More Thoughts on Issues of the Day

More random thoughts on issues of the day:

• President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today.  While I am a supporter of his, what has he done to win this already?  Keep in mind that the nomination deadline was 12 days after Obama took office (the deadline is February 1).  I think there is a good possibility that Obama could earn this prize later in his term as president, but he doesn’t seem to have done much yet other than lay out some goals and set a tone.
• State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano was out of line yesterday.  He yelled “You lie!” and “Kiss my gay ass!” to Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday during a speech the governor was making to a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco.  Apparently the governor was not expected.  It was, after all, a Democratic fundraiser and Schwarzenegger is a Republican.  But Ammiano was out of line.  This kind of attack should have no place in American politics.  It doesn’t matter if emotions are running high.  That kind of thing is just not needed.  The only (slightly) redeeming factor is that Ammiano’s outburst did not come during a joint session of Congress.
• Apparently the National Republican Congressional Committee thinks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to be “put in her place” and said as much yesterday.  Do they not see how offensive that is?  Do they not see how sexist that is?  I’m not exactly a huge Nancy Pelosi supporter, but this just isn’t right.
• Charlie Rangel needs to resign.  Now.  Every day he doesn’t (and every day the House Democratic leadership continues to protect him), the chances grow that he’ll cost the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections.  “The Republicans did it, too!” (with Tom DeLay) is not a good defense.  Sure, the Republicans are hypocritical in their posturing.  So what?  It only matters what Rangel did and the appearance of Democrats improperly protecting their own.
• Julian Bond is right on in his op-ed in today’s Washington Post.  LGBT people still do not have equal rights in America.  As he points out, our “…struggle is no less necessary, nor worthy, than a similar struggle fought by blacks several decades ago. Now, as then, Americans are denied rights simply because of who they are.”  It’s past time we had equal rights.  It’s also past time for Obama (and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to actually do something to help get those rights passed in Congress

Obama’s Speech and Joe Wilson’s Disrespect

Finally, I think I’m starting to understand the president’s plan for health care.  President Obama’s speech last night went a long way to reassure me about his plans.  It sounds like I can get behind his plan.  The fight isn’t over, though; Obama still has to get this plan through Congress.

President Obama mustered all the force of his famous eloquence – including a stirring tug at the bonds of friendship between Republican senators and their late Democratic colleague Edward Kennedy – to push the reset button on health care Wednesday night.

Casting himself in the political center and shedding his earlier technocratic style for a powerful appeal to “the American character,” Obama outlined in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress how everyone, insured and uninsured alike, small businesses and large, could gain from his proposals.

He sought to bridge the deep rift among Democrats over a public insurance option that threatens to send him and his party to a devastating defeat.

“We did not come to fear the future,” Obama said. “We came here to shape it.”

Seizing authorship for the first time of what the White House now calls “the Obama plan,” Obama made flexibility, not ultimatums, the order of the day and “stability and security” for all the mantra.

It’s still hugely expensive at $900 billion over 10 years, but it is necessary to have health care reform.  Costs are rising too fast and too many people are uninsured to sit around doing nothing.  I think everyone can agree on that, even if they can’t agree right now on how to get there.  But that will come, especially if the debate is vigorous and respectful.

That brings me to Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) and his “you lie!” shout while the president was speaking.  Wilson disrespected himself, his office, Congress as a whole, President Obama, and the office of the president of the United States.  I feel disrespected as a result.  There is no place for heckling the president during an address to a joint session of Congress.  What was Wilson thinking?

From Dana Milbank’s Washington Sketch column:

As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the nation’s rapidly deteriorating discourse hit yet another low.

It happened at 8:40 pm, just after the president vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants. As millions of Americans watched from home, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted at the president from his fifth-row seat: “You lie!”

Murmurs of “ooh” filled the stunned chamber. Nancy Pelosi’s chin dropped. Obama moved on to the next sentence in his speech, about how no federal money would be used to fund abortion. “Not true!” came another shout.

The national debate, already raw for years, had coarsened over the summer as town hall meetings across the country dissolved into protests about “death panels” and granny-killing. Guns were brought to Obama appearances. A pastor in Arizona said he was praying for Obama to die.

But even by that standard, there was something appalling about the display on the House floor for what was supposed to be a sacred ritual of American democracy: the nation watching while Cabinet members, lawmakers from both chambers and the diplomatic corps assembled.

