Month: February 2010

A reader writes:

Like you, I am impatient about the ban on gays, and wish the President would just change the law with a stroke of a pen. But, on reflection (months of reflection and quite a bit of disappointment), I am beginning to come around to this approach.  His approach, no matter how frustrating, is essentially good governance.  It forces Congress to act, which is appropriate, since they passed “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the first place.  It gives the military months of time to change policy, to educate and to operate, which is important when dealing with one of the largest bureaucracies in the world.  Beyond that, it makes the process distinctly apolitical, which, when I think about it, is the only way to make it stick.

I worked in Washington during the Clinton administration, and I remember the ferocity of the storm kicked up by the original attempt to change this policy. While I believe that may have lead to being un-necessarily gun-shy this time around, the more I think about it, the more I believe that Obama knows exactly what he’s doing.  In fact, I believe that he has known this from the start – that in order to end the ban forever, he must make the change unassailable, relentless and gradual.  He has used this past year to wage two wars, to gain the trust and respect of the military, and to get a little Commander-in-Chief Mojo.  Now, instead of changing the policy with a pen, which would certainly rankle some officers, he’s issuing orders, but giving time, and allowing the military to do its thing – which is to study, to figure out implementation, and to get the mission plan in place. 

Like I said – it’s called governance.  After eight years without it, I realize I’ve forgotten what it looks like and, no matter how frustrating, it feels like the right course of action.  And, I’m a big gay democrat, who has wanted the ban ended for over twenty years. 

Increasingly, I’m seeing this with just about everything the administration does and no matter the bumps in the road (and the periodic moments of cable-news-induced panic), I think I’m beginning to get it.  Obama is governing.  It’s hard work.  It’s incremental.  And, it’s working.

I get it too. And it took a while for me as well.

Take the HIV ban. After the Bush administration bungled the implementation and ran out of time, the Obama administration seemed to dither. They stonewalled my inquiries and took their sweet time. I realized after a while – and they were kind enough to explain to me at length off the record – that they were absolutely intent on getting every single detail right. They wanted to avoid any legal challenge to the ban's removal because of some procedural lapse or rushed move. Real lives hung in the balance, but they got it done in the end. It took a year – but it was no-drama and has taken hold. I sure hope that's an omen for the military issue.

Bainbridge has a novel thought:

The Navy already operates dozens of small nuclear reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines, with an outstanding record of safety and reliability. They have an established training program that churns out nuclear-capable officers.

By analogy to the Army Corps of Engineering, we could

create a Navy Corps of Nuclear Engineering. It would build and operate dozens of small nuclear power plants around the country.

To address security concerns, the first plants would be built on military bases, where the garrison can provide security. Licensing costs would be cut because the government would own and operate the plants.

The proposal should not offend small government sensibilities. Nuclear power is rife with market failures (and government failures). Huge research and development costs associated with traditional large scale nuclear power plants may be beyond the ability of private firms to finance. In addition, we know that private firms tend to underproduce the sort of basic R&D necessary to develop new generations of power plants. But the Navy already spends money to develop new naval reactors, which presumably could be scaled up at reasonable costs. Since the Navy need not worry about earning market competitive rates of return on its investment in R&D, moreover, there's no economic disincentive to conducting that sort of R&D in the Navy.

Today on the Dish we primarily focused on the DADT hearings. Reax here. Andrew's take here. Notable quotes here and here. The GOP's exhausted arguments were pointed out by Paul Waldman, Gautham Nagesh, and Steve Benen. Bill Kristol and John McCain stood out in their cynicism. Dan Savage took stock of the overall situation.

In budgetary talk, Ezra gave props to Paul Ryan for proposing conservative solutions while Yglesias critiqued his proposal. NRO simply swiped at budget reform, Keith Hennessey defended the Bush record, and Grep Ip wrung his hands. Charts here and here. Across the pond, Alex Massie and a parody site illustrated the two faces of David Cameron.

On HCR, Greg Sargent, Jon Chait, Sam Stein, and Mark Blumenthal kept up the chorus. Continetti struck a discordant note and Cohn cautioned. In other coverage, a reader pushed back against Andrew's disgust with Eric Holder, Saletan and Cottle didn't like the Tebow ad, and Andrew highlighted some hope from Iran (dissent here). We also checked in with the Prop 8 trial and checked out a fantastic MHB from MJ.

