Gates Says Obama Might Veto Bill Containing DADT Repeal Measure

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that President Obama might veto a military spending bill that contains a provision allowing for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The proposed measure would repeal DADT following the conclusion of a military review (slated to end in December 2010), a finding by the military that ending the policy would not compromise military preparedness, and the promulgation of policies by the Defense Department implementing an end of the anti-gay law.

Gates said that the larger bill contains spending initiatives that Obama opposes. But Republicans also vigorously opposed the repeal language, and Obama did not openly solicit its inclusion in the bill. Instead, Senator Joe Lieberman and Representative Patrick Murphy proposed the measure. Furthermore, Pentagon officials, including Gates, opposed the repeal measure, and Obama has pursued a very guarded approach to this matter. During the interview, however, Gates said that he "think[s]" that Obama would veto the bill whether or not it also included the repeal provision.

A Volley of Questions
Will Obama actually veto the bill? Will he veto the bill due to spending measures or because he opposes the repeal provision? Can Congress repass the measure as a stand-alone policy or as part of a new bill that does not contain offending spending measures? If Congress repasses the measure, will it do so prior to the conclusion of the Defense Department review of DADT? Is the threatened veto simply a way of eliminating the repeal measure and allowing the DADT review to go forward without Congressional input? If Obama vetoes the measure, will this enrage GLBT advocates, eroding support for Obama among liberals? What do you think?

DC Rumor Mill Alert: Hillary Clinton to Become Sec. of Defense

In his latest Politico blog post, Ben Smith suggests that Hillary Clinton might replace Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. It was already ironic enough that Obama picked Clinton as Secretary of State, given his campaign stance on her foreign policy. This rumor, if true, would simply add to the irony.

Gates Supposedly Will Announce New Don't Ask, Don't Tell Rules

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is reportedly set to announce new rules that will relax enforcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the controversial policy that excludes known gays and lesbians from military service. It is unclear exactly what changes Gates will make. Nearly a year ago, he announced that the Department of Defense was studying ways, short of a repeal, to reduce the unfairness associated with the policy.

Military to "Review" How to Repeal DADT; Lieberman Proposes Repeal

Two important developments have happened regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the military's antigay policy.

Gates Orders "Review" of Best Way to Repeal DADT
First, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has instructed a team of military leaders to "study" to best way to repeal DADT. This is the typical style of the Obama administration. The report is due on December 1, 2010. Gates issued a memo that provides some guidelines for exploration:

An integral element of this review shall be to assess and consider the impacts, if any, a change in the law would have on military readiness, military effectiveness and unit cohesion, and how to best manage such impacts during implementation.

Is it just me or does this sound unnecessarily dramatic and time-consuming? The memo almost has a Paul Revere feel to it: "the Gays are coming.....the Gays are coming....must prepare." Also, the military is taking a year (added to all of the previous years) to figure out the best way to deal with openly gay and lesbian servicemembers as opposed to the ones it forces in the closet. The results of this study could be less than desirable. Look at healthcare reform.

Senator Joe Lieberman Slated to Introduce Legislation Repealing DADT
Today, Senator Joe Lieberman will fulfill a promise and introduce a bill to repeal DADT. Lieberman's bill will repeal DADT and prevent discrimination by the military on the basis of sexual orientation -- something that sounds far more promising that Gates' review. Co-sponsors of the bill include Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed services Committee, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and Senator Roland Burris.

Source: Politico

Sen. Lieberman Will Introduce Bill to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Senator Lieberman (I-CT) will introduce a bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- a statute that prohibits known gays and lesbians from participating in the armed forces. James Kirchick, writing for the New York Daily News, suggests that Lieberman could "frustrate and perplex" liberals by introducing "the most significant piece of socially progressive legislation that Congress will deal with this year." But Lieberman's position on DADT should not erase his bad standing with liberals.

According to recent polling data, 75 percent of the public -- including former Vice President Dick Cheney -- supports lifting the ban. Accordingly, Lieberman is not out of step with public opinion.