Wilson was only the most flagrant. There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would “leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.” They hissed when he protested their “scare tactics.” They grumbled as they do in Britain’s House of Commons when Obama spoke of the “blizzard of charges and countercharges.”

When he asserted that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” there was scoffing and outright laughter on the GOP side. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) shook his head in disbelief. Several Republicans shouted “What plan?” and Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.) waved at Obama a handwritten poster he made on a letter-size piece of paper: “WHAT PLAN?” Gohmert then took that down and replaced it with another handmade poster that said “WHAT BILL?”

The irony was that Obama had used his speech to offer a significant concession to Republicans and to break with liberals in his own party. There was a cool silence in the chamber as the president told “my progressive friends” that the “public option” they treasure as part of health-care reform could be sacrificed in favor of other ideas.

[snip]

When Obama addressed the charge that he plans “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” someone on the GOP side shouted out “shame!” The president went on: “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical.” “Read the bill!” someone shouted back. Obama mentioned those who accuse him of a government takeover of health care. “It’s true,” someone shouted back.

The antics continued when Obama urged opponents to “come to me with a serious set of proposals.” About 20 Republican members raised copies of the GOP health-reform proposal over their heads. They raised their props again when Obama criticized those who think “it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it.”

Even as Obama delivered a tribute to the late senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga), a leader of House conservatives, perused his BlackBerry. Shortly before the speech ended, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) walked out to beat the rush.

Above all, though, was Wilson’s effrontery. From the reaction in the chamber — one Democrat could be heard calling for him to be thrown out — Wilson knew he had stepped in it. He shrugged, then consulted his BlackBerry. He puffed out his cheeks to exhale and licked his lips.

Toward the end of Obama’s speech, the text of which was handed out before the congressman’s outburst, was a fitting rebuke of the sort of behavior Wilson had just exhibited. When “we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter,” Obama said, “we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.”

As Obama spoke these words, Wilson twiddled his thumbs, then took his BlackBerry from its holster to consult it yet again. The speech ended, and, as his colleagues applauded, Wilson beat a hasty retreat.

An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. “No president has ever had that happen,” Emanuel said. “My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number.”

Wilson did as Emanuel advised. After all that shouting, it’s a wonder he wasn’t too hoarse to place the call.

It doesn’t much matter to me that Wilson apologized.  His behavior was loutish and had no place being directed to a president addressing a joint session of Congress.  But then, he was in good company from the rest of the Republicans.  The one bright side, as Joel Achenbach points out:

Politics is a game of momentum; the Republicans very likely surrendered it by trying to emulate the angriest of their constituents.

It’s fine to be angry, and it’s fine to disagree.  But that doesn’t give anyone the excuse to heckle the president.  I’ve called over and over for real ideas from the Republicans.  Instead of that, we get more and more anger and vitriol.  And the country suffers for that.  I said it yesterday: It’s time to take a deep breath, remember that we’re Americans, and try — just try — to set aside some of the anger and do what’s best for the nation.  I know that’s a lot to ask for from politicians.  But the times demand it.

White House Blasts Enzi

Robert Gibbs laid into Senator Mike Enzi, who is a member of the “Gang of Six” negotiating health care reform.  Gibbs said that Enzi was repeating “generic Republican talking points.”  It’s about time.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs laid into Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi Monday for repeating …  

… ”generic Republican talking points” in the GOP’s weekly radio address.
 
“It appears at least in Sen. Enzi’s case, he doesn’t believe there’s a pathway to get bipartisan support and the president disagrees,” Gibbs said. “Sen. Enzi’s clearly turned over his cards on bipartisanship.”

That’s all fine, and it really is about time that President Obama call it like it is.  But why not take on Chuck Grassley, who is raising money against health care reform while allegedly negotiating a solution to health care reform?

Chuck Grassley is facing a potentially difficult primary challenge in 2010. As such, he’s been working hard to cover his right flank. That would all be fine except for one thing: As ranking member of the Finance Committee, Grassley is responsible for developing a workable compromise on health-care reform. But as this fundraising letter (pdf) shows, Grassley is running against health-care reform back in Iowa.

The Republicans are not negotiating in good faith.  Why does Obama keep touting the benefits of bipartisanship?  He’s the only guy in Washington trying to be bipartisan, it seems.  Everyone else is polarized just like usual.

