation snags you envision, Scott, that’d be great.
Seeing as this isn’t like desegregating where you have to reconstitute divisions, I’m not seeing how implementation would be any more difficult than simply not discharging people for an offence because it’s no longer an offence.
Could be my lack of imagination, it wouldn’t be the first time.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Good question/challenge North and Kyle, will flesh out my thoughts tomorrow when I’m not en route to bed.
I think that Andrew’s fury may also be rooted in his strong (I personally thought over the top) support for Obama. There’s a feeling of personal betrayal there for Andrew because he really went all out for Obama.
Personally I was a Clinton supporter and importantly so was most of the gay political establishment. For Andrew, who used to think Obama was genuine in his talk about new politics this doesn’t matter. For me who is actually rather gratified to see some real politic from the President this makes the current situation make more sense. Obama agrees with us on our issues, I think, but we supported his rival. We were on the wrong side of the primary coalition. Now we turned out in the general but really it’s not like the Republicans were even an option (If you ever find a log cabin republican ask him to show you the tire tracks up his back, they’re gruesome!) The point is that in the world of real politic, if you support a politician’s opponent you have to accept the risk that he’ll assign your desires a lower priority even if he agrees with your aims. The good soldiers in the coalition get first crack.
Now the above is cynical and political in nature. Personally and on principle of course I despise the second class status that we gays are laboring under. As a person who got married in Canada to my partner of ten years just last month the awareness is particularly keen. I think we’re going to win it in the end; I have some faith still in the people as a whole, particularly the youths. But oh that road seems so long some days.
Obama is not doing business based purely on principle and merit. He’s moving what he thinks he needs to move now and he’s paying what thinks he owes to his most dedicated supporters first and his lukewarm supports are going to have to wait in line. Obama isn’t new. He isn’t revolutionary. He’s just a politician, possible a very capable politician. That’s probably good news for the country and likely great news for the country but it is bad news for the Gays, especially ones like Andrew who went all out for him.
I partially agree about Obama’s problem with prioritizing. I think the perception that the economy isn’t “job one” for the president has kind of seeped into the public perception in damaging ways. Why isn’t the guy speaking about this issue daily, giving updates and coming up with new ideas? Why isn’t there daily, high-profile messaging on the economy from the White House? I don’t think people would be as worried about the economy if it seemed that it was the president’s first priority, and I don’t think that healthcare, Afghanistan or even the Olympics would be problematic either if that were felt. But I am beginning to wonder whether the White House’s aloofness is some sort of deliberate strategy, and if so, it’s a pretty bad one. Barack Obama isn’t running for president, he is president. He doesn’t just need to wait for the other side to self-destruct, he needs to comfort, reassure, and persuade the public to go along with him. The administration hasn’t done much economic heavy lifting since the stimulus–it’s almost as if that were the end of the admin’s efforts on the economy. I know that’s not true, but it feels like it, especially to people who don’t follow this stuff.
Personally, I tend to think that if Obama had done some of what I said, he’d be in the mid- to high-50s right now, approval-wise.
Sullivan seems pretty hot-blooded to me, especially on gay issues. See his attack and apology with regard to Bill Kristol. The linked article, from the Advocate, is not untypical of his approach to gay matters.
http://advocate.com/article.aspx?id=21625
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Indeed, and whacking people a bit about stupid comments like the one that prompted the linked article is sometimes pretty useful (haven’t sufficiently followed up on the Kristol bit to comment). I just think that there is a larger context in this particular instance that requires consideration. But thena gain, Ryan makes a pretty compelling case about the degree of inaction that the gay community has seen for too long on issues that, while seemingly small, are important steps along the way.
I think folks like Andrew need to keep whacking away at Obama, but also bear in mind the sheer breadth of what he has on his plate. I get the sense from the post that prompted my response that that perspective wasn’t in play. But perhaps I’m mistaken.
