What About Gays?

Noting that the Supreme Court passed on a chance to rule on Don't Ask Don't Tell, Joe Sudbay makes the case for action:

It's time for Obama to step up. He doesn't have to wait for legislation, although legislation to overturn DADT should be passed ASAP. Obama is the commander-in-chief. He has tools at his disposal to prevent further discharges. He can issue an Executive Order according to a study by the Palm Center. If Obama wants to make a real statement during LGBT Pride Month, instead of just a proclamation, taking action to prevent further discharges under DADT would be a good one -- a very good one.

The absence of action from Obama is troubling. And per Aravosis, notes, there's a second problem: some in the gay community itself worry that their leading activist groups (HRC, etc.) haven't done enough to pressure Obama - or that they've lost leverage altogether by staying quiet (or by cozying up to the WH).

It's a problematic twofer: Obama's not getting pressured by HRC, but HRC is allowing Obama to (speciously) claim that he's communicating broadly with the gay community when he's not.

Tags: Barack Obama, DADT (all tags)

Comments

81 Comments

Re: What About Gays?

I don't think he cares. This will cost the Democrats in the coming years.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

There is no evidence to support your belief. If two years down the road nothing has happened on this front than maybe I would agree with you. But as important as the fight over DADT is there are problems of more immediate concern.

by JDF 2009-06-08 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone

Which State Senators? I'm in NYC and cannot figure out who is for and who is against, Eric Adams, my Sen. did not reply eitherway, when I emailed him.

by brooklynboi 2009-06-08 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: George Onorato from Queens

Empire Pride Agenda has essentially those numbers, but NY1 has their own recent survey:
http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/po litics/100119/where-they-stand--state-se nate-split-over-gay-marriage/Default.asp x

20 for, 29 against, 9 undecided, and 4 wouldn't answer. We need 12 of the 13 undecided/wouldn't say.

by fsm 2009-06-08 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: George Onorato from Queens

I wouldn't say there's a large gay community in Astoria, especially when compared against the working class, immigrants (Greek, Indian, Italian, etc.) who are more stable residents of the community and whom one may presume are less supportive of gay marriage.  I'm not justifying his opposition; I just don't think your point is particularly valid.

by orestes 2009-06-10 07:31AM | 0 recs
you're wrong about Iowa

The LGBT advocacy group One Iowa was very active in the 2006 and 2008 statehouse races, which (in my opinion) is one reason why Democratic leaders in the Iowa House and Senate stood firm against constitutional amendment proposals after the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

It would have been politically "safe" for leaders to punt and say, "Let the people vote no this issue." However, organizers paid for by LGBT donors helped win a bunch of statehouse races.

I with the environmental community in Iowa were half as effective politically as the gay community.

by desmoinesdem 2009-06-08 10:08AM | 0 recs
One Iowa wasn't campaigning

for LGBT issues to be front and center during the election. They were supporting (through donations and field organizers) a bunch of Democrats in tough races. Winning those races kept Democrats in control of both chambers. The leaders remember all the help they got from the LGBT community.

by desmoinesdem 2009-06-08 11:16AM | 0 recs
Thats the difference

between effective political activism and simply making noise.

by JDF 2009-06-08 11:19AM | 0 recs
Even if those candidates

weren't supportive of LGBT issues?

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 12:20PM | 0 recs
they didn't work with any Dems

who were openly hostile to LGBT rights, but they worked with some who seemed on the fence about certain issues. That built up a lot of goodwill among the state legislators who benefited from One Iowa's field organizers.

by desmoinesdem 2009-06-08 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: they didn't work with any Dems

In I believe it was NH or Maine, they said that one of the best ran political campaigns there was for those who worked on the gay rights issues in the state. That these voices were critical to the process of convincing the legislature to vote as they did.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 08:04PM | 0 recs
It is all no relevant now

Sen Pedro Espada just cut a deal with the Republicans and he is now the Senate President and the GOP controls the Senate.

by THE MODERATE 2009-06-08 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: you're wrong about Iowa

Oh, I know he's wrong in several states of which the gay activists were essential including NH and Maine just to name two. Anyone who has actually followed the issue knows he's wrong, but what's the point. Any time Obama is criticized these same people  troll out saying the same things. I at least have the record at this point of being fair to him- like say on healthcare saying he is doing a good job- but then calling a duck, a duck. Instead, these conversations about Obama's failures are met with teh same b.s. Don't belive your lying eyes or those of anyone else who are actually known to be involved inthe industry.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 01:57PM | 0 recs
There's that overinflated ego

we all know and love.