Of course, the negotiations in the Senate appear to be breaking down, so this is moot in practice.  But it matters a great deal to how President Obama deals with Congress and how strong he appears to be.  Right now he looks weak.

I still think something will pass this fall.  But what?  Will it be anything like what the president wants? 

President Obama’s political future relies on this.  I’m ambivalent on health care reform.  I don’t know how I feel about it yet.  Maybe it’s because I don’t know how it would work.  And maybe that’s part of the problem with how Obama is perceived at the moment.  But Obama said that this is his defining issue.  That’s a lot of political capital at stake.  How successful he is during the rest of his presidency depends on this.  I want the president to succeed. 

By the way, it would be nice if the Republicans would negotiate in good faith.  Something is going to pass.  I hope it contains the best ideas of both parties.  But the Republicans need to act in good faith.  And the White House needs to call it out when they don’t.

Obama Administration Begins to Change Its Tune on DOMA

The Obama administration came out today and said that DOMA is wrong and is discriminatory.  The Department of Justice is, however, still defending the law in court, saying that the DOJ has to defend laws it doesn’t agree with.

President Obama made clear Monday that he favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and intends to ask Congress to repeal the 13-year-old law that denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has long opposed the law, which he has called discriminatory. But his Justice Department has angered the gay community, which favored Obama by a wide margin in last year’s election, by defending the law in court. The administration has said it is standard practice for the Justice Department to do so, even for laws that it does not agree with.

The Justice Department did so again Monday in its response in Smelt v. United States, a case before a U.S. District Court in California. But, for the first time, the filing itself made clear that the administration “does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal.”

Some people have said that the DOJ doesn’t have to defend a law it doesn’t agree with.  I’m not so sure about that.  It seems to me that laws that have been duly enacted have to be enforced.  (But as I’ve said over and over, I’m not a lawyer and if I’m wrong about this, please correct me.)  The tone that’s taken, though, when defending a law is another matter entirely.  The Obama DOJ’s previous defense of DOMA was a slap in the face. 

The brief today strikes an entirely different tone.  This seems to me to be a repudiation of the earlier DOMA brief (linked above).  I still haven’t seen the president call on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get a bill repealing DOMA (and DADT) passed, though.  So this is welcome, but it seems a bit weak at this point.

And as for what this brief means, see Law Dork:

For those, reasonably, asking if this brief in any way “takes back” the earlier, problematic arguments made in the previous DOJ Smelt brief, it does not.  But, what it does do is put that brief in context of the Administration’s opposition to the policy aims of DOMA.

In order to get a full picture of the Administration’s changed approach on defending DOMA, we will need to wait until mid-September, when the Justice Department files its Motion to Dismiss in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management et al., the Massachusetts GLAD case.  I previously discussed the Amended Complaint filed in the case by GLAD earlier this month.  The government’s response to the Complaint is due by Sept. 18.]

So, we wait on the legal front, for this brief.  And we continue to wait on the legislative front for this administration to get off the dime and actually do something for the gay community.

Partially Misplaced Anger on Gay Rights

I admit, I’ve been just as angry as many others in the gay community about President Obama’s perceived inaction on gay rights.  The DOMA brief that the administration filed last week is particularly heinous.  It recycled arguments that were particularly offensive, comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia as well as saying that gays and lesbians are not in fact discriminated against because they can marry the person of their choice, so long as that person is of the opposite sex.  A fallacious and offensive argument if there ever was one.

The presidential memorandum extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees seemed like a half-hearted gesture, coming on the heels of that DOMA brief.  As I’ve sat with it for a week or so, though, I’m beginning to think that although the anger over the brief is justified (as is all the high-profile gays backing out of the fundraiser this week), we’ve lost sight of the big picture.

The memorandum that Obama signed last week was a victory.  That was also the first time that a sitting president ever even let the phrase “LGBT” pass his lips. 

Jonathan Capehart pointed this out in The Washington Post yesterday:

Frustration with the brief and with the administration’s inaction so far on big issues such as overturning DOMA and the ban on gays serving openly in the military is understandable. Making Obama out to be a sworn enemy of gay and lesbian civil rights is not. On Wednesday, he signed a memorandum extending a number of benefits to the partners of gay federal employees. This was the culmination of work that began in December. For the first time, not only did a sitting president utter the acronym “LGBT,” for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, but it was also the first-ever spoken recognition of transgender Americans by their president.