Bob
October 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Scott, here is a good starting point for the dust-up regarding Kristol.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/dissent-of-the-day-ctd.html
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Merci.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/the-charge-of-narcissism.html
This is the Sullivan howl on Obama going to Denmark. I know that Sullivan is something of a political weathercock, but this is sad stuff indeed. I would expect this sort of silliness at Redstate, but there’s no attempt to recognize the realities on the ground:
.
a) National leaders almost always lobby hard to get their country the Olympics
b) If Obama had not done so, everyone would have claimed that he didn’t care about America
c) It is hardly arrogance to take 48 hours to try and win a major international event for the US
d) So what if the event would have been in Chicago? It’s a coincidence, no more than that. And why should Obama ignore Chicago just because it is, in some sense, his home town? Can you really expect a president to refuse to lobby for the Olympics (as everyone else does) on the grounds that he actually lived in the city in question? That would be arrogance – putting yourself above your country.
e) Is Sullivan really happy to recycle the sort of tired nonsense that Malkin has been peddling about this? Surely he has slightly higher standards than that!
Katherine
October 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Yes, that seemed odd to me… but Sullivan is capricious and he’s pissed at Obama now because of the lack of any investigation into torture, the attempts to suppress any information related to torture and detention, and the lack of action on DADT, so he’s probably just being generally crabby.
Every country that was competing for the Olympics sent their head of government, so I don’t get why sending Obama is a big deal.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Thanks, for some reason I couldn’t find it.
I think Ryan and North really hit it on the head that these are relatively simple things that can be done that simply aren’t because “important things” are on the President’s plate.
Maybe he’s just slow, his children – whom I’m pretty sure he loves more than teh gays – have to wait 3-ish months to get a puppy they were promised, I guess we shouldn’t be expecting a lightning quick response from the Administration.
Seriously, though, I think there’s a tension between what the President could do and what he chooses to do that isn’t easily reconcilable. On one hand, ok, it’s not as much of a priority as Healthcare. Understandable.
On the other, closing Gitmo is more of a priority than repealing DADT, which is as much about civil rights as the integrity of the armed forces. The Lily Ledbetter Pay Act was passed right around the stimulus and while overdue as a numbers game doesn’t actually affect that many people. Clearly the Administration is willing to push relatively small legislation through on issues where there’s sizeable Republican pushback.
I think when a WaPo poll has majority support amongst Republicans for a repeal of DADT, it’s pretty hard to see how the President would’ve expended any political capital to slug it out with the Jim DeMints of the world. I think the risk, now, is that depending on how the economy goes and where health care reform sends his numbers his political vulnerability in 2010 will make touching gay rights even more of potential bomb than it is now.
It’s really just odd…because as much as Clinton might legitimately have said, “now isn’t a good time.” With President Obama the excuse doesn’t have nearly the same weight, nor, for that matter, does the President seem to be making risk averse choices on what priorities to push.
So his willingness to say chill out, I’m handling other things seems callous, after all he can walk and chew gum at the same time, and his statements of support seem insufficiently comforting when he has actively pressured members of his Caucus not to bring up DADT repeal.
In a lot of areas you see his pragmatism, his progressive policy preferences, and a solid moral barometer. When it comes to gay rights…not so much.
Scott H. Payne
October 6th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Could you link that WaPo poll? Sounds compelling and I’m curious to see it. Also could you expand on the Pay Act? I should know what yr talking about, but admittedly don’t.
And it is perhaps worth throwing out the real possibility that Obama’s lack luster performance on gay rights to date is due to a political but not heartfelt support for the issues at stake. As I recall, his support for marriage equality was pretty tepid in The Audacity of Hope.
On the other hand, it has only been nine months and the man has tackled more than many presidents do in their entire tenure. Which is equal parts impressive and all part of the problem I identify. No consolation to his gay supporters, perhaps, but not necessarily cause to write him off just yet.
DADT Links:
WaPo/ABCNews Poll – on general attitudes from 2008
Full WaPo Poll
more recent Gallup Poll
Zogby Poll – on military attitudes from 2006
Alcee Hastings – Miami Herald – White House pressure to back off DADT
Yglesias – Daily Beast – Matt Yglesias is disappointed… :(
On Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:
White House Description
The blog post is from January 25th, the law was signed by the President four days later. LLFPA changes the law to counter the ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and allow damages to be sought up to 180 days after receiving a discriminatory pay check rather than 180 days from the original decision to discriminate in pay.