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: There's that overinflated ego

Yes, it's my ego that forces you to lie about gay rights groups, and, it also forces multiple others to correct your lying.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 07:58PM | 0 recs
When did I say anything

about gay rights groups?

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

Your lack of desire to see what's in front o fyour face is not the same as no evidence. That yo started with that statement means i get to ingore you as just one more apologist.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

Yes, you should definitely ignore me. In fact you should do more than that. You should swear a blood oath against any and all who claim to be progressives or democrats but do not share you exact priorities. You should demand that Obama be primaried. You should demand that any member of congress who does not make this their number one priority be primaried.

Afterall, there is nothing else more important right now and anyone who doesn't know that is just some idiot apologist right?

by JDF 2009-06-08 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

More over the top prattling. this is why I said I should just ignore you. You have nothing to add.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone

Much of what has happened in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Nevada, etc. has happened DESPITE the gay community.

Wrong about Vermont, too.  I mean that statement with regard to Vermont is just completely false; it's really unfortunate that you're unaware of the incredible political savviness and tremendous hard work of gay rights activists in Vermont, particularly the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, which was the driving force behind the passage of marriage equality in Vermont.

by Rob in Vermont 2009-06-08 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone

His opinion is self serving b.s. meant to let Obama off the hook. Multiple groups were asking Obama to at least aknowledge (just give a shout out) to their sucess with equality at the state level. He, and his Press Secretary, steadfastly refused to even comment. It's galling to read his sychophants then blame the gay movement for Obama's inaction.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone

You seem to think that the administration making a comment here would be good for the movement OR for the administration; it would be neither.

If Obama comes out and applauds what has happened recently in terms of equality all it does is draw more attention from our enemies...it also puts other aspects of the Administration's agenda at risk AND gives the GOP firepower heading into the midterms next year.

by JDF 2009-06-08 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone

You mean if he acts like a leader some people may not like it. That's true. But it's not a virtue or something that voters should want in leadership.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone

Do you mean leader or cheer-leader.  It seems that you're advocating the latter.

by lojasmo 2009-06-10 04:04AM | 0 recs
I don't want an executive order

I don't...that's a quick fix. An executive order can be overturned by any future President with another executive order...I don't particularly like them because it just seems to reek of executive control...and it makes me less likely, if not totally impossible, that we will get legislation from Congress which would be a more permanent solution

Also, getting it out of Congress will legitimize it a little more. The military brass desperately does not want this and are trying to set the military into battle mode against the White House if this happens. They know Obama can't and won't veto legislation from Congress...they have less control over what Congress does...I want it to come from Congress. There is no reason why Congress can't pass legislation like this when they were able to get fair pay out of Congress in the first week.

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 08:06AM | 0 recs
the exec order wouldn't overturn DADT

They need Congress to do that.

What an executive order could do is order a study into the effectiveness of DADT and halt further discharges until that study has been completed--by which time (we can hope) Congress would have repealed DADT.

by desmoinesdem 2009-06-08 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: the exec order wouldn't overturn DADT

There are problems with an executive order halting the discharges though; it may lead more homosexuals currently serving to reveal their sexuality. If that happens it might lead to other forms of harassment from the military AND it might lead to a mass group of discharges down the road.  

by JDF 2009-06-08 08:19AM | 0 recs
eh, then I'm even more against it

I don't want to "study" the effectiveness of DADT...mainly because I think the end result would be some sort of half assed report on how "effective" it is jeopardizing any future repeal. We'll probably hear conclusions about how "the negative effects would be worse if we repeal the policy"

There's a lot of homophobia in the military. I really don't want to get into why because it would make me sound like I'm slamming the men in the military (but the main reason is how many men in the military think of women, they fear other men will think of them that way)...I grew up around it and I'm still engulfed in it. Up until, probably the last couple of years, the military has become a Crusader organization.