Furthermore, while repealing DADT is important for social justice, this topic is not as controversial as it once was. President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chair of Staff Mullen all support the repeal of DADT -- as do many members of Congress. Although he probably opposes DADT, I suspect that Lieberman is also looking for some liberal credentials after losing points with the Left due to his moderate stance on healthcare reform and his support of John McCain during the 2008 presidential election.

Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Get Back to Us in a Year!

During the State of the Union Address, President Obama repeated an often-repeated promise to work to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. DADT is the name of the military policy, embodied in a federal statute, that discriminates against known gay, lesbian or bisexual members of the military.

Although Obama promised to get rid of the policy during his presidential campaign, many GLBT groups have complained that he has pushed this and other issues to the backburner. Accordingly, his recent statements promising yet again to end the policy have caused some observers to anticipate a shift in direction.

Today, however, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates held a press conference during which he indicated that the repeal of the policy would not take place in the near future -- unless, of course, Congress acts more rapidly than the timeline of the Obama administration. In the typical Obama style of announcing long "studies" before actually changing policies, Gates (and Joint Chiefs Chair Mike Mullen) asked for eleven months to study "how" to end the policy before taking any concrete action.

Some civil rights activists will likely complain that the Obama administration is foot-dragging. Republicans, however, are upset that the administration's study proceeds with the understanding that the policy will end -- rather than questioning whether the military should abandon it.

Bottom line: Today's press conference represents the first time in history that a sitting Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs Chair have endorse an end of the policy. Accordingly, the meeting was historic. Although the statements of Gates and Mullen are historic, the announcement regarding the study is not. Exactly one year ago, the Boston Globe published an article which stated that President Obama would direct military officials to study the implications of lifting the ban. Today, the military will begin studying the implications of lifting the ban for yet another year. I suspect that many pro-GLBT activists will construe the recent move as constituting more delay.

Update: Yes -- at least one GLBT activist has described the recent announcement as more delay. See: 'Don't Ask' on slow road to repeal?

Other DISSENTING JUSTICE articles related to DADT:

Obama Administration's "Measured" Approach to Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Kinder, Gentler Discrimination: Obama Administration Trying to Make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" More "Humane"

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights

Legal Showdown Looming Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell: What Will the Obama Administration Do?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Heats Up in Courts and in Congress

Kinder, Gentler Discrimination: Obama Administration Trying to Make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" More "Humane"

During the Bush administration and earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained that the Department of Defense had not reconsidered the value of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because the ongoing wars absorb too much time and focus. Now, with many GLBT activists complaining that Obama is "all talk and no action," Gates has apparently modified his stance.

During a recent press conference (see transcript) Gates stated that the DoD is studying DADT to determine the amount of "flexibility" or discretion the military can exercise when enforcing the rule. In particular, Gates stated that lawyers are considering whether DoD can decline to discharge a servicemember who is "outed by a third party," including a person motivated by "vengeance," "blackmail" or "jilted" feelings. Gates describes this approach as more "humane."

My Take
More humane? In this setting, "more humane" sounds like a "little pregnant." Certainly, it is unfair to punish persons who do not reveal their sexual orientation to military officials. These individuals are indeed following the rule because they did not "tell" military officials about their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, DADT is fundamentally unfair because it treats gay or lesbian status as something that is socially harmful, undesirable and inherently inconsistent with military service. Creating an exception for third-party outings will not undo the policy's discriminatory -- or inhumane -- nature. Also, this exception would reinforce the troubling notion that "coming out" is problematic or that gays and lesbians are better seen, rather than heard.

Nevertheless, if involuntarily outed individuals can remain in the military without causing discord or eroding troop morale (the typical arguments in favor of DADT), then people who come out voluntarily can also serve without ill effect (see Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan for similar logic from Supreme Court). Accordingly, creating this exception would undermine a basic argument for DADT, which in turn would boost arguments calling for its invalidation.

Question: Who is advising the Obama administration on gay rights issues? I only ask because the "humane" proposal to have mercy on the helpless involuntarily outed people probably will not help to improve Obama's reputation within the GLBT activist community.

When Will Obama Close the Guantanamo Bay Prison?