The Stimulus was introduced on January 26th, signed on February 17th. Took the Congress three weeks to spend almost $800 billion, about the same amount of time as LLFPA took, having been introduced on January 8th.
Where my personal frustration kicks in is that ARRA, the stimulus, took three weeks to pass and less than a quarter of the funds were to be spent in FY2009, much more in FY2010. Congress passed the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act in just under three months, CBO says it reforms will be in place by the end of 2010. ARRA squeaked by a partisan vote and had bipartisan opposition the weapon systems bill was unanimous in both houses.
Repealing DADT should be square in the middle of those. Support isn’t unanimous but more people support repealing the law than supported the stimulus. Yet programs that won’t even be mostly complete for months, if not more than a year, are worth the political effort and the time. If DADT were repealed tomorrow, tomorrow we’d stop discharging Arabic translators that we desperately need. Field medics that save lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As for the tackling many issues, he might disagree with you there.
Kyle
October 6th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Hmm…coulda sworn I hit that to reply to your comment directly, Scott. Guess not but there ya go.
“I think that Andrew’s fury may also be rooted in his strong (I personally thought over the top) support for Obama. There’s a feeling of personal betrayal there for Andrew because he really went all out for Obama. ”
Well yes, and it’s untempered by any sense of the poltical and cultural realities of this country.
Sullivan is a foreigner and it really shows at times like these. He has spent his entire time in the states in Washington and New York, and for him, coming from a country that absolutely revolves in every matter imaginable around its capitol, that probably seess to him like it would give him some insight into how things move in this country. It just doesn’t, and he doesn’t get that.
What he seems unable to understand is the deep tribalism and sectarianism of this country. It seems not to have occurred to him at all that if Obama were to advocate against it DADT and for marriage eqiulaity would backfire for anohter 50 years. If Obama advocates for any cause that labeled liberal, it can only backfire. If Obama is seroious about advancing any of these cause, he will stay well clear of them. In particular with regard to DADT, Obama is dealing with a military community that initially only accepted him as a matter of grim-faced professionalism. He is winning them over on substance, but they are not inclined to trust (as opposed to obey) the judgement of any civilian leader at this point, for very good reasons, And here we are talking about a Democrat. ‘Nuff said.
Sullivan may well have considered this, but he doesn’t know this in his bones, it isn’t reflexive for him, and he weights it far too lightly.
I am saying this as a gay man with in a 10-year partnership with nearly 30 years of active and reserve service. I have just as much at stake as he does, and have for a lot longer. Andrew just needs to clue up and shut up on this particular point.
I respect Andrew, I do, but whenever there’s a shortcoming in American politics, he implicates the party he’s not a part of. As someone who supported Bush and the GOP (as well as the Great White She Elephant) he’s refused to talk about the way in which the GOP has polarized and poisoned the debate, or think that it has any bearing on the issue; DADT and DOMA have to be passed through the Congress, where there are no Republican votes, and no Blue Dog/Evan Bayh votes for ‘em. We could go through the courts, but even the transparent abuses of a minority the way that DOMAs and adoption bans are, are not going to find safety in the judicial review of Antonin Scalia or the Commerce Clause. So Andrew should stop yelling at those of us who’ve tried to move things forward and perhaps address his American conservative fellow travelers in an effective manner.
Beyond framing the debate, the long GOP hegemony as painting any gay rights as ’special rights’ as gays and lesbians as ‘disordered’ and in supporting small assaults on their citizenship at the state level (State DOMAs, adoption bans) and using gay-bashing as a by-proxy for the loss of black race-baiting, and as starchy a litmus test as Roe v. Wade for anyone who wants to get on the national stage. It’s a stark contrast to national Democrats, where the non-incumbent Senate Candidates in IL, OH, NY have declared support for marriage equality and DADT repeal. Obama is going to be the last Democratic Presidential Candidate to soft-pedal gay rights. Jon Huntsman is probably the first GOP candidate, if he could convince the ‘Christians’ that Mormons aren’t a cult.
