Nathaniel Frank On HRC,Democrats and DADT
Nathaniel Frank On HRC,Democrats and DADT
By Nathaniel Frank
Copyright by The Huffington Post
Feb 18 2010 http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/02/huffington-post-nathaniel-frank-on-hrcdemocrats-and-dadt.html
Nathaniel Frank is one of the leading experts on the hideous policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." As the author of "Unfriendly Fire" he has in depth knowledge of the history and ramifications of the Clinton policy from 1993. This week writing "Life Support for Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Are Democrats the Problem" for The Huffington Post he clearly and concisely expresses the urgency of not waiting to repeal this policy. Frank urges us to move immediately in bringing this policy for a vote before Congress now.
In the article Frank makes four very important points:
The Human Rights Campaign has been accused of championing repeal publicly, while privately assuring the White House that it can continue to go slow. If HRC wants to disabuse the community of that suspicion, it will need to ensure that its prized access to Washington power is used to have a real impact, rather than to enjoy that access for its own sake. One reasonable option would be to publicly tell the President that it will not endorse him for re-election if he does not secure repeal in his first term, a promise that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he thought the President would keep.
Putting repeal into the must-pass Defense Authorization bill would turn the tables on the “no-to-everything” Republicans: the amendment would require a supermajority not to pass, but to remove, meaning that in order to keep the ban in place, the GOP would have to block the entire Pentagon spending bill, publicly undercutting the military.
Obama has also said he’d like Congress to take the lead. Sound familiar? In an interview in 2009, Obama finally acknowledged that this very same tactic with healthcare was a mistake: “I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed the opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense.” Why on earth would the President take the same failed tack with reforming the gay ban? Sure enough the airwaves are beginning to fill with balderdash about openly gay service leading to a draft and government endorsement of tattoos. Why not put real teeth into his promise by telling the Pentagon to put repeal in the Authorization bill?
Professed proponents of repeal keep muttering that we will get repeal this year, without saying how. “There is a clear path to repeal,” said an HRC spokesman this week, “and that’s the one we’re on.” Many of us would like to know what that path is if it does not include demanding the President put it in the base bill.
Comments
Posted by: Chris | Feb 18, 2010 8:52:46 AM
I have been raising the question of whether lobbying is really effective just as the recent HRC BlogSwarm was announced. The response of an arrogant HRC, and the many comments on LGBT-Blogs confirm it is NOT. We should honor that fact by figuring out what IS effective.
An elected officials position on LGBT issues is non-negotiable. It does us no good to send letters, emails or make calls. The only thing we can express to them is anger or frustration. Their minds are NOT changeable.
During our 50 years of struggle/fight we have never changed a politicians mind about LGBT issues. (I spent a lot of money researching that fact). There are only two solutions:
1. Replace the politician, or
2. Change the minds of their constituents.
Harold Ford is a very recent example of a Politician changing his mind. When Ford was in Tennessee (78% religious) he was against same-sex marriage. Now, with Ford in New York (48% religious) he now supports same-sex marriage. HE didn't change his mind - the polls did.
I raised the issue of ineffective lobbying because we keep sending people down that fruitless path. They simply end up more frustrated and less likely to participate in our movement. We are literally asking people to commit participation suicide. That must stop.
The Victory Fund and the efforts of Tim Gill, Jon Stryker and others seeking to replace anti-LGBT politicians is one potential solution. But, it is a difficult proposition UNTIL we change the minds of constituents.
As a community we spend millions of dollars and we rarely make an honest and objective effort to determine the effectiveness of tactics, ideas and strategies. The one benefit of the BlogSwarm may be a better understanding of the effectiveness of HRC (or lack thereof).
During the last year I have been encouraging accountability and I have been seeking ideas to WIN. A tremendous amount of money has been spent on research and the development of new ideas - each with the requirement of proving their effectiveness.
I would invite everyone to ask a simple question of any non-profit advocacy group, activist group or community leader: How many Americans support the full equality of LGBT persons? See if they know the answer to THAT question.
I have learned the answer to that question and it is encouraging. A strategy is being created to finally project HOW and WHEN we will achieve our full equality. Everyone will be able to participate/contribute. The strategy is made up of 4 new ideas and 7 national media campaigns. For the first time in the history of our movement, it ALL adds up to victory. The "math" works.