Obama directed all Cabinet secretaries and John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management and the highest-ranking openly gay person in the administration, to conduct a policy review within 90 days to determine where inequalities for same-sex partners could be eliminated under existing law. He threw his support behind the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which would make all the benefits that straight couples get available to partners of gay federal employees. Obama acknowledged that his directive was “only one step.” He admitted that “among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it’s discriminatory . . . and we will work with Congress to overturn it.”

Under normal circumstances, all of this would have been big news in the push for gay and lesbian civil rights. Instead, it has been derided as too little, too late. As if any of this would have happened with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the White House. I’m all for holding an ally’s feet to the fire. But to not recognize and celebrate victories, no matter how “small,” is maddeningly shortsighted in the long march to full equality.

If gays and lesbians want big victories, such as the repeal of DOMA and the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, they should focus their fire where it belongs: on Congress. Each bill will take 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate to reach the president’s desk, and the votes aren’t there yet. Saying no one is going to hand gay men and lesbians their rights, Berry told me, “We have to get out there and fight and get those votes.” That won’t be easy. But if last week’s announcement is a sign that Obama will be vocal, persistent and public in his support, the fight can be won.

I’ve said since Obama took office — we have to hold him accountable for the promises that he made during the campaign.  He made some very specific, very strong promises to the gay community and has not followed through up to now.  He’s made some noises about backing off DADT, which is disturbing and frustrating. 

But let’s not lose sight of what has happened already.  Six states have passed or otherwise allowed same-sex marriage rights.  The president hears us, and said that DOMA is discriminatory and that he will work with Congress to repeal it.  He signed a presidential memorandum that goes as far as it can to provide benefits to partners.  Some have said that it violates the law.  The fact is, though, that DOMA and DADT will both require legislation to repeal.  Federal medical benefits for same-sex partners will also require legislation. 

Note that I am not saying that we need to take our cookie, thank the president profoundly, and go away smiling.  We still have to hold him accountable for his promises, and continue to demand that he prod Congress to get these discriminatory laws repealed.  But Congress — Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid — have the power to push legislation through that Obama would sign.  They need to feel this heat, too.

And as John Berry notes in the Capehart piece:  No one is going to hand us our rights.  We have to work to get these votes.  We have to work to hold politicians accountable.  Full gay equality will happen.  But we have to do the work to get that equality.

Cheney Supports Same-Sex Marriage

Dick Cheney’s position is to the left of President Obama’s position on same-sex marriage.  Cheney endorsed same-sex marriage yesterday, although he said it should be on a “state-by-state basis”.

Former vice president Richard B. Cheney waded into another roiling public debate yesterday, saying that he supports legalizing same-sex marriage as long as the issue is decided by the states, rather than the federal government.

Cheney, whose youngest daughter has a longtime lesbian partner, said at the National Press Club that “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.”

He added, however, that he does not support a federal role in the matter. “Historically, the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level,” Cheney said. “It has always been a state issue, and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis.”

Cheney has long departed from conservative orthodoxy on the issue of same-sex marriage. He said during the 2000 presidential campaign that the matter should be left to the states, and he caused a small uproar during the 2004 race by appearing to distance himself from a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a measure that was strongly supported by his boss, President George W. Bush.

Cheney’s position appears also to put him to the left of the current president on the issue. President Obama has said he supports civil unions, rather than marriage, for gay men and lesbians.

I cannot stand Dick Cheney’s positions on nearly every other issue.  But as I heard (or read, I can’t remember exactly) someone say, “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”  Cheney is correct on same-sex marriage — it should happen and it should happen now.  I differ from him a bit, though; DOMA must be repealed.

President Obama, even though he issued a proclamation (full text at this linked site) yesterday declaring that June is LGBT Pride Month, still has not come out in favor of full marriage rights for same-sex couples.  Also, Obama’s apparent refusal to address DADT is shameful.  As AmericaBlog notes, we are very appreciative of the proclamation.  It’s a first for a sitting president.

However, (also as AmericaBlog notes) a lot of LGBT people worked very hard to get Obama elected.  A lack of an action plan to address DADT and DOMA is very worrying.  A lot of LGBT people are genuinely concerned that we’re the ones being told — tacitly — to wait.  Again.  This, while people like LTC Fehrenbach and LT Choi are being discharged from the service.  This, while married gay couples in Massachusetts and Iowa and California don’t have federal recognition of their marriages and don’t have equal rights. 