Now that the Obama administration has confirmed that it will retool and revive that controversial military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects, one glaring question remains: When will Obama close the Guantanamo Bay prison? During his first week in office, President Obama issued an executive order that directs a team of experts to devise a plan to close to prison by January 2010. The revival of the military courts, however, complicates this issue.

Many Legal Issues
Even though Obama's January executive orders included a carefully worded loophole that contemplated the possible use of military courts, his decision to use the tribunals has angered civil libertarians. Most of the progressive voters in the Democratic Party lambasted Hillary Clinton, whom they believed offered "more of the same," and they constructed Obama as a leftist dream come true.

Although progressives exaggerated Obama's leftist credentials, he offered enough teasers to win their trust. For example, Obama's campaign disparaged the use of military courts and repeatedly praised the ability of the ordinary federal courts to prosecute terrorism suspects. As a good lawyer, Obama left room for the possible use of reformed military courts, but this qualification certainly was not the loudest element of his campaign.

Thus far, Obama's proposed reform of the military courts does not seem to make dramatic changes over the previous system used by Bush. Although Obama says he will limit the use of hearsay evidence to situations where the court concludes it is "reliable," Bush used the same standard. Under Bush's rules, however, the burden rested with the defendant to disprove the reliability of hearsay evidence; Obama's reform would place the burden on the government. Nevertheless, if the military courts use a low standard to evaluate the reliability of hearsay evidence, then this "reform" might not differ much at all from the old system.

Obama has also stated that the new rules will not permit the use of evidence collected through torture and other abusive methods. According to an article published by the Associated Press, however, Bush never relied upon tainted evidence to prosecute individuals, even though his rules authorized him to do so.

No Prosecutions in the Near Future
Regardless of the ultimate content of Obama's new procedural rules, the military courts will probably not become operational in the near future. In fact, Obama will soon order an additional 120-day freeze on proceedings in the military tribunals. The original stay will expire on May 20.

Before any prosecution can occur, the President must spell out the reforms he wishes to make. Also, Congress needs to pass legislation implementing the changes. Furthermore, courts must preside over the inevitable litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Obama's military tribunals. These factors will likely result in a considerable delay in the use of the military tribunals.

Possible Impact on Guantanamo Bay Closure
While the legal process concerning the military tribunals takes place, the deadline on Obama's promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison could expire. Although the president could extend the time period for closing the facility, he might also consider abandoning the closure plan altogether.

Both Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have stated that some detainees that the government deems "dangerous" are unsuitable for transfer to other countries and are too risky for prosecution (due to insufficient evidence). An overlooked provision (Section 4(c)4) of Obama's executive order regarding Guantanamo Bay anticipates this category of detainees.

In March, the Washington Post reported that officials in the Department of Justice were considering whether to "create a new system of detention for cases where there is not enough evidence to prosecute someone in the regular courts, but the suspect is deemed too dangerous to release." At the time, this concept seemed vague, but recent media reports indicate that the government will likely seek to detain these individuals indefinitely, adhering to another one of Bush's most criticized policies. Furthermore, the revival of the military tribunals means that the government has decided not to limit prosecution to "regular courts," as the Washington Post article suggests.

Members of Congress, however, do not want terrorism suspects prosecuted or detained within the United States. If Congress wins this battle, then Obama must continue to hold the detainees at Guantanamo Bay or at another United States-controlled facility located outside of the country.

Although Obama has promised to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, he could later revisit this decision. Earlier this year, the Department of the Navy completed a study, ordered by Obama, which found that the Guantanamo Bay prison complies with the Geneva Conventions. Although many civil liberties lawyers dispute this finding, Attorney General Holder subsequently visited the facility and gave it a favorable review as well. Due to the constraints that Obama now faces, a decision to keep the Guantanamo Bay prison open beyond January 2010 (or even longer) does not seem completely "off the table."

President Obama: Less Talk, More Action on GLBT Rights Issues!

During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to seek the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ("DADT") and the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") and to pursue the enactment of statutory measures that prohibit discrimination by employers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. And in a dramatic display of metrosexual realness, Obama described himself as a “fierce advocate” of GLBT rights.