— C.B.

(Photo: Defense Secretary Robert Gates (L) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen (R) participate in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on February 2, 2010 in Washington, DC. The committee is hearing testimony on the proposed Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2011, and reviewing the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. By Mark Wilson/Getty)

Yep: Obama’s budget actually reduces the long-term deficit over the projection before it. And Chait is as pissed off as I was by NRO’s slimy and misleading editorial.

Ambers notes what the bitter old cynic said in 2006:

The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.

Senator McCain, they just did.

Paul Waldman thinks that the marriage debate has forced Republicans into a corner:

In their effort to appear reasonable and tolerant [when opposing marriage equality], mainstream conservatives have agreed that it is not acceptable to hate or fear anyone because of their sexual orientation. Once you've agreed that anti-gay feeling is illegitimate, you can't turn around and argue that gays should be kept out of the military for no reason other than anti-gay feeling. And anti-gay feeling has always been the heart of the argument supporting DADT. No one has been able to claim that gay service members don't do their jobs well. What they've always said is that allowing gays to serve openly will make straight service members uncomfortable. The threat to "unit cohesion" comes not from the gay soldier but from the straight soldier who doesn't like having to serve alongside the gay soldier. Conservatives defending DADT have no choice but to defend bigotry — something they've now conceded is indefensible.

I noticed this particularly in Saxby Chambliss's remarks. He started out by saying that many homosexuals have served "valiantly." That struck me as a generous statement coming from him. And then he still insisted that they remain under threat of persecution because of the fears and attitudes of others. It doesn't compute. What I hope is that the maturity and reason of today's presentations from Gates and Mullen will help strengthen Chambliss's graciousness rather than his fears.

A reader writes:

I agree with you that the Green Revolution in Iran was an extremely important event in 2009. But what is up with that video? I think it really cheapens the entire thing. It uses audio clips from Hollywood movies and puts them into the mouths of real people, living through real events, that, trust me, are no Hollywood movie (did I hear Jean-Luc Picard in there?). I mean. . . really? No one needs to Hollywood this up. This is serious, serious stuff. There is plenty of raw, completely gripping footage coming out of Iran that speaks for itself. No one needs to try and jerk people's emotions around with a lame Hollywood soundtrack.

Point taken. I really wavered over posting that clip for exactly those reasons and then thought screw it. It is cheesy at times, almost like a movie trailer. But it came from the same sources who have funneled us so many other videos and captured something of the build-up to February 11. For dozens of less cheesy, unedited clips, click here.

Steve Benen makes an interesting point:

Obama has spent a year following the guidance of military leaders, and Republicans have spent a year breaking with the judgment of the military establishment.

It's a fascinating dynamic. On everything from civilian trials to Gitmo to torture, we have two distinct groups — GOP leaders, the Cheneys, Limbaugh, and conservative activists on one side; President Obama, Gen. Petraeus, Secretary Gates, Colin Powell, Adm. Mullen, Adm. Blair, and Gen. Jones on the other…McConnell and his Republicans cohorts are reluctant to admit it, and political insiders have been slow to acknowledge it, but what we're witnessing is exceedingly rare — the Republican establishment openly rejecting the judgment of the military establishment.

Adam Blickstein agrees and comments on today's DADT hearing. I am sure some in the GOP genuinely believe that Gitmo helps us in the war on terror. Petraeus doesn't. No one else in the world does. But I fear that the Cheneyites are either cynically and recklessly playing the politics of fear or desperately trying to rescue their reputations from the judgment of history. That's too late, guys. Your crimes and errors are indelibly written into this country's history.

Frum criticizes the administration's energy policy:

Here’s the crazy thing about energy policy: If you want off oil, the only way to preserve free markets is by raising energy taxes. If you seek to quit oil without raising taxes, you plunge into a welter of subsidies and special favors. And that, sorry to say, is the course the Obama administration has chosen.

I'm with David on this one. But getting a carbon tax through Congress isn't just a matter of Presidential priorities. David knows as well as I do that the real obstacle to this is not Obama but the GOP and the usual weak-kneed Dems. The GOP would demagogue a carbon tax to death and the Dems would curl into a ball and die. Dave Roberts goes through the administration's energy and environmental policy in more detail.