The fact of the matter is, the military community is way more powerful, more influential and can yield more votes and more support for other agenda items than the gay community...and I haven't seen a sustained effort by the gay community to push for this...that is needed now. Get this onto the floor of the House. We're going to have do it without the President, a Democratic President in office less than a year is not going to ruffle feathers in the Pentagon.

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 08:23AM | 0 recs
I disagree

Continuing to discharge capable U.S. soldiers like Dan Choi is wrong on principle and bad politics.

A study would likely reveal that this policy has cost the U.S. lots of good soldiers.

by desmoinesdem 2009-06-08 08:54AM | 0 recs
Since when does principle

factor into anything we do?

And a study will probably also reveal we're likely to loose more "good" soldiers if a repeal happens because of the sheer number of people who wouldn't be willing to serve with homosexuals...this is more than you think. I'm not willing to risk it. I know the military too well...I don't want some "study," it's only going to further hurt the cause.

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

The conservative estimate- which has been done- is that it costs over a billion.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: eh, then I'm even more against it

When Truman desegrated the military he had a ton of studies that he could draw on.  He had military opinion saying that it would be good for national defense.

Until it's studied we have none of that.  

by Jess81 2009-06-08 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: eh, then I'm even more against it

There hav ebeen multiple studies on the issue of DADT, including several books. Also, Truman did not have multiple studies.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: eh, then I'm even more against it

Do please research the Presidential Commission on Civil Rights.

by Jess81 2009-06-08 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: eh, then I'm even more against it

The timetable for this study is 2012. Do you think people are this stupid to buy what you are peddling?

by bruh3 2009-06-09 08:52AM | 0 recs
My fear is the horse-trading up on the Hill ...

Orrin Hatch plays nice later this summer during the Sotomayor hearings in exchange for a WH that promises to go slow on LGBT issues ...

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-08 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: My fear is the horse-trading

Orrin Hatch doesn't have that horse to trade.

by Jess81 2009-06-08 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

Are we just witnessing the critical importance of the Chief Justice's role in the Supreme Court? The gate keeper, Roberts, is a right wing conservative and he may quash other cases that liberals would like heard by the full court.

by MainStreet 2009-06-08 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

Roberts doesn't decide what cases are heard -- the full court decides that. Only 4 justices need to say "yes" for a case to be heard -- so not even 4 justices in this case found a constitutional question, so the case was rejected.

by fsm 2009-06-08 09:48AM | 0 recs
Because forming a sustainable, working ...

political movement is such a piece of cake.

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-08 10:17AM | 0 recs
Not at all what I was suggesting ...

What I had in mind was something more along the lines of questioning the utility of shitting on a nascent political movement ...

You seem to hold your Assemblyman in fairly high regard.  Someone of his character is surely capable of appreciating the principles at stake regardless of the impression "some" of his constituents might have made ...

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-08 11:35AM | 0 recs
Many MANY people in the military

oppose repealing DADT on "principles"

There is no one definition to what "principles" are.

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Many MANY people in the military

Yours is the reason why this has been backtracked.

The military, which has large number of Christian evangelical in disportionate numbers compared to the general population, is opposed. My understanding is that even those who aren't personally opposed to homosexuality are worried about chain of command issues.

by Charles Lemos 2009-06-08 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Many MANY people in the military

The only study tried on the issue of how the miliary feels had it at a MASSIVE ten percent that said this would affect their desire to serve. I feel in the context of Obama's apologists I should use hyperbole and overstatements about where the public is on this issue versus where Obama is.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 06:01PM | 0 recs
It's not even Christian evangelicals

although that is a big reason too. It's many soldier fear being raped, they fear they will be "brainwashed" into becoming gay. They see the way many soliders see women and are afraid other men will see them that way.