Thus far in his presidency, however, Obama has not demonstrated his fierceness. Although he invited gay and lesbian families to participate in the White House annual Easter Egg Roll (as they did during the Bush administration) and chose John Berry, an openly gay man, to head the Office of Personnel Management (a non-Cabinet position), outside of these symbolic gestures, nothing significant has occurred. In fact, the only recent substantial progress in GLBT rights has resulted from social movement activism in various liberal states. The federal government remains a dead letter.

Two Fierce Advocates for GLBT Rights: Daniel Choi and Sandy Tsao
The recent military discharge of two Asian-Americans who publicly identified as being gay and lesbian creates a new political imperative for action. Lieutenant Daniel Choi, a member of the Army National Guard, founded Knights Out – an organization for GLBT West Point alumni. Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao identified herself as a lesbian to her chain of command in January 2009. Tsao also sent Obama a letter expressing plan to stop lying about her sexual orientation.

The military has informed Choi and Tsao of their impending discharges, and their stories have received national media coverage. Also, Obama recently responded to Tsao’s letter with a handwritten note that states the following:

Sandy - Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment. — Barack Obama.

Obama’s letter to Sandy is an amazing piece of history, because it probably (although I cannot make this claim with certainty) represents the only official correspondence from a president to an individual lesbian citizen describing his opposition to sexual orientation discrimination and his desire to repeal discriminatory laws. But the letter also functions as classic political rhetoric because it seeks to soothe and calm potential anger among GLBT activists so that any change on GLBT legal issues will occur at a pace that Obama favors.

Delaying/Denying Justice
Even before his presidency began, several news articles indicated that Obama would place GLBT legislative reform on the back burner. Furthermore, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had previously stated during the Bush administration that the ongoing wars made it impossible for the government to address DADT. Gates has restated this justification for inaction by the Obama administration. It now seems very clear that with respect to GLBT rights, Obama will talk now and act at some undetermined time in the future, if at all.

Choi, like a growing number of GLBT rights advocates, wants immediate action. Choi has written a passionate “Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress” that asks the government not to “fire” him and condemns the premise upon which DADT rests – that “homosexuality” deteriorates troop morale and cohesion:

As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.

In addition to the Choi and Tsao matters, ongoing litigation challenges DADT and DOMA’s denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples. The government has not responded to the substance of these cases, but both lawsuits present legal issues that Obama says he supports. Accordingly, the government’s response will test the President’s commitment to his promises regarding GLBT rights.

Closing Thoughts
Although Obama cannot repeal DADT, he probably has the authority as Commander-in-Chief to order the military not to discharge any more GLBT service members while he conducts a review of the policy. He followed this same approach with respect to proceedings in military commissions, which he also disparaged during his campaign (but which he will now revive).

GLBT rights groups could probably do more to build a public consensus on this issue if they stressed the economic consequences of a military discharge – which means loss of employment and, potentially, a loss of educational and health care benefits. Choi and Tsao’s public statements appeal exclusively to military valor and honor and to the wrongfulness of sexual orientation discrimination. While these are effective ways of framing the issue, the sagging economy presents a powerful opportunity to emphasize one of the most immediate adverse implications of DADT: the loss of work and benefits. The public's current sensitivity and vulnerability to unemployment could likely enhance political support for measures that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

National reform on GLBT issues must necessarily occur at a slower pace than in the liberal blue states that have recently approved same-sex marriage and where preexisting laws prohibited sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. But the level of national opposition to GLBT rights does not preclude any substantive progress within federal law, nor does it require delaying such changes while Obama endeavors to achieve global peace, universal health care, a robust world economy, the 2016 Summer Olympics for Chicago, and his many other lofty goals. To use his own words, a president must have the ability to multi-task. I agree. Making some movement on GLBT rights will not overwhelm the president or the nation. In fact, on some issues, like DADT, a majority of the public supports reform. Accordingly, it is now time for the President and Congress to begin making concrete progress on GLBT rights.

