Month: October 2010

I'll be on CNN's new 8pm Parker-Spitzer show tonight, ripping the president and the Republicans a new one on gays in the military.

Irony of ironies: the Log Cabin Republicans have beaten Barack Obama in trying to end the ban on openly gay members of the military. The ruling, of course, is almost certainly going to be appealed by the Justice Department, and, I'd wager, a stay granted. This is a bit of hyperbole from LCR's lawyer, but not far off either:

"Don't ask, don't tell, as of today at least, is done, and the government is going to have to do something now to resurrect it. This is an extremely significant, historic decision. Once and for all, this failed policy is stopped. Fortunately now we hope all Americans who wish to serve their country can."

So once again, we will have the political prospect of the Obama administration simultaneously legally defending the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell in court, while politically saying they oppose both. There is a case for such a position, and Obama's insistence on orderly executive defenses of laws passed by Congress is constitutionally sound. But in the arc of history and morality it is an increasingly perverse and bizarre one. It could also mean disaster for gay servicemembers.

Here's the thing. We have no guarantee that the Senate will pass legislative repeal of DADT in this session; and there's every chance that a radically Christianist GOP will win majorities in one or both Houses and definitely be able to sustain a filibuster against repeal in the next session if necessary. This is not because even most Republican voters back DADT; it is because it is a party hijacked by religious fundamentalists who cannot conceive of openly gay people serving their country. Look at the party of Paladino and DeMint and Palin. You think they will support anything that could remotely be deemed pro-gay?

In the long run, this will hurt the GOP – and watching the Log Cabin Republicans fight this battle is heartening. But in the short run, it could very well mean that this awful policy, opposed by 75 percent of the country, that imposes intolerable burdens on servicemembers risking their lives for us … could be in place for the indefinite future. And Obama will be the commander-in-chief enforcing it.

Yes, the GOP is the main party to blame. But no, this does not excuse the extra-cautious, gays-are-radioactive mindset of the Obama administration. This ruling therefore represents a chance for the president. He has the executive authority simply to issue a stop-loss order to end the firing of gay troops until further notice. If the Senate does not pass legislative repeal this session, he should use it.

These men and women are putting their lives at risk for us. Every day we wait, they are victimized and stigmatized. It is immoral, wrong, and damaging to national security. And if Obama thinks gay voters and our families are going to be happy when he ends his first term with nothing accomplished except the lifting of the HIV ban (backed by Bush) and a hate crimes bill that has so far had zero prosecutions, he is mistaken.

Or perhaps it is better put this way: if this president cannot take a stand on civil rights when it is supported by three quarters of the public, when will he?

Benjamin Dueholm criticizes Savage for tearing into a religious reader:

Needless to say, any church, however "traditional" its theology, that gives aid and comfort to the bullying of gay students (or adults) is sinning gravely. I am not, however, persuaded that there are enough such churches to account for the prevalence of bullying. Unlike Dan Savage, I know some conservative Christians socially, and I can no more imagine them taunting a gay kid than pooping on the courthouse lawn.

Mainstream Christian teenagers (including white evangelicals of only ordinary kookiness), in my limited experience, are indoctrinated as fiercely into niceness as into any ideas about dancing and erections. Savage's calumny is something I could only have learned from the papers and the Armani-clad charlatans who populate them, not from my actual experience with American Christians.

Now that's not to say that there aren't plenty of exceptions. Maybe I'm even wrong, and the people I know are the exceptions and the Joel's Army black-belt level haters are ruling the hallways of America's secondary education institutions. In any event, notice how the whole point of Savage's polemic is to lump a respectful, if wayward correspondent together with the most vitriolic people who share his religious identity and, as if that weren't bad enough, pour all the blame for gay teen suicides on this person's head.

Nyhan goes after the Democrats for baseless attacks against the US Chamber of Commerce. It is very depressing to see them descend to this kind of stuff. What they need are not tactics and resentment, which is what we’re seeing. What we need is a narrative of recovery and reform from Obama. He has the record, and he has made a couple of great speeches. But this distracts.

My view, and I’ll say it again. Campaign on ending the long-term debt. Campaign on being the man who can bring America together to solve its long-term fiscal crisis. Call the GOP out on its fiscal record and its current refusal to specify what they’ll cut. Remind people of the debt commission. Remind people we need to cut spending and raise taxes. Be the adult in the room. With a megaphone.

Dana McCourt criticizes The Social Network:

Scott Lemieux says don’t pin the misogyny of The Social Network on Sorkin, because the film takes a critical stance towards Zuckerberg’s contempt for women.  I haven’t seen the movie yet, but it strikes me as relevant that in real life, Zuckerberg had a long-term girlfriend, worked with women when he created Facebook, etc.  I think even if we take it as given that Sorkin rewrites Zuckerberg to make him a misogynist and added all the details about Asian girls so mad for geeks they give blowjobs in bathroom stalls and Harvard parties where girls lose their tops all the time, and then critiqued it successfully, there’s something… off about erasing the creative role of women in the creation of Facebook completely in order to make that critique.

Steinglass's tip for Paladino:

Successful childraising-based anti-gay politicking generally relies on bogus claims that homosexuals are attempting to force kids to read gay-tolerant books, or the like. It's a "leave my kids alone" strategy. Mr Paladino has the strategy confused: he's gotten the wrong end of the "leave my kids alone" stick. It's none of Carl Paladino's business whether Andrew Cuomo, or any other New York parent, wants to take their kids to a gay-pride parade. Indeed, many of those New York parents are gay, and want their kids to have pride in their own families. It's Mr Paladino who comes off looking like a "very extreme-type person" here, and whatever shot he had at winning the race for governor in New York is now probably over.

Here's hoping.

David Frum compares America’s political conventions to their British equivalent:

When I spoke to British politicos about their conference, they would speak with wistful envy of the grander, gaudier spectacle of the U.S. conventions. And who doesn’t like a tiger-striped cocktail? But there is this to be said for simplicity:

The fantastic expense of the American convention has to be paid by somebody, and that “somebody” usually turns out to be a corporate sponsor with an agenda of his own. The low-cost British equivalent pays its own way, by charging a hefty fee of all attendees, especially media. I paid 600 pounds for my press credentials. It’s a cleaner way of doing business, I grant. And the combination of higher charges for unlavish proceedings is as good a way as any of preparing the media and the delegates for the forthcoming era of British budget austerity.

Perhaps Americans will be ready for an austere convention by 2012.

Balko attacks the 28th president from a libertarian perspective. Plenty to dislike, though quite why we should be debating this with such vehemence now is probably a question best left to Glenn Beck and his imaginary friends.