We’re tired of waiting.  Stonewall was forty years ago and LGBTs still do not have equal rights.  Right now we have a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress.  The time probably will never be better to get gay rights legislation made into law.  We should not have to wait any longer.  It’s time.

A Small Majority Can Now Withhold Rights

California’s Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in a 6-1 vote.  The justices created a pocket of married same-sex couples — the 18,000 or so couples who married get to stay married — while banning any further same-sex marriages in California.  It may have been the right decision under California’s law — I’ll leave that to the legal experts, which I am not – but the implications are much further reaching than just same-sex marriage.  I laid out some of these implications in a post back in March.

Because the Court decided in favor of Prop 8, it now means that a small majority can decided which groups of people get which civil rights, within the constraints of federal law, anyway.  From my March post:

Much has been made of the claim that same-sex marriage is not about civil rights, that it’s about same-sex couples wanting special rights.  The argument goes that being gay is not an immutable characteristic like race.  That’s false, of course.  Do you think, honestly, that people choose to have a more difficult life?  Of course not.  It’s who we are.  It’s a given in our lives, just like being straight is a given in straight people’s lives.

Terrance is asking the right questions:

• Which of your civil rights do you want to put to a majority vote?
• Which of your civil rights do we get to vote on?
• Who gets to vote on your civil rights?

These are the correct questions.  Who’s next?  Whose rights are next on the chopping block?  That can happen now in California; the Supreme Court said that’s perfectly fine.  I saw the writing on the wall — the Court was always going to rule this way.  But I suppose that I differ from some others: In my opinion, the third branch of government — in its capacity of reviewing laws — is there to provide a check to the other two branches of government. 

In California, because we have such a broken system of referenda, they also have to provide a check to the people.  All too often, the people write some pretty bad laws.  (Just look at Proposition 13 and the mess it’s helped to make of California’s budget process.)  In its opinion the Court stated that all power is inherent in the people.  That’s true.  However, the people sometimes need to be saved from themselves, which is what needed to happen here.  Now we have a situation in which a small majority can legislate rights for other groups.

I’m sure that’s not a precedent the Court wanted to make.  But they did make it.  And now we’ll have to live with the consequences of that decision until we have a new constitution in California that fixes our broken system of government.

Regardless of the Court’s wrong decision today, there has been much progress in the fight for gay rights in America; there is a lot to celebrate.  Iowa has same-sex marriage, as does Massachusetts and several other states.  It will happen in California and it will happen in all the other states, too.  I still hope that happens soon; I want my child to grow up knowing his family is stable and is married just like all the other families out there.  And I hope that Congress and President Obama get involved in this fight soon.  It is a cop-out for Obama to sit idly by in this, the most significant civil rights fight of this generation.

But the biggest takeaway is this: You may not be gay, but you may be next.  Watch out.

The Year of the Bible?

You have got to be kidding me.  (Perhaps this is old news, and I missed it then.  But I caught it now.)  Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) wants to make 2010 the Year of the Bible.  Apparently this is not a joke.

“This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with POLITICO. Rather, he says, it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs.

[snip]

The resolution specifically asks the president “to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of government.”

The Bible, so far as I know — and perhaps I’m being too literal — played no active role in building or shaping the United States.  Democracy as a form of government pre-dates the Bible, anyway.

Which version of the Bible is he planning to use?  The Jewish Tanakh?  The Koran?  The King James Version?  What group of people is Broun willing to offend to foist his religious views on the rest of us?  Jews don’t believe in the Christian Bible.  Neither do Muslims.  And atheists — the linked article notes that atheism is on the rise in the United States these days — certainly don’t believe in the Bible.

The real issue here is religious freedom.  Congress cannot have any role in deciding to honor a religious book.  And I really don’t care if it’s happened already (President Reagan declared 1983 a year of the Bible).  It should not have happened then and it should not happen again now.

Obama’s Broken DADT Promise

Rachel Maddow has been in the forefront in reporting on service members who are being discharged under DADT and telling their stories.

She had Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach on her show, talking about his pending discharge from the Air Force for being gay.  The military is — again — firing a hero from its ranks while President Obama is standing idly by, breaking his campaign promise to end DADT (and, by the way, repeal DOMA).

Here is the Maddow show’s segment with LTC Fehrenbach:

Maddow interviewed First Lieutenant Dan Choi in March (and again in May — this video is from his appearance on the Maddow show in May), a New York National Guardsman, who is also being discharged for being gay.  He, by the way, is an Arabic linguist, which we happen to need at the moment.