Help Wanted: Afghanistan, Many Civilian Jobs Available

Apparently, the job market is booming in Afghanistan, even if it is faltering in the United States. According to an Associated Press article, the government needs civilian workers to assist with "reconstruction and development issues."

Here's a clip:

[The government] said last month it would send several hundred citizens, from agronomists to economists, to work on reconstruction and development issues as part of the military's counterinsurgency campaign.

That has proven to be difficult, and the Pentagon said Thursday that reservists, who often have the skills needed in such a buildup, might be asked to fill the gap.

"I am concerned that we will not get the civilian surge into Afghanistan as quickly as we are getting troops into Afghanistan," Gates said during a daytrip to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. He said he is asking for volunteers who have specific skills "who might serve as a bridge, getting them out of there quickly, and then bringing them back when their civilian replacements are hired."

The Pentagon has been asked to see if it can find 200 to 300 reservists. Officials are canvassing the force to find the needed experts — educators, engineers, lawyers and others, said Bryan Whitman, a Defense Department spokesman.

Obama's Troop Surge Begins: President OKs 17,000 Additional Troops for Afghanistan

Today, President Obama approved a request by Defense Secretary Robert Gates for the deployment of more troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. The president authorized the deployment of 17,000 additional troops. According to MSNBC, military commanders hope that President Obama will deploy a total of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan by the summer.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

During a recent interview with CNN, Colin Powell responded to a question concerning the military's discriminatory policy against gays and lesbians. Powell said that he hoped military leaders would "review" the policy, but he refused to state whether or not he wanted the policy lifted, maintained or replaced with something else.

Powell, as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, had a central role, along with Senator Sam Nunn (then Chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services), in derailing Clinton's effort to overturn the military's antigay policy. As a result, military leaders, Congress, and Clinton accepted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a compromise position. Interestingly, both Powell and Nunn have recently called for a "review" of the current policy, but neither will take a public opinion on the substance of the policy. Powell and Nunn endorsed Obama, and Nunn's name appeared on some initial lists of Obama's potential running mates.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who will retain that role in the Obama administration, has also addressed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. During an interview, Gates said he was too busy conducting wars to worry about the policy (see Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?).

Obama's website, by contrast, states that the president-elect "agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy." The website also states that Obama "will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals." The Washington Times, however, released a story last month reporting that Obama will delay acting on the policy until 2010. An anonymous spokesperson from Obama's transition team denied this report.

Readers might find Shalikashvili's New York Times essay interesting, given Obama's endorsement of his position and the dispute over whether his administration would delay acting on the policy. Shalikashvili agreed with Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 1993 when he sat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Today, however, he has "second thoughts," but he supports a "measured" response. Like Gates, he also says that priorities such as fighting the war should preclude immediate action on the policy. He argues that "[b]y taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban" (italics added). No, Annie, this does not sound like "tomorrow."

My take: Shalikashvili's statement probably most closely represents Obama's position. "Studying" the issue will take a substantial amount of time, and dealing with the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan and healthcare will take priority in public discourse. Through it all, however, Obama will "remain genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban." In other words, if this is "your" issue, take on a lot of other projects and wait and see what actually happens. Having lived through the anti-gay backlash against Clinton, I agree with a measured approach, but this does not change the fact that "measured" responses often mean footdragging and delayed justice.

_____________________________

Powell's Comments on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

We definitely should reevaluate it. It's been 15 years since we put in
"don't ask, don't tell," which was a policy that became a law. I didn't want it
to become a law, but it became a law. Congress felt that strongly about it.

But it's been 15 years, and attitudes have changed. And so, I think it is
time for the Congress, since it is their law, to have a full review of it. And
I'm quite sure that's what President-elect Obama will want to do.

But people have said to me, well, then, what do you think? I said, well,
what I think is, let's review it, but I'm not going to make a judgment as to
whether it should be overturned or not until I hear from the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commanders who are
responsible for our armed forces in a time of war.

And so, I have to hear what they think and what the secretary of defense
thinks before I would come down on one side or the other.

Because I've always felt that the military is a unique institution. It is
not like any other institution in our system. You are told who you will live
with. You are told who you will share your most intimate accommodations with.
You are told whether you will live or die.