And Andrew has a tendency to fall in love with various personalities and political entities, dub them political, and get easily disappointed like a girl in a school yard crush. John Scalzi, on election night, pointed out that Obama will disappoint people; he won’t ‘fart cinnamon-scented rainbows’ and I think that Andrew wanted that–most people wanted that after the hell of the Bush years–but moving the ball any which way on gay rights is tricky; since the opposition party is cobbled together on imaginary racial grievance and xenophobia, it’s a serious enough dislocation for the country to have a Black President that there’s been a wave of high profile right wing domestic terrorism, and a low profile, but persistent percussion of hate crimes against the nearest vulnerable group–usually gays–in part because the GOP has fed the belief that gays are those people with anti-adoption and anti-civil rights referenda.
All that said, I’ve had some sharp disappointments: I wanted an openly gay cabinet member(I would’ve really liked Richard White as Secretary of the Navy); I wanted Obama to write a stop-loss executive order in the face of two wars, and then use that to demonstrate that gays in the military don’t disrupt unit cohesion. I wanted the preliminaries of whip operations on a DOMA repeal.
I think there are three reasons this has been slow.
First, the economic collapse; any movement on minority rights (as opposed to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Play Act) as drastic as above would be seen as ’special pleading’ at a time of national crisis when there’s real ground work to be played when one party is going to shout “fraud!” and “Homosexual agenda!” and “Faggots are deranged!” or “The Matthew Shepherd beating was a hoax” or “This is a hate crime against Christianity” (this for ENDA; anything else will be sheer Beckite fulmination).
Second, the Senate GOP has held up Executive branch appointees beyond ‘advise and consent’ in some weird temper tantrum, so the whole government is at 2/5 appointees (this does not distribute evenly, btw; though in this discussion, the OLC and the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division are favorites to come in for abuse, after those pointed-headed freaks at State).
Third, like the health care debate, there’s a degree of ‘overlearning’ from the Clinton era, and caution, especially on culture war issues, which is understandable-by his very existence, the president incites 25% to paranoid delusions–and a misreading of what was wrong with Clinton’s attempt at military integration; it was jumping the gun, but as with a lot of the Clinton White House, there was ardor and good intentions laden with sloppiness. But, like the health care debate, there’s a reason to to wait and instead get health care done right; it’s the Holy Grail of Democratic politics, and get the Lance of Longenious and the Grail together, well…it’s an everybody thing, and the other thing is an important goal, but not an everybody thing.
Health Care and DADT/DOMA are tough votes. In either case, you have to start off by writing off the GOP (they’re crazy in their House, while they’re craven in the Senate) and anticipate and defend against their talking points about how this will teach every kindergarten boy to blast Liza Minelli and borrow mommy’s high heels and give each girl a flannel shirt and an Indigo Girls CD, or how it’ll be a dreadful fascist assault on ‘Christians.’ Then you have to write off the Democrats from the South, the Blue Dogs, and Evan Bayh’s Lobbyist SuperFriend Coalition. And because of Republican BS and Reid’s lack of spine, you need 60 votes. So, you’ve got to set up a hell of a Whip Operation, and move the various bills through their corresponding committees, then through cloture and a vote.
Then again, like the health care debate, there Democrats who are moving ahead without the White House; Congressmen Jerry Nadler/George Miller on DOMA and Congressman Patrick Murphy on DADT (who has few gay constituents, but has great integrity). In the Senate, we had no greater friend than Ted Kennedy, but Gillibrand is working on a DOMA repeal. Taken with the recent JFR article rebuking DADT as worthless, there’s the argument that once/whenever health care ends, there’s going to be a shift by toward other issues, and though it’ll be after the 2010 election, there’s clearly momentum for this to work out, and for the White House intervene once we get nearer critical mass. I’m not excited about it, but when the Pride Parade in Peoria is popular, it’s all over but the shouting–though the other party is good at having a grand temper tantrum and having it play out over CNN as if it were a grown up argument, rather than schoolyard jeering.