During this segment, Maddow also reported on the case of Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao, who is also being discharged for being gay.  Tsao sent a personal letter to President Obama, who wrote her a hand-written letter in which he promised action on DADT, but said that he needed some time to get the bill through Congress.  (Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania says in this clip, though, that this could happen very quickly.  I’m sure it could be — Obama has the political capital to have Congress act quickly on DADT and DOMA.  But he has not.)

To my knowledge — and I think I’d notice — he has proposed no legislation to repeal DADT (or DOMA) and his spokesman, Robert Gibbs, has dodged many questions from the press on progress on these front.  The Pentagon spokesman said that there were no plans “in this building” to implement a repeal of DADT and strongly implied that the White House has not asked the Pentagon to begin planning for this eventuality.

All service members who are discharged for homosexuality are discharged for conduct detrimental to good order and discipline.  What I have yet to see is real proof on how being gay and being in the military harms good order and discipline in the military.  Can someone show a court of law how this is a problem for the military?  I don’t want to see or hear about the same straw man arguments that simply spout the same tired, untrue reasons.  I’m talking about laying out a case in court that proves it.  I don’t think it can be done.

Now, back to Obama.  As Pam’s House Blend points out, LTC Fehrenbach, 1LT Choi and 2LT Tsao and all the other discharged-for-being-gay service members don’t have time for President Obama to get the lead out.  Their honorable, heroic careers are over now.  This isn’t a political game — real people are being harmed because of President Obama’s and Congress’s inaction.  And what’s more, I submit that the military is being harmed and weakened too, losing good people who want to serve their country and who have been serving honorably and heroically.

Newt Gingrich’s Ethical Advice

Newt Gingrich is getting himself worked up about Nancy Pelosi’s fitness to be Speaker of the House.  How does Gingrich — Newt Gingrich! — of all people have any standing to call for anyone’s resignation or give anyone ethical advice?  He gave up all moral authority about fifteen years ago, as I recall.

From Ruth Marcus’s Post Partisan post:

“She really disqualified herself to be the speaker,” Gingrich told ABC’s “Good Morning America,” referring to Pelosi’s allegation that the CIA “routinely” misleads Congress. For Pelosi to remain two heartbeats from the presidency, he said, is “very dangerous for the country.”

Spare us.  The only reason Gingrich has any standing at all in the Republican Party is because, simply. there is no one else.  There’s no one with enough clout to stand up to Gingrich (and Cheney, for that matter) and tell him to go away and go away now.  People are leaving the GOP in droves — except weekly churchgoers — and they’re trotting out Gingrich to be the new face of the Republican Party.

Lest anyone forget Gingrich’s résumé, here’s a little more from Marcus (linked above):

Let’s review. Gingrich was reprimanded by the House and had to pay a $300,000 penalty for improperly using tax-deductible money for partisan political gain and for submitting false information to the ethics subcommittee investigating his conduct. An investigation by the House Ethics Committee concluded that Gingrich’s conduct represented “intentional or…reckless” disregard of House rules and that there was “reason to believe” that Gingrich knew he was providing false information.

“The violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct,” a report by an investigative subcommittee concluded. “Rather, over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities.”

To be clear, the ethics case against Gingrich was no partisan witch hunt. The investigative subcommittee that determined he had violated ethics rules was headed by Florida Republican Porter Goss. The vote to reprimand him and impose the penalty was 395 to 28.

And Gingrich himself admitted to the violations with which he was charged. “In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee,” Gingrich acknowledged. “I did not seek personal gain, but my actions did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.”

All this, by the way, was before the married speaker was having an affair with a congressional aide during the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

Somehow I don’t think he’s in any position to be dispensing ethics advice.

Lovely man.

He certainly is not in any position to dispense ethical advice to anyone.  This isn’t about Pelosi or what she may or may not have known and what she may or may not have done regarding torture.  It’s about Gingrich and his appalling gall in thinking that he has any standing whatever to say anything as some kind of leader. 

This ought to give you an idea about how far in the wilderness the Republicans are.  Gingrich is rumored to be gearing up for a presidential run in 2012.  They really are in their “Lord of the Flies” time, as Steve Schmidt so aptly observed.  Really.  Allowing Newt Gingrich to try to take the moral high road after giving it up so many years ago?  Rehabilitation only goes so far.