The challenge we face will be our ability to be completely honest and objective about the effectiveness of ALL ideas/tactics. We will not re-ignite a real, sustainable movement until we let go of "perceived" benefits and focus ONLY on "verifiable" benefits. I hope we can.
Our movement will not have the required direction, unity or participation it needs, until we can see the evidence that it will lead to victory. We NEED to see HOW and WHEN we will WIN. "One of these days" and "keep trying" are simply not good enough, not anymore.
Lobbying has had NO effect on the 111th Congress. None.
The purpose of the much-hyped BlogSwarm was because activists were challenging HRC's effectiveness AT LOBBYING.
We spend $50 million a year on HRC and it is useful and appropriate to ask if their lobbying efforts are effective.
Accountability is coming for ALL aspects of the LGBT "movement," get used to it.
Posted by: AndrewW | Feb 19, 2010 10:45:44 AM
San Francisco Chronicle: Obama's Changing Positions on Marriage Equality
By David Mixner
Copyright by David Mixner
Feb 18 2010 http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/02/san-francisco-chronicle-obamas-changing-positions-on-marriage-equality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DavidMixnerCom+%28DavidMixner.com%29
One of the best articles I have seen regarding the history of President Obama's position on marriage equality has appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. Journalist Bog Egelko in "Obama Elusive About-Face On Same-Sex Marriage", takes us way back to the President's days in the Illinois legislature when he supported same sex marriage. He traces the evolution of Obama's positions and examines his proclamations that his beliefs are 'faith based.". This is a must read article.
Egelko writes:
"President Obama says he opposes same-sex marriage for religious reasons. Fourteen years ago, however, while a churchgoing Christian and a state legislative candidate, he endorsed the right of gays and lesbians to marry.
Sponsors of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, cited Obama's current position in their 2008 campaign and have quoted him in their defense of the measure during a federal court trial in San Francisco. Gay rights groups, noting that Obama actually opposed Prop. 8, have urged him to take a stance on the lawsuit, without success.
What has received much less attention is Obama's unexplained reversal of the position he once held backing same-sex marriage - the position still held by the church he attended for most of his adult life.
Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate in Chicago in February 1996 when he answered a questionnaire from a gay-oriented newspaper, Outlines, on gay rights issues. One of his answers was, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.
The journalist tells of when Obama was running for United States Senate the Chicago Windy CityTimes reported on a change from marriage quality to civil unions:
"The Windy City Times, which later acquired Outlines, said it interviewed Obama in 2004, when he was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate. In a January 2009 article recapping the interview, the newspaper quoted him as saying he no longer supported same-sex marriage "primarily just as a strategic issue," and not because he had changed his philosophy.
The article continues showing that actually President Obama's faith the United Church of Christ has taken a position in favor of marriage equality which makes it harder for Obama to proclaim it is a position based on his religion. "
In addition, the article reviews Obama's position on the Proposition 8 campaign and his failure to intervene in the current case before Judge Vaughn. Egelko writes:
"During the 2008 campaign over Prop. 8, the measure's backers quoted Obama's reference to male-female marriage as a "sacred union" in campaign flyers and used his voice in phone messages. They targeted the African American community, which strongly backed the measure.
At the federal court trial of a lawsuit challenging Prop. 8, lawyers for the measure's sponsors have cited Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage as evidence that people who favor a traditional view of marriage are not necessarily prejudiced against gays and lesbians.
Legally, the distinction is crucial - if Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is hearing the case without a jury, decides that discrimination was the main motivation behind Prop. 8, he could overturn the measure without having to decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.
Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group, submitted almost 100,000 signatures on petitions urging the Obama administration to file arguments against Prop. 8 in the court case. The administration did not respond by Walker's Feb. 3 deadline.
The White House did not reply to questions about how Obama's religious interpretation of marriage might have changed over the years.
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, dismissed the president's shifting stance as "pure politics."
"When he was running for office in Chicago and wanted strong support from the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community, he made it clear he supported full equality," Kors said. "Since he has continued to seek higher office, he has changed his position for the worse.
"It's especially appalling that he is citing his religious beliefs as grounds for his public government position on the civil marriage issue because he knows better," Kors said. "
These are just partial excerpts from a really intelligent piece on President Obama's evolution on marriage equality. Be sure to read this entire article by clicking here.