And for that reason, the courts have always upheld the ability of the armed
forces of the United States to put in procedures and rules that would not be
acceptable in any other institution.

So, the Congress, I think, has an obligation to review the law, and I hope
that it's a very spirited review. And I hope that President-elect Obama, in one
of his first actions, will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take a look at the
policy and the law and to get their recommendations before he makes a judgment
with respect to the administration position.

But times have changed. This is not 1993. It is 2008. And we should review
the law.

Leftists Finally Realize Obama Is a Moderate; Huffington Post Suddenly Embraces Clinton and Political Center

Arianna Huffington is certainly politically astute. Perhaps that explains why her blog recently received a $25 million investment from venture capitalists.

During the Democratic primaries, bloggers at the Huffington Post were unrelentingly anti-Clinton and pro-Obama -- which they usually equated with being pro-progressive and anti-conservative. Today, the blog has suddenly become pro-Clinton, pro-Obama, and pro-center. In other words, Huffington Post appears to move with popular political currents, which makes it look unprincipled and opportunistic, much like the rest of the "corporate media." I assume Huffington Post qualifies as "corporate media" after securing a multi-million dollar investment.

Yesterday, I surveyed some of the early progressive responses to Obama's national security team. While AlterNet and The Nation maintained their skepticism of and opposition toward Clinton and centrist foreign policy, the Huffington Post has apparently modulated its tone. Most of yesterday's entries on the preeminent blog praise Obama's centrist appointments as being "astute" and even progressive.

If you have followed the Huffington Post even casually over the last year, its recent praise of Clinton and equating of centrist and moderate politics with brilliance should stand out as a noticeable departure from much of the commentary the blog has featured. By raising these contradictions, I am not simply "having fun," as Obama accused a journalist of doing at yesterday's press conference. Instead, I hope to remind progressives why they should never abdicate their critical role in society.

During the past year, most progressives seemed unable to offer any critical insight regarding the candidates that did not extend beyond a predictable pattern of condemning and demonizing Clinton and McCain while giving the highest praise to Obama. Uncritical "analysis," however, does not advance progressive politics.

Furthermore, now that Obama has signaled that he will indeed "govern in prose," progressives risk appearing unprincipled if they do not rethink their prior opinions. Rather than moving forward by offering ideas on policy, the Left is waging a battle over the appropriateness of Obama's personnel decisions. This discussion, however, is simply a proxy for a broader, much delayed debate over Obama's ideology. The Left has finally discovered that Obama is a moderate and a politician -- like the most of the Democratic Party leadership. Now, leftists are trying to decide what to do with the fact that the most progressive presidential candidate in U.S. history is actually a moderate. While some progressives claim Obama misled them, other commentators rightfully argue that progressives allowed their own wild expectations to cloud their evaluation of him.

If progressives had realized or admitted that they were "compromising" and accepting a moderate politician (which is probably the "best scenario" for a presidential election) months ago, a debate over ideology could have already taken place. Furthermore, an earlier search for the truth about the candidates could have spared the party a potentially fatal rift between Clinton and Obama supporters. Clinton supporters were reasonably upset by the constant and damaging portrayals of her as a neconconservative in Democratic attire. Clinton's effort to repair those divisions have earned her the very Cabinet post that now angers some progressives and makes a mockery of their exhausting (as opposed to exhaustive) portrayals of her as a bloodthirsty hawk.

Below, I have posted additional analysis from the Huffington Post that supplements my discussion of these issues from yesterday. This blog post provides additional praise for Clinton and other members of the foreign policy team. This type of analysis rarely appeared on Huffington Post prior to the election.
__________________________

Huffington Post
(Gordon Goldstein)
As we all saw on the morning of December 1, President-elect Barack Obama has clearly assembled a compelling national security team. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has the potential to be a highly effective and respected global diplomat. As secretary of defense, Robert Gates will provide excellent judgment and continuity, along with valuable political cover to a new Democratic commander-in-chief.But perhaps the most astute choice is General James L. Jones, the former commandant of the Marine Corps and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe, as national security adviser. It may prove to be one of the most critical decisions of his presidency.

