Libya -- The First Act

Well, good news from Libya today. But, just as you can't judge the outcome of a theatrical play by its first act, you can't judge the success (or failure) of a military action by the completion of its first phase.

After all, if we were to judge the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by the completion of their first acts (the fall of Saddam, the ouster of the Taliban) they would be viewed as rousing successes. But no, it was the mess of problems that came in the Act II to follow that we're now trying to resolve in the never-ending Act Three that forms the basis of how we view these conflicts.

Obama can claim a good First Act in Libya. What follows will be much more difficult to navigate. I'll see how well (or not) he does that before passing judgment on the soundness of his decisions to jump to the rebels' defense.

But I will note one remarkable thing that I think is under-appreciated. On Friday, U.S., English and French patrols over Libya were joined by planes from Qatar and the UAE. There aren't many of them and apparently they won't take part in combat operations. But last year who could have predicted that the West would be joined by the East to oppose the actions of an Arab leader? This is, possibly, a shift from the West vs. East narrative of the Bush years and a real transformative moment. If so, this is one hell of a first act.

The DADT Debacle

I suppose I should be most pissed off at Sen. John McCain, but I take some comfort from the fact that he will be remembered by history for his craven bigotry.

But it's our "friends" who deserve the most of our ire, from Sen. Harry Reid for sabotaging the earlier effort to repeal DADT, to gay rights groups splitting over DADT repeal, to Barack Obama for never intending to do anything to advance gay equality, despite his promises, posturing and posing with gay advocates in the East Room.

This passage, from "The Promise," by Jonathan Alter, makes it clear that President Fierce Advocate never intended to do anything. At an transition meeting before the inauguration, Alter tells how Rahm Emanuel laid out the administrations priorities and instructed that there were to be "no distractions:"

"The 'no distractions' theme would be critical to shaping 2009. It meant that divisive issues requiring the approval of Congress like...repealing the ban on gays in the military would all be set aside temporarily while Democrats focused on Obama's first tier agenda." (Page 79)

Got that LGBT folk? We're a "distraction," and on the back burner. Gay equality? Sorry, the prez has more important things to do. He can't be bothered.

And now, with more Republicans in Congress, Obama will never get to this "second tier" or "third tier" or wherever we fall in importance on Obama's priority list.

I'm looking forward to the 2012 Democratic primaries.

The President's India Trip

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Batshit Crazy) says the President is taking a 2,000 person "entourage" to India and that they are taking 870 rooms at the five-star Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. I guess they're doubling up -- with 2,000 people and 870 rooms that's 2.3 persons per room. I wonder who gets to bunk with Hillary? Wouldn't it be kind of fun to have your cell phone ring at 3 a.m. ?"Hillary, wake up! It's for you!"

Since the right is relying on "Internet sources" to spread this BS, I'll respond with a fact from Wikipedia:

The Taj has only 565 rooms.

3.5 people a room?

Log Cabin Republicans 1; Obama, 0 in DADT Repeal

In this topsy-turvey political season, things just got a little topsy-turveyer. The Log Cabin Republicans have succesffuly (for now) ended DADT while the Obama Fierce Advocate Administration will apparently fight that decision.

When justice rolls down like waters Obama wants to build a dam.

Not a Photo Op

I get the sense from this picture that Gen. McChrystal and US Ambassador Eikenberry were having a real, serious discussion with the commander-in-chief. This wasn't a "Heckuva job, McChrystal" event. The adults are in charge. Thank God.

The Rhetoric of Obama

Jonathan Bernstein has an interesting analysis of rhetorical themes that have showed up in the president's recent speeches on health care reform (At least, interesting to someone like me who once had aspirations of being a presidential speechwriter. Those aspirations dried up on a November night in 1992).

But it is interesting stuff as Bernstein tries to get a sense of Obama's inner moral and political compass from his rhetoric. And the comments provide some insight, particularly this one from someone from Canada:

Two years ago, I felt that the difference between the three democratic frontrunners could be summed up like this: John Edwards wanted to reform the economy, Hillary Clinton wanted to reform society, and Barak Obama wanted to reform politics. I am still not sure whether people who voted for Obama necessarily understood or supported what he wanted to do, but he took this has a mandate and, inch by inch, he is doing it. He sincerely believes that Americans can do anything they want to do -- "Yes, we can" is the essence of his being. In the end, if he CAN reform American politics, then society and the economy will follow. The Teabaggers who are so opposed to him call him names like fascist and communist because they don't know WHAT to call him, but in some visceral way they recognize what the progressives so far have not -- that Obama actually is aiming to change the way politics is being practiced in America, creating a significant, non-partisan, forward-looking change in how American democracy functions. This is terribly threatening to some on both the right and the left, who are too comfortable with the existing system.