Another Tea Party
by Carlos T. Mock, MD
January 30, 2009
I voted for Barack Obama as the lesser of two evils. As an openly Gay activist I had serious doubts about his candidacy because Mr. Obama was against the most fundamental human right: same sex marriage. I was swayed by the enthusiasm of the general election and cast my vote for him on November 4, 2008. I hoped he would eventually come to terms with the our community.
Like many activists, we have been greatly disillusioned by the lack of progress on all of our issues. I get that some things take time, and the legislative process isn't always as fast as we'd like. But here's the thing—don t come begging for money when you haven't delivered on your promises.
We did our part. Yet after a year in office with super majorities, the Democratic Party has not delivered. Until they do, it seems ludicrous for them to ask for money, especially with whines about "Republican obstructionism". The obstructionism is coming within the own Democratic Party. When it gets its house in order and delivers on their promises, then that'll be different.
President Barack Obama was AWOL when it came to the marriage vote in Maine and the partnership vote in Washington.
The DNC was worse, actively working against us by sending out an email to Maine Democrats asking them to campaign for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine—instead of asking them to man phones in their home state, working for marriage equality.
Despite a supposed commitment to gay civil rights expressed in the DNC platform and by the Obama campaign and administration, there has been relative silence on our issues.
What the DNC has failed to realize is that they have serious problems with the left—gay rights movements included—that they have failed to address. Their troubles are coming from both sides and they are not even aware of it.
Until I see results, my wallet is close. And the left throws a better Tea party than the right! If you don’t believe me ask the people from Massachusetts!
Close The Gay ATM Machine To DNC!
By David Mixner
Copyright by By David Mixner
Feb 4 2010
http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/02/-close-the-gay-atm-machine-to-dnc.html?ut
m_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DavidMixnerCom+%28D
avidMixner.com%29
Party democrat As if we needed more reasons not to give to the Democratic
National Committee (DNC), Ben Smith of Politico.com gave us yet another one.
Turns out the DNC recently gave Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) over $500,000 to pay
for ads for his re-election. Nelson stands against the LGBT community at
every opportunity. Not only that, but he was also a major reason we are in
the current health care situation. We don't need to be financing Democrats
who act like Republicans. Why in the world would we give money to the DNC so
it frees up their funds to give to Blue Dog Democrats? Don't budge and
continue to only give money directly to candidates who are for full equality
including marriage equality.
By Nathaniel Frank
Copyright by The Huffington Post
Feb 18 2010 http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/02/huffington-post-nathaniel-frank-on-hrcdemocrats-and-dadt.html
Nathaniel Frank is one of the leading experts on the hideous policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." As the author of "Unfriendly Fire" he has in depth knowledge of the history and ramifications of the Clinton policy from 1993. This week writing "Life Support for Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Are Democrats the Problem" for The Huffington Post he clearly and concisely expresses the urgency of not waiting to repeal this policy. Frank urges us to move immediately in bringing this policy for a vote before Congress now.
In the article Frank makes four very important points:
The Human Rights Campaign has been accused of championing repeal publicly, while privately assuring the White House that it can continue to go slow. If HRC wants to disabuse the community of that suspicion, it will need to ensure that its prized access to Washington power is used to have a real impact, rather than to enjoy that access for its own sake. One reasonable option would be to publicly tell the President that it will not endorse him for re-election if he does not secure repeal in his first term, a promise that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he thought the President would keep.
Putting repeal into the must-pass Defense Authorization bill would turn the tables on the “no-to-everything” Republicans: the amendment would require a supermajority not to pass, but to remove, meaning that in order to keep the ban in place, the GOP would have to block the entire Pentagon spending bill, publicly undercutting the military.
Obama has also said he’d like Congress to take the lead. Sound familiar? In an interview in 2009, Obama finally acknowledged that this very same tactic with healthcare was a mistake: “I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed the opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense.” Why on earth would the President take the same failed tack with reforming the gay ban? Sure enough the airwaves are beginning to fill with balderdash about openly gay service leading to a draft and government endorsement of tattoos. Why not put real teeth into his promise by telling the Pentagon to put repeal in the Authorization bill?
Professed proponents of repeal keep muttering that we will get repeal this year, without saying how. “There is a clear path to repeal,” said an HRC spokesman this week, “and that’s the one we’re on.” Many of us would like to know what that path is if it does not include demanding the President put it in the base bill.
Comments
Posted by: Chris | Feb 18, 2010 8:52:46 AM
I have been raising the question of whether lobbying is really effective just as the recent HRC BlogSwarm was announced. The response of an arrogant HRC, and the many comments on LGBT-Blogs confirm it is NOT. We should honor that fact by figuring out what IS effective.
An elected officials position on LGBT issues is non-negotiable. It does us no good to send letters, emails or make calls. The only thing we can express to them is anger or frustration. Their minds are NOT changeable.
During our 50 years of struggle/fight we have never changed a politicians mind about LGBT issues. (I spent a lot of money researching that fact). There are only two solutions:
1. Replace the politician, or
2. Change the minds of their constituents.
Harold Ford is a very recent example of a Politician changing his mind. When Ford was in Tennessee (78% religious) he was against same-sex marriage. Now, with Ford in New York (48% religious) he now supports same-sex marriage. HE didn't change his mind - the polls did.
I raised the issue of ineffective lobbying because we keep sending people down that fruitless path. They simply end up more frustrated and less likely to participate in our movement. We are literally asking people to commit participation suicide. That must stop.
The Victory Fund and the efforts of Tim Gill, Jon Stryker and others seeking to replace anti-LGBT politicians is one potential solution. But, it is a difficult proposition UNTIL we change the minds of constituents.
As a community we spend millions of dollars and we rarely make an honest and objective effort to determine the effectiveness of tactics, ideas and strategies. The one benefit of the BlogSwarm may be a better understanding of the effectiveness of HRC (or lack thereof).
During the last year I have been encouraging accountability and I have been seeking ideas to WIN. A tremendous amount of money has been spent on research and the development of new ideas - each with the requirement of proving their effectiveness.
I would invite everyone to ask a simple question of any non-profit advocacy group, activist group or community leader: How many Americans support the full equality of LGBT persons? See if they know the answer to THAT question.
I have learned the answer to that question and it is encouraging. A strategy is being created to finally project HOW and WHEN we will achieve our full equality. Everyone will be able to participate/contribute. The strategy is made up of 4 new ideas and 7 national media campaigns. For the first time in the history of our movement, it ALL adds up to victory. The "math" works.
The challenge we face will be our ability to be completely honest and objective about the effectiveness of ALL ideas/tactics. We will not re-ignite a real, sustainable movement until we let go of "perceived" benefits and focus ONLY on "verifiable" benefits. I hope we can.
Our movement will not have the required direction, unity or participation it needs, until we can see the evidence that it will lead to victory. We NEED to see HOW and WHEN we will WIN. "One of these days" and "keep trying" are simply not good enough, not anymore.
Lobbying has had NO effect on the 111th Congress. None.
The purpose of the much-hyped BlogSwarm was because activists were challenging HRC's effectiveness AT LOBBYING.
We spend $50 million a year on HRC and it is useful and appropriate to ask if their lobbying efforts are effective.
Accountability is coming for ALL aspects of the LGBT "movement," get used to it.
Posted by: AndrewW | Feb 19, 2010 10:45:44 AM
San Francisco Chronicle: Obama's Changing Positions on Marriage Equality
By David Mixner
Copyright by David Mixner
Feb 18 2010 http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/02/san-francisco-chronicle-obamas-changing-positions-on-marriage-equality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DavidMixnerCom+%28DavidMixner.com%29
One of the best articles I have seen regarding the history of President Obama's position on marriage equality has appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. Journalist Bog Egelko in "Obama Elusive About-Face On Same-Sex Marriage", takes us way back to the President's days in the Illinois legislature when he supported same sex marriage. He traces the evolution of Obama's positions and examines his proclamations that his beliefs are 'faith based.". This is a must read article.
Egelko writes:
"President Obama says he opposes same-sex marriage for religious reasons. Fourteen years ago, however, while a churchgoing Christian and a state legislative candidate, he endorsed the right of gays and lesbians to marry.
Sponsors of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, cited Obama's current position in their 2008 campaign and have quoted him in their defense of the measure during a federal court trial in San Francisco. Gay rights groups, noting that Obama actually opposed Prop. 8, have urged him to take a stance on the lawsuit, without success.
What has received much less attention is Obama's unexplained reversal of the position he once held backing same-sex marriage - the position still held by the church he attended for most of his adult life.
Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate in Chicago in February 1996 when he answered a questionnaire from a gay-oriented newspaper, Outlines, on gay rights issues. One of his answers was, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.