I talk to people in the military almost every day. I see what goes on, I see how they feel. I agree Don't Ask Don't Tell needs to be overturned, I also understand why Obama is hesistant to do it now (bruh can call me an Obama apologist, that's perfectly fine with me).

You don't understand the intense dislike many soldiers have for the President, the Democratic party and progressives. You just don't get it. It's going to take years to get over that. Obama has made the right moves vis-a-vi the military. He left a SecDef they like who he can work with. He's appointing the right people, like Ray Mabus and John McHugh, who wants to repeal DADT, to the military jobs. He's moving in that direction...and if you want to completely fuck up all the progress he is making in warming the military up to the Democratic Party, then by all means lets have him issue an executive order suspending DADT, a temporary fix.

The Military Readiness Enchancement Act is sitting in Congress, let's get that passed and onto the President's desk. Any other way is counterproductive.

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 07:23PM | 0 recs
No, apparently you're right ...

It's all realpolitik in NY ... a couple of Dems have decided to caucus with the Republicans and there goes the senate ... all over gay marriage?

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-08 12:20PM | 0 recs
Definitely

it's over and dead until at least 2011.

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: No, apparently you're right ...

The world doesn't necessarily revolve around gay marriage...according to the Times, they revolted because of the way the Democrats handled the budget.  

[Okay, it's NY, so it's more complicated than that: they only agreed to caucus with the Democrats in the first place because of support from Tom Golissano, who has lots of money and influence to throw around to conservative Democrats, and it appears that Golissano is driving this because the Democrats raised Golissano's taxes.]

Though the media being what it is, I'm sure they'll make it about gay marriage as well.

by fsm 2009-06-08 12:35PM | 0 recs
Well, if I'd known sooner that it was all about ..

... Golissano's taxes, I certainly wouldn't be wasting your time going on about marriage equality.

All apologies.

Not that that's gonna help you on the media front, what with their well-known biases and all ...

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-08 01:07PM | 0 recs
State Department

So basically the executive branch is being a little more passive on changing things, but they did just allow same sex benefits for diplomats and employees of the State Department. Check out the NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/24b enefit.html

While I'd love an executive order, I think going the low profile route is smart. I'd love to Congress act more than the president on this - especially bnecause ultimately we just need to overturn the DOMA.

by brooklynboi 2009-06-08 10:20AM | 0 recs
if Congress isn't ready to repeal DADT

it will be a long time before they dare to repeal DOMA. Public opinion has moved a lot on both issues, but gays in the military still are much more supported than marriage equality.

by desmoinesdem 2009-06-08 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

While Obama can put a halt to DADT discharges through an executive order, it takes Congress to repeal DADT.  As much as it pains me to see fellow GLBTs getting discharged, I think the legislative route is the better one to take.

by Dreorg 2009-06-08 11:38AM | 0 recs
Right. Obama admin supported DADT *on the merits*

WTF??

by chiefscribe 2009-06-08 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

He learned a lesson from Clinton.  DADT dominated the conversation for Clinton's first year, ruining many legislative options during that time.  I think Obama wants to get health care out of the way first before he touches such a sensitive topic.  He realizes that many Republicans will use a change to DADT to declare all out war on Obama's initiatives.  

by iowa dem 2009-06-08 01:15PM | 0 recs
Sensitive topic?

Whatever.

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-08 01:24PM | 0 recs
Sorry, that was terse ...

It's not every day I get to hang with folks who are to the right of Marie Osmond ...

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-08 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Sensitive topic?

Well it is a sensitive topic!  I agree that DADT NEEDS to be changed but quite frankly there is strong disagreement on gay rights in America and, as the NY legislature has shown today, pushing gay rights can have serious political consequences.  Don't get me wrong, I desperately want to see this happen, I was just pointing out that there are political consequences to it and the Obama administration is weighing them.

by iowa dem 2009-06-08 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Sensitive topic?