[Editor: "Continuity" is not "change."]

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice:

*Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

*Governing In Prose: Obama's Cabinet Picks Defy Campaign Narrative That Emphasized "Hope," "Change," and "Washington-Outsider" Status

* More "Change": Tom Daschle to Lead Dept. of Health and Human Services

* If Clinton Becomes Sec. of State for Obama, My Cynicism Will Max Out!

*The "Left" Responds to Obama's "Centrist" Foreign Policy Team
*Back Down Memory Lane: A Review of Anti-Clinton Rhetoric by "Progressives" on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet
*Late (But Thoughtful) AP Article on Irony of Clinton as Secretary of State

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Yesterday, I wrote a blog entry which argued that if Obama picked Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense this would not inspire confidence that the he would move forward on his promise to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in the military. Remarkably, Gates, who currently heads the Department of Defense under Bush, has argued that he is too busy fighting terrorism and wars to deal with the issue of anti-gay discrimination. He also contends that the military does not even ban gay and lesbian people, but any person who wants to engage in gay sex, have a gay wedding, or who says he or she is gay, lesbian or bisexual (yes -- he said that!).

Today's Washington Times cites "insiders" who say that Obama will probably not attempt to repeal the ban until at least 2010. The source says that Obama wants to establish a consensus among military leaders before acting. Certainly, he should act smartly and in a strategic fashion. But military leaders do not want to end the ban. Retired military leaders have argued against it, but current leaders have not. Gates has made horrible statements about gays and lesbians, and Obama proudly accepted the endorsement of Colin Powell who orchestrated the military's vocal and swift rejection of Clinton's effort to repeal the ban. A compromise forced by Powell gave us the wretched "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Accordingly, I am not holding my breath on this one.

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?

The Democrats ran a very conflicted campaign with respect to GLBT issues. Many political commentators believe that in 2004, opposition to same-sex marriage inspired rightwing evangelicals to vote, which helped Bush defeat Kerry. Although both Kerry and Bush stated that they did not "believe in" same-sex marriage, Kerry did not support Bush's proposed marriage amendment (which would have amended the Constitution to define marriage in heterosexual terms).

In 2008 Democrats Ran as Conservatives on Gay Rights

Against the 2004 political backdrop, the Democrats chose strategically to avoid looking progressive on glbt issues. They combined a lack of support for some glbt issues like marriage with generic statements supporting glbt rights in order to satisfy progressive voters and organizations within the party. At times, this song and dance produced very bizarre results. Obama, for example, opposes same-sex marriage for "religious" reasons -- which basically makes his position indistinct from that of the Christian Right. Yet, Obama also opposes efforts to amend state law to define marriage in heterosexual terms. So he is against same-sex marriage, unless people are voting to oppose it. Clinton basically said the same thing.

Political Compromises Can Preclude Meaningful "Change"

This week, the DC buzz, which has been remarkably accurate on cabinet issues, has concluded that Robert Gates will serve as Secretary of Defense under Obama. Gates already holds that position in the Bush administration. Accordingly, picking Gates would provide Obama with yet another opportunity to demonstrate how nonpartisan he is. It would also allow him to market himself as occupying the center-to-right of the political spectrum, contrary to much of the discourse surrounding his campaign during the Democratic primaries.

I can hear the liberal elite crying now. Literally, I can, because I am in my law school office typing this blog entry. Obama has already quashed efforts to oust Joe "Judas" Lieberman from the Democratic caucus, although he delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention during which he assailed Obama as being unprepared for the presidency. He has also met with McCain, whom he criticized as "erratic" and "out of touch." Thanks to a media presence at the meeting the public has loads of toothy photographs documenting the detente between the former political rivals. Finally, Obama is very close to naming Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State -- despite having criticized her vote to authorize force in Iraq as showing a lack of judgment (and this was probably his lightest critique of her). For the record, Biden also voted for the war.