The journalist tells of when Obama was running for United States Senate the Chicago Windy CityTimes reported on a change from marriage quality to civil unions:
"The Windy City Times, which later acquired Outlines, said it interviewed Obama in 2004, when he was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate. In a January 2009 article recapping the interview, the newspaper quoted him as saying he no longer supported same-sex marriage "primarily just as a strategic issue," and not because he had changed his philosophy.
The article continues showing that actually President Obama's faith the United Church of Christ has taken a position in favor of marriage equality which makes it harder for Obama to proclaim it is a position based on his religion. "
In addition, the article reviews Obama's position on the Proposition 8 campaign and his failure to intervene in the current case before Judge Vaughn. Egelko writes:
"During the 2008 campaign over Prop. 8, the measure's backers quoted Obama's reference to male-female marriage as a "sacred union" in campaign flyers and used his voice in phone messages. They targeted the African American community, which strongly backed the measure.
At the federal court trial of a lawsuit challenging Prop. 8, lawyers for the measure's sponsors have cited Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage as evidence that people who favor a traditional view of marriage are not necessarily prejudiced against gays and lesbians.
Legally, the distinction is crucial - if Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is hearing the case without a jury, decides that discrimination was the main motivation behind Prop. 8, he could overturn the measure without having to decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.
Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group, submitted almost 100,000 signatures on petitions urging the Obama administration to file arguments against Prop. 8 in the court case. The administration did not respond by Walker's Feb. 3 deadline.
The White House did not reply to questions about how Obama's religious interpretation of marriage might have changed over the years.
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, dismissed the president's shifting stance as "pure politics."
"When he was running for office in Chicago and wanted strong support from the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community, he made it clear he supported full equality," Kors said. "Since he has continued to seek higher office, he has changed his position for the worse.
"It's especially appalling that he is citing his religious beliefs as grounds for his public government position on the civil marriage issue because he knows better," Kors said. "
These are just partial excerpts from a really intelligent piece on President Obama's evolution on marriage equality. Be sure to read this entire article by clicking here.
Another Tea Party
by Carlos T. Mock, MD
January 30, 2009
I voted for Barack Obama as the lesser of two evils. As an openly Gay activist I had serious doubts about his candidacy because Mr. Obama was against the most fundamental human right: same sex marriage. I was swayed by the enthusiasm of the general election and cast my vote for him on November 4, 2008. I hoped he would eventually come to terms with the our community.
Like many activists, we have been greatly disillusioned by the lack of progress on all of our issues. I get that some things take time, and the legislative process isn't always as fast as we'd like. But here's the thing—don t come begging for money when you haven't delivered on your promises.
We did our part. Yet after a year in office with super majorities, the Democratic Party has not delivered. Until they do, it seems ludicrous for them to ask for money, especially with whines about "Republican obstructionism". The obstructionism is coming within the own Democratic Party. When it gets its house in order and delivers on their promises, then that'll be different.
President Barack Obama was AWOL when it came to the marriage vote in Maine and the partnership vote in Washington.
The DNC was worse, actively working against us by sending out an email to Maine Democrats asking them to campaign for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine—instead of asking them to man phones in their home state, working for marriage equality.
Despite a supposed commitment to gay civil rights expressed in the DNC platform and by the Obama campaign and administration, there has been relative silence on our issues.
What the DNC has failed to realize is that they have serious problems with the left—gay rights movements included—that they have failed to address. Their troubles are coming from both sides and they are not even aware of it.
Until I see results, my wallet is close. And the left throws a better Tea party than the right! If you don’t believe me ask the people from Massachusetts!
Close The Gay ATM Machine To DNC!
By David Mixner
Copyright by By David Mixner
Feb 4 2010
http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/02/-close-the-gay-atm-machine-to-dnc.html?ut
m_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DavidMixnerCom+%28D
avidMixner.com%29
Party democrat As if we needed more reasons not to give to the Democratic
National Committee (DNC), Ben Smith of Politico.com gave us yet another one.
Turns out the DNC recently gave Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) over $500,000 to pay
for ads for his re-election. Nelson stands against the LGBT community at
every opportunity. Not only that, but he was also a major reason we are in
the current health care situation. We don't need to be financing Democrats
who act like Republicans. Why in the world would we give money to the DNC so
it frees up their funds to give to Blue Dog Democrats? Don't budge and
continue to only give money directly to candidates who are for full equality
including marriage equality.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 12:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home