White House Social Secretary Calls it Quits

This is not that much of a surprise. In a statement, the Obama's said:

"We are enormously grateful to Desiree Rogers for the terrific job she's done as the White House Social Secretary," the president and first lady said in a statement. "When she took this position, we asked Desiree to help make sure that the White House truly is the People's House..."

Mission Accomplished, to borrow a phrase. During her tenure, why, they'd let anybody into the White House

The Party of We Can't Be Serious

The GOP spin coming out of the House GOP's meeting with Obama is "He said we have proposals! He's read them! He likes us, he really likes us!"

Okay, maybe not that last part. But almost.

We're not the "Party of No" they want to say.

But having policy proposals and the sincerity and seriousness to stand by them if it means ceding political ground to the President is another matter.

Dana Milbank:

A month ago, a bipartisan group of senators asked Obama for his "strong support" for a commission to solve the national debt crisis. "We don't recommend this special process lightly," they wrote, calling it "the best way to reach a lasting bipartisan solution that will put our nation back on a sound long-term fiscal path."

One of the signatories, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), issued a news release trumpeting his sponsorship of the legislation. "Now is the time," he proclaimed.

Obama agreed and gave the idea his backing. When the measure reached the Senate floor on Tuesday last, four of the Republican Senators who had sponsored it -- including the aptly named Crapo -- voted against it.

They can't be serious.

Obama and the House Republicans

I was feeling pretty good about Obama's performance with the House Republicans, but wondered how the other side felt. So this morning I clicked over to the National Republican Congressional Committee site to see what they had to say.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Hmm.

Well, they were taking the president to task for not listening to their ideas. So I clicked over to their news release page to see what policy ideas they were offering.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

On the page were a series of releases trumpeting bad economic news, bad poll numbers about the stimulus bill (didn't that happen a year ago?). The only positive news on the page was about Republican prospects in the 2010 election.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, I thought. So I glanced back at the top navigation bar. There must be a section for "Issues."

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Nothing about how House Republicans propose ending two wars, reducing the deficit or creating jobs.

Every time I look for evidence the GOP offers serious governing alternatives to the Democrats?

Noting. Nada. Zip.

First Lady's Guests Tonight to Include Out Gay Businessman

According to TPM, sitting with Michelle Obama during tonight's SOTU will be Trevor Yager, who has a partner of seven years, with whom he is trying to adopt a baby. Is this the first time an openly gay man has been part of the First Lady's official guests during the SOTU?

Here are the full details:

Trevor Yager (Indianapolis, IN)

Trevor Yager began his career in 1995 while in college by founding TrendyMinds, a full-service advertising/public relations firm. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from Anderson University and went on to work with various motor sports sponsors, team owners and sanctioning bodies. Today, at TrendyMinds, Yager provides strategic planning, business development, marketing and technology guidance and support to various local, national and international clients. In 2009 the agency grew by more than 200 percent, doubled the number of employees and gained 15 new accounts. Yager credits President Obama's welcoming climate for small businesses, including the many initiatives under the Recovery Act, for this success.

He is also passionate about helping non-profits and TrendyMinds is committed to giving back to the community by donating in-kind services to organizations throughout Indiana.

Yager resides in Indianapolis with his partner of seven years, Tyler Murray. The two have recently started the process of adoption and look forward to adding a new member to their family.

If Coakley Loses

We can kiss any chance of DADT repeal this year goodbye. Perhaps for the rest of Obama's first term. Democrats will be too shell-shocked to take a chance on something as potentially so controversial. That may be the case even if Coakley manages to pull it off.

The Liberal Reagan?

Some bloggers, notably the one at the other end of Euclid Street, has argued that Obama is the liberal version of Reagan. Great communicator, transformative, all of that.

I don't know about that. But it does look like he is Reagan in at least one way. The Gipper gave great lip service to the religious right but didn't actually do a lot to further their social agenda.

Obama has made great statements on gay civil rights. But hasn't actually done much -- if anything -- to enact them.

Good Grief! Obama Hates Charlie Brown

Obama's speech tonight has bumped the annual Charlie Brown Christmas Special, which prompted this blog post. And this comment (one of the more re-printable ones):

"He wouldn't preempt a Muslim TV show."