Fact it, there's not a lot of disagreement on DADT.

I'm sure you're familiar with the polling.

By the way, "gay rights" is a useless term.

Let's jut be upfront and talk specifically about each and every right we're comfortable denying or allowing to LGBT Americans without just chucking all their rights into one basket for our own convenience, OK?

By the way, did you check out Marie?  Seriously, all rancor aside, as far as replies go, she pegged it, didn't she?

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-08 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Sensitive topic?
Oh, I realize that some 65-70% of Americans are for it, but that doesn't mean some 65-70% of our legislature is for it.  Most likely it is around 60%.  Unfortunately, those other 40% will be VERY vocal and obstructionist in response.  
I will totally agree about Marie, well played.  My use of the term sensitive was meaning that people would have very strong opinions on it both ways, not unlike abortion or immigration.  
by iowa dem 2009-06-08 02:45PM | 0 recs
at the beginning of the year

Everyone knew Franken's vote was needed on DADT, it sure seems odd that so many people have conveniently forgotten.  

As for the executive order theory, it makes about as much sense as Bush being to order suspensions of FISA, anti-torture statutes, etc.  

by John DE 2009-06-08 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The gay community has no political power

I like hte way you try to demonize the gay community for Obama/s failure to actually lead.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: They deserve to be demonized

Were we just talking about California  (rather than you spitting on the sucess of activists in Maine, NH and vermont to name 3 where you are wrong) your comment might almost make sense? Nah. It's just b.s. Reality: the behavior of some gay activists who are not good at their jobs- does not excuse the behavior of Obama. " You are an Obama apologist on every issue. As i said before, when he does something right (a la my support so far on him on healthcare because he seems to be supporting the public option- I will say so) and when he does something wrong- I will say so. Not witstanding the attempts to change the subject.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: When Obama does something

 So the sucess of Maine, NH and Vermont do not matter regarding a President's response? And, equal protection is about forcing Obama to speak about equal protection since the minority must force the majority to act? Is there anymore attemps you want to make at defending Obama's cowardice on the issue?

by bruh3 2009-06-08 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: This doesn't make any sense

It's the same thing as everyone else has said along this thread who is disagreeing with you.

by bruh3 2009-06-09 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: This doesn't make any sense

Again- you are saying Obama should not act unless gays force him to act. but when we actually go out to achieve sucesses like NH, Maine and Vermont- well those were not our sucesses, and they do not require Obama to speak on something that's affecting the country. But, I am the one not making sense.

by bruh3 2009-06-09 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: They deserve to be demonized

should say 'and withstanding"

by bruh3 2009-06-08 07:22PM | 0 recs
"They"??? Demonized???

Nobody deserves to be demonized; in politics, the shrill approach is almost guaranteed to fail. Just ask all the feminist veterans of the ERA fight from years ago. Between screaming "nobody will tell me what to do with my body!" and burning their bras, important things like ending discrimination in employment rarely got discussed. They turned off a whole lot of people in the process, and bottom line, the Equal Rights Ammendment never became law. But that's OK....they're probably now telling their grandchildren about one of the many glorious, lost causes they crusaded for.

Civility and reasoning with people will win the day every time. "Demonizing" is no way to win friends or influence people.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-06-08 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: "They"??? Demonized???

Failure compared to now where he is avoiding the issue altogether?

by bruh3 2009-06-09 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

That's silly.  Until DADT is repealed the justice department is going to legally defend the Administration's own policies.  It's like you're saying "It's bad enough Obama isn't repealing DADT, but on top of that he isn't repealing DADT!"

by Jess81 2009-06-08 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

Ending DADT is a high priority for me.  What I don't think you understand is that defending it before the Supreme Court is an inevitable part of having the policy.  When the appeal reach the court, the Administration - any administration - has two choices: either change the policy or don't.  We know they haven't changed the policy, so I'm not surprised that government lawyers defended it.

by Jess81 2009-06-08 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

If you like.

by Jess81 2009-06-09 10:13AM | 0 recs
Unlike you, Miles?