Although collaborative governance sounds noble, compromising and being nonpartisan above all else can cause a leader to lose focus on achieving important goals. At some point, having moderates and conservatives executing and developing policy will limit the potential for actually bringing about meaningful progressive change (please note that for the sake of argument I am assuming the validity of liberal rhetoric which sees Obama's victory as necessarily ushering in liberal change).

Gates Says That Merely Debating the Military's Anti-Gay Policy Would Impede War Against Terrorism

Gates' selection could mean that glbt rights will remain on the back seat in the new administration. Gates has already dismissed concerns over the military's policy banning participation by glbt people. In January 2007, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who is very supportive of gay rights, wrote Gates a letter soliciting his views on the military's anti-gay policy. Responding through Under Secretary Donald Chu (it is safe to assume that the letter reflects the official position of the Department of Defense), Gates first denied that the military even bans gays and lesbians! Gates explained that military policy only mandates the discharge of individuals who "engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts," self-identify as "homosexual or bisexual," or marry or attempt to marry someone of the same "biological sex."

Thanks for the clarification. The military does not ban gay and lesbian people as such. Instead, it only excludes, for instance, men who have sex with men, who want to marry men, or who, for some strange reason, like to tell others they are gay or bi. Apparently, this is nondiscriminatory because it applies evenly to heterosexuals. Gates' "logic" fails to pass the proverbial laugh test.

But his response gets even worse. After denying that the military even bans gays and lesbians, he argues that as long as the country remains at war and is vulnerable to acts of terrorism, then merely discussing the anti-gay policy would threaten national security:

The Global War on Terrorism is far-reaching and unrelenting. The threat to our country is here for the long term. As a result, every day, around the world, our forces engage with our allies in dangerous, life-threatening events, and this will continue into the foreseeable future. A national debate on changing [the military's policy] with the accompanying divisiveness and turbulence across our country, will compound the burden of the war.

Gates expressed similar views during an interview on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer. Schieffer asked Gates whether he is "satisfied" with Don't Ask, Don't Tell or whether he thought the policy "should be reviewed." Gates used the ongoing wars to excuse inaction on the policy: "I’ve got a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, challenges in Iran and North Korea and elsewhere, global war on terror, three budget bills totaling $715 billion. I think I’ve got quite a lot on my plate."

Because Obama has promised to increase the size of the military and the escalate the war in Afghanistan, the "Global War on Terrorism" (curiously elevated to a proper noun by Gates) is indeed here to stay. Besides, I cannot recall a four-year stretch when the United States was not involved in some type of military action. But this fact cannot give the military a free pass to discriminate on the basis of sexual identity and to evade public discourse over the legitimacy of its policies. These types of scare tactics helped elect Bush twice. But now, voters have selected a self-proclaimed agent of "change." I hope that Gates has to explain his controversial and distorted views on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during the vetting process. Otherwise, blatant discrimination might remain unscathed in a "changed" political landscape.

GLBT Movement Actors Must Hold Democrats Accountable

To his credit, Obama has said he opposes Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has promised to seek its repeal. And Gates would answer to Obama instead of Bush. But Obama has also said that he would take a safe route and meet with military leaders to learn the best way to accomplish the repeal (as if it is really difficult to ban discrimination). Military leaders, however, do not want to repeal the anti-gay policy, and they were instrumental in blocking Bill Clinton's reform effort. Although Democrats salivated after Colin Powell endorsed Obama, only a few people (myself included) recalled that Powell orchestrated the defeat of Clinton's attempt to repeal the anti-gay policy. Powell's opposition led to the hideous Don't Ask, Don't Tell compromise. Having folks like Gates, Powell and Sam Nunn close to the Obama administration does not inspire confidence that the new president will extend strong or visible support to pro-gay causes unless Congress or activists push him to do so.

Accordingly, gay rights advocates must make sure that the change movement does not ignore glbt people. This will require gay equality advocates to wake up (like they are finally doing in California) and force Democrats to live up to their silky words regarding justice and progress. Otherwise, all of the lofty talk about the "diversity" of the Democrats versus the homogeneity of the GOP means absolutely nothing -- except that the Democrats tolerate hypocrisy, while the Republicans do not believe in equality through window-dressing.