A Detour Through Section 60

Mike Castle and Obama's Birth Certificate

Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) tells his town hall that Obama is a citizen of the U.S. and gets boos and then the crowd forces a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Hilarious.

Obama Born Outside US

Right wing whack-job Alan Keyes (I know, you thought I meant Sarah Palin there for a minute) has won a small technical victory in his case declaring Barack Obama an "illegal" president, alleging he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii (via Joe).

But even if we assume for a moment that this were true, Obama would still be eligible to be president because if I read Title 8 of the US code correctly, he is still considered a "natural born citizen" because he had one parent who was a US citizen. According to Title 8, people who are "Citizens of the United States at birth" include this:

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

This would describe Obama's situation if he were born in Kenya as Keyes delusionally thinks.

A Kinder, Gentler DADT

Is this progress?

Change we can believe in?

A Tale of Two Obamas

David Link sees two Obamas: One who bodly addresses the thorny problems of the Middle East and one who shirks from (surely less) thorny gay issues.

Gays on the Back Burner

Accepting, for the moment, that Obama is sincere in his pro-gay positions, it's clear the Administration has given absolutely no thought or had no discussions about fulfilling campaign promises to gays. They've been caught with their pants down by this uproar and have bungled just about every aspect.

We've been put on the back burner (which led to DOJs throwing us under the bus and backing over us a few times).

And why not? Where else do we have to go? No one is under any illusions that we would be better off with McCain in the White House (with the possible exception of the deranged GOPride folks). Hey, we've got a financial crisis and two wars and health care to fix -- the gays can wait. They're not going anywhere.

And if this were October, 2012, and all that transpired this past week happened then, and it was Romney and Obama on the ballot, where would our dollars and votes go? Would we sit it out?

Sometimes to be gay in America feels a bit like being a man without a country.

Obama Throws the Gays a Bone, Part II

Taking a break from writing fiction, Alan Scott writes me:

"Gay rights are a bitter pill for most people to swallow, so we have to take baby steps to turn negative public opinion to our side. I know that we are pinning a lot of hopes on Obama but sweeping changes aren't going to happen overnight. Baby steps, although frustratingly slow, are how we have to gain our freedoms. :)"

There is some doubt that this was even a step, or if it was, it was a step in place. John Arovosis claims Federal agencies already had the ability to offer these benefits. And the claim that Obama couldn't offer health benefits because of DOMA is at the least debatable because DOMA defines marriage -- not domestic partnership. And the benefits offered in the presidential memo go to domestic partners, not same sex spouses.

It may make some political sense to cheer Obama for this "step." I admit it was striking to see Frank Kameny at the President's shoulder in the Oval Office.

But my fear is that this was a cynical ploy on the part of the White House to smooth over relations with the gay community. In fact, that's what the New York Times reported:

"But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups..."

There is the growing sense that Obama's actions are the exact opposite of his words. He claims to be a "Fierce Advocate" for gay rights, but as the Washington Post notes today:

"Obama's memorandum, designed to be both incremental and pragmatic, typifies the cautious way he has approached gay issues since taking office five months ago."

Obama claims to find DOMA "abhorrent" yet allows his DOJ to advance some of the most abhorrent notions about gay people possible to defend it. Much has been made of the brief's comparison to incest, but to me the most offensive is the claim that if gay people want to marry, they can -- they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex! See, no inequality! To me, that denies our existence and our humanity -- it stands contrary to the fact that gay people require someone of the same sex to meet their physical and emotional human needs, just as straight people require someone of the opposite sex for fulfillment. It's a view that is rooted in pre-nineteenth century scholarship about homosexuality.

Finally, you say that "sweeping changes aren't going to happen overnight." But in a sense, they are -- the recent successes for same sex marriage at the state level augur for some type of sea change. But let's leave the more vexing question of marriage aside for a moment.

As Sean Bugg has been hammering home, 70 percent of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly in America's armed forces. Obama claims he will remove DADT but has taken no steps in that direction, despite the fact that a vast majority of Americans would support him on it. Even the pragmatic "incremental steps" mentioned early are absent here -- the Pentagon says there has been no talks about changing the policy and apparently there hasn't even been staff level discussions about it between the White House and Senate leadership. Apparently Obama and Sen. Harry Reid are staring at each other from opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue pointing at each other saying "you do it!"

"Fierce Advocate." Hrmph.

I'm glad every day that John McCain is not in the White House. But until I see action indicating otherwise, President Fierce Advocate is a dud on gay rights.