Jesus, at least when you were here last time faking gay, you had a better story....

by WashStateBlue 2009-06-12 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

Look - it's obvious what's going on: Obama, or the Obama Whitehouse, has made the calculus that pushing this issue would cost him support among the brass.  Which is another reason for the "study" approach: until you can build support within the military for repealing DADT, you're never going to get this Administration to move on it.

You build support among the military by studying the issue and its effect on the institution.  That's where the holdup is: right now there's popular support for repealing DADT across the board - just not among the Petraeuses, et. al.

by Jess81 2009-06-08 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

Do you think you are talking to people who know nothing about the issue or what's been happening behind the scenes? Many here call me arrogant, but I find many of you to absolutely cavaler in the way in which you just seem to make stuff up to rationalize what is political cowardice on Obama's part. Thsi is not about studying the issue. This is about avoiding it. That's the pretty obvious part.

by bruh3 2009-06-08 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: What About Gays?

Yeah you're right.  Obama's a coward.  Why strategize at all?  Let's just enjoy our moral superiority.

You crack me up - I just criticized Obama, and you're mad that I'm not being strident enough.

by Jess81 2009-06-08 08:35PM | 0 recs
You're not going

to build support from within the military until the culture of the military changes to acceptance...right now, that's not going to happen. You can prove that allowing gays in the military would end terrorism and many will still not support it.

Fact of the matter is, one of two types of Presidents could have credibility in the military to do something this drastic...a Republican, or an ex-career soldier, someone like Wesley Clark.

Obama is a young, African-American liberal Democrat from Chicago who never served and beat one of their own in an election. He starts off with 0% credibility in the military, maybe less, and he has the build it.

In the meantime, if you want to force him to repeal the policy, send him legislation that he can't veto...the legislation is there, the votes in Congress seem to be there, so let's get it to the President's desk. That will be a permanent solution.

What is this crap about wanting an executive order that will only temporarily end the policy, destroy any credibility he's built among the military, and allow Congress to buck their responsibility and say "oh good, now we don't have to take a stand on this"

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You're not going

Temporarily is better than not at all.  Besides, you would have a point if there was any legislation to end it on the horizon - until there is there are people being kicked out of the army as we speak.

Anyway, and this is just speculation, since I'm not an expert on Obama's motives or personality; nor am I particularly interested in such - for that, talk to bruh3 - I think it's bureaucratic pressure from the brass as opposed to the military at large.  The opinion of the brass caused Obama to do a 180 on releasing the second batch of torture photos, so I think the same thing is going on here.

If you're talking about the military leadership, you're talking about a small group of individuals.  You don't have to change an entire culture.

by Jess81 2009-06-08 09:22PM | 0 recs
Military Readiness Enhancement Act

sponsered by Ellen Tauscher. It's there and ready to go. It was introduced already. Marty Meehan introduced it in 2005 and 2007.

It has 142 co-sponsors and has been referred to the Armed Services Committee.

by DTOzone 2009-06-08 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Military Readiness Enhancement Act

Right but is it expected to pass.

Because what I'm talking about is the policy actually changing it.  If it's not likely to happen legislatively, then an executive order is the next best thing.

by Jess81 2009-06-12 12:42PM | 0 recs
start a profitable internet business at Home

Hi I am Morgan and my hobbies are watching movies and chatting on internet. I have a Internet Business at my home in which I don't need to go out for work and I don't need to know any programing language for this Business. I am providing you a link through which you can get start business within 9 months. http://www.Start-an-Internet-business.ne t

by morganstan395 2009-06-08 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The gay community has no political power

You are simply wrong.  Provide some facts to support your claims and then they can be discussed.  You sound like you simply have an ax to grind against "the gay community."  We are not a monolith, by the way.  There are many gay communities with differing views on how to advance our issues.  Your whine is not only shrill, but pointless.

by orestes 2009-06-10 07:57AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads