Happy Birthday to Ice Cube, 43. The link is to the imdb page, not the All Music page...could have gone either way, but wanted to mention that I don't think I ever got around to writing a post about Three Kings, and I really should some day.
How about some good stuff:
1. Fun post by Garance Franke-Ruta on words and phrases that set off conservatives. Can't believe she missed Glenn Beck's old favorite, social justice. More ideas? A list of such words and phrases for liberals?
2. Useful update on the military post-DADT, from Pauline Jelinek. Hmmm...has anyone done a really good story comparing specific predictions from fear-mongering politicians with actual outcomes?
3. Brad DeLong (and Austin Frakt) on Mitt Romney, health care, and budgeting.
4. And a really smart Alyssa Rosenberg comment on Mad Men.
Showing posts with label DADT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DADT. Show all posts
Friday, June 15, 2012
Saturday, July 23, 2011
What Mattered This Week?
You know what mattered this week? If it happens, that is: the decision to require birth control to be covered by health insurance. That's a big one, no? If, as I said, it happens. Way farther along the line of the decision/enactment/actually happening sequence, we also had the official end of DADT, and the remnants of the overall ban on gays in the military.
Oh, yeah, there's the debt limit/deficit talks. I don't really know what to say about it...the day-to-day stuff matters a whole lot less than everyone thinks, but of course there's plenty of reality here, too. The problem is it's hard to tell, at this stage, which is which. In the sense of unexpected events that will have long-term implications, though, there's nothing obvious this week that would count. As far as anyone can tell.
What else? What do you think mattered this week?
Oh, yeah, there's the debt limit/deficit talks. I don't really know what to say about it...the day-to-day stuff matters a whole lot less than everyone thinks, but of course there's plenty of reality here, too. The problem is it's hard to tell, at this stage, which is which. In the sense of unexpected events that will have long-term implications, though, there's nothing obvious this week that would count. As far as anyone can tell.
What else? What do you think mattered this week?
Monday, March 7, 2011
Catch of the Day
A bit late, but a good one (via Yglesias): Andrew Sabl notes that Weekly Standard coverage of Harvard and ROTC (in two posts, here and here) omits the pertinent fact that the entire context for the Harvard decision was the recent repeal of DADT (and, before that, the military's ban on gays and lesbians). Sabl: "someone who read only the Standard’s version would get the idea that an effete Ivy League university, having dissed the military for no particular reason, has now climbed down."
This is what Conor Friedersdorf is always, and for good reason, railing against. I think what's necessary in this case is to imagine the "someone" Sabl suggests. Think of a smart, conservative college student, maybe even a high school student, who is just starting to learn about politics and government. And -- good for him! -- he wants to read more, and he's turning, sensibly, to places like the Weekly Standard and the National Review. Well, it would also be sensible to start by reading a major newspaper...but of course he's been told ever since he started paying attention that The New York Times is hopelessly biased and, essentially, full of lies.
Of course, the problem is that our smart young student really won't know that the elite college fight with ROTC really was based on specific issues (in recent decades, discrimination based on sexual orientation) and not on general hatred of the military or lack of patriotism. He really won't know.
In my view, the harm being done here is almost completely to conservatives, not liberals.
This is what Conor Friedersdorf is always, and for good reason, railing against. I think what's necessary in this case is to imagine the "someone" Sabl suggests. Think of a smart, conservative college student, maybe even a high school student, who is just starting to learn about politics and government. And -- good for him! -- he wants to read more, and he's turning, sensibly, to places like the Weekly Standard and the National Review. Well, it would also be sensible to start by reading a major newspaper...but of course he's been told ever since he started paying attention that The New York Times is hopelessly biased and, essentially, full of lies.
Of course, the problem is that our smart young student really won't know that the elite college fight with ROTC really was based on specific issues (in recent decades, discrimination based on sexual orientation) and not on general hatred of the military or lack of patriotism. He really won't know.
In my view, the harm being done here is almost completely to conservatives, not liberals.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
A DADT Question
Steve Benen has a fine item ridiculing the "shower issue" when it comes to DADT repeal implementation. He's right of course; the people pushing this stuff are dead-enders, and this fight is over (most likely explanation: there's still money to be made by doing one more round of scare stories/fundraising pitches; the fight is over, but that doesn't mean easily-duped donors know that, and the people who make a living parting them from their money aren't going to tell them).
Anyway, Benen refers to DADT as a 17 year policy, but of course DADT was a replacement for an absolute ban an gays and lesbians in the military. Bill Clinton had pledged to repeal that ban when he was running for president in 1992, and DADT was adopted as part of his defeat on that issue.
I think generally liberals believe, and believed at the time, that the fight in 1993 was a total defeat. As it turned out, the implementation of DADT, if I recall correctly, resulted in a much more aggressive effort to drive gays and lesbians out of the armed forces; in other words, for actual gay and lesbian troops, things got worse. But Bill Clinton presented the new policy as a compromise, and I'm not entirely sure he was wrong.
So here's my question: did the shift from the ban to DADT help the fight to achieve the original goal of ending the ban? Putting aside the issue of implementation (for which I don't think those affected can forgive Bill Clinton, unless I have the facts of the situation wrong), and assuming that the votes just weren't there in 1993 for Clinton to win on the issue, was accepting DADT better than just continuing the status quo? I think there's a case to be made, but I'm really not sure...I can see a case that it made no difference, or a case that it was worse than nothing. Anyone have an argument one way or another?
Anyway, Benen refers to DADT as a 17 year policy, but of course DADT was a replacement for an absolute ban an gays and lesbians in the military. Bill Clinton had pledged to repeal that ban when he was running for president in 1992, and DADT was adopted as part of his defeat on that issue.
I think generally liberals believe, and believed at the time, that the fight in 1993 was a total defeat. As it turned out, the implementation of DADT, if I recall correctly, resulted in a much more aggressive effort to drive gays and lesbians out of the armed forces; in other words, for actual gay and lesbian troops, things got worse. But Bill Clinton presented the new policy as a compromise, and I'm not entirely sure he was wrong.
So here's my question: did the shift from the ban to DADT help the fight to achieve the original goal of ending the ban? Putting aside the issue of implementation (for which I don't think those affected can forgive Bill Clinton, unless I have the facts of the situation wrong), and assuming that the votes just weren't there in 1993 for Clinton to win on the issue, was accepting DADT better than just continuing the status quo? I think there's a case to be made, but I'm really not sure...I can see a case that it made no difference, or a case that it was worse than nothing. Anyone have an argument one way or another?
Saturday, December 18, 2010
What Mattered This Week?
No shortage, right?
Final action on the tax deal was obviously pretty important, certainly substantively, and probably politically as well. And, today, we had cloture (and, soon, final passage) of DADT repeal.
Both of these, by the way, fit nicely into "what mattered this week." These were not inevitable events that finally happened to take place over the last seven days; one week ago, neither of these was at all certain. Two weeks ago, they were totally up in the air.
Both, of course, add to the record of the historic 111th Congress. A couple of other things about DADT. One is that I'd want to emphasize that this wasn't a done deal until very late in the game. Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, and others deserve quite a bit of credit for this one; I do think that the way this was done, with as much of a public buy-in by the military as possible, really did make a potentially tough vote a much easier one for a large chunk of the Senate. Of course, that's on the politician end; lots of activists, of course, worked hard for years to put this high on the Democrats' agenda.
The second is a fairly obvious point, I guess, but it's worth saying: this issue will now promptly go away, entirely. Oh, we'll have a bit of reporting on implementation, but seriously: does anyone think that Republicans are going to run in 2012 on re-instating DADT? Or, even less plausibly, on re-instating the ban that DADT replaced? Forget it. It's possible to believe that a DADT vote could be used in a GOP primary down the road, but it's utterly implausible to believe that the policy would ever be revived, no matter what happens in the 2012 (or any future cycle) elections.
So, that's some of what mattered this week. What do you have?
Final action on the tax deal was obviously pretty important, certainly substantively, and probably politically as well. And, today, we had cloture (and, soon, final passage) of DADT repeal.
Both of these, by the way, fit nicely into "what mattered this week." These were not inevitable events that finally happened to take place over the last seven days; one week ago, neither of these was at all certain. Two weeks ago, they were totally up in the air.
Both, of course, add to the record of the historic 111th Congress. A couple of other things about DADT. One is that I'd want to emphasize that this wasn't a done deal until very late in the game. Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, and others deserve quite a bit of credit for this one; I do think that the way this was done, with as much of a public buy-in by the military as possible, really did make a potentially tough vote a much easier one for a large chunk of the Senate. Of course, that's on the politician end; lots of activists, of course, worked hard for years to put this high on the Democrats' agenda.
The second is a fairly obvious point, I guess, but it's worth saying: this issue will now promptly go away, entirely. Oh, we'll have a bit of reporting on implementation, but seriously: does anyone think that Republicans are going to run in 2012 on re-instating DADT? Or, even less plausibly, on re-instating the ban that DADT replaced? Forget it. It's possible to believe that a DADT vote could be used in a GOP primary down the road, but it's utterly implausible to believe that the policy would ever be revived, no matter what happens in the 2012 (or any future cycle) elections.
So, that's some of what mattered this week. What do you have?
Saturday, December 11, 2010
What Mattered This Week?
OK, this feature is not really needed this time around: I certainly do believe that the tax cut deal mattered. Anyone want to argue the other way?
I don't think that any of yesterday's festivities (Bernie Sanders holding forth on the Senate floor, Bill Clinton in the White House briefing room) were all that important, although they were good fun for political junkies. But the overall deal -- yup, that's a big deal.
We also had action on DADT, DREAM, and to a lesser degree on New START, although I don't believe that any of the shuffling this week either killed those measures or put them over the top. Hard to believe that all three will survive at this point, but there should be time for at least one of them -- more than one, and perhaps three, if Harry Reid and the Democrats use every possible hour remaining. And if they have the votes -- DADT certainly does, but I'm not sure about the other two.
What else? What do you think mattered this week?
I don't think that any of yesterday's festivities (Bernie Sanders holding forth on the Senate floor, Bill Clinton in the White House briefing room) were all that important, although they were good fun for political junkies. But the overall deal -- yup, that's a big deal.
We also had action on DADT, DREAM, and to a lesser degree on New START, although I don't believe that any of the shuffling this week either killed those measures or put them over the top. Hard to believe that all three will survive at this point, but there should be time for at least one of them -- more than one, and perhaps three, if Harry Reid and the Democrats use every possible hour remaining. And if they have the votes -- DADT certainly does, but I'm not sure about the other two.
What else? What do you think mattered this week?
Thursday, December 9, 2010
DADT 2 -- And How Information Flows Have Really Changed Things
OK, after reading Greg Sargent's reporting, and tweets from Joe Lieberman saying that he and Susan Collins have a stand-alone bill and that Harry Reid has committed to bring it to the floor during this session (although, so far, we don't have confirmation about when that will happen compared to when the Senate will adjourn), I think I have a better guess about Reid's thinking -- and, more appropriately for this blog perhaps, a bit of speculation about what this process has told us about Congress in the present information age.
First, what's happening.
Again, this is guesswork based on the above information, but it seems that what's happening isn't that Reid is giving up on DADT repeal; he's giving up on the strategy of bundling it with the Defense Authorization bill. At this point, the problem is that he can't realistically take up the larger bill without allowing any amendments at all...that's just not done. And once it's opened at all to amendments, then he's convinced that determined Republican supporters of DADT could drag it out, even if cloture passes every time its needed.
On the other hand, a stand-alone repeal bill could be brought up and, with 60 determined votes, avoid any amendments at all, thus radically reducing the necessary floor time. (Actual floor time required would consist, if I have this right, on post-cloture time on a motion to proceed and then post-cloture time on a motion to bring the bill to a final vote; both motions would need time to ripen, but that doesn't tie up the Senate floor).
Now, whether the new plan will work depends on whether Harry Reid and the Democrats (and House Democrats) are willing to stick around and do it. That, we don't yet know. It may depend, too, on how quickly the tax bill and any other business can be finished. And perhaps Republicans will be able to throw up enough roadblocks to run out the clock, after all.
Meanwhile, the original advantages of bundling repeal with the Defense Authorization bill turned out to have been a flop, or at least half a flop. The idea behind it was always that marginal Senators would be afraid to vote "against the troops" and would therefore vote for the larger bill even if they didn't want to vote for DADT repeal -- and that other Senators who may have wanted DADT repeal but didn't want to vote for it would be spared a separate vote. Perhaps that's worked with some marginal Democrats (all Dems but Manchin voted yes today), but it certainly didn't work with Republicans.
And here's where I think this process is telling us something. Under current conditions, it sure seems to me that this particular kind of procedural trick is useless. No one can "sneak" a vote through. In particular, that's the case for partisan information flows. If GOP-aligned media sources said that Dick Lugar, or Scott Brown, or other Republican Senators were betraying their party by voting in favor of the Defense Authorization bill, then Republican activists in their states would hear about it and know about it, and it might well spark a primary challenge. Once upon a time, Members of Congress could cast these sorts of confusing votes and assume that the only person they had to worry about was the Washington correspondent(s) of their local paper(s). Now, those Washington correspondents are gone, but there's a whole internet (not to mention lots of paid lobbyists, think tankers, and others) watching everything, and transmitting the information relatively efficiently to party activists.
(For that matter, once upon a time Congress used "teller" votes rather than recorded votes in most cases, and unless the reporter happened to be in the untelevised chamber at the time there was no way of knowing how anyone voted).
Now, that doesn't mean that logrolling is no longer viable; there are still plenty of issues that no one is going to care about unless partisans get pumped up about them. But it does mean that for high-profile issues like DADT, it probably matters a whole lot less how they're packaged. We can't be sure; it's possible that bundling the two together did win the votes of some marginal Democrats -- who now, having voted for it, will presumably stay for it in stand-alone form. But odds are that the whole clever strategy was a full waste of time.
First, what's happening.
Again, this is guesswork based on the above information, but it seems that what's happening isn't that Reid is giving up on DADT repeal; he's giving up on the strategy of bundling it with the Defense Authorization bill. At this point, the problem is that he can't realistically take up the larger bill without allowing any amendments at all...that's just not done. And once it's opened at all to amendments, then he's convinced that determined Republican supporters of DADT could drag it out, even if cloture passes every time its needed.
On the other hand, a stand-alone repeal bill could be brought up and, with 60 determined votes, avoid any amendments at all, thus radically reducing the necessary floor time. (Actual floor time required would consist, if I have this right, on post-cloture time on a motion to proceed and then post-cloture time on a motion to bring the bill to a final vote; both motions would need time to ripen, but that doesn't tie up the Senate floor).
Now, whether the new plan will work depends on whether Harry Reid and the Democrats (and House Democrats) are willing to stick around and do it. That, we don't yet know. It may depend, too, on how quickly the tax bill and any other business can be finished. And perhaps Republicans will be able to throw up enough roadblocks to run out the clock, after all.
Meanwhile, the original advantages of bundling repeal with the Defense Authorization bill turned out to have been a flop, or at least half a flop. The idea behind it was always that marginal Senators would be afraid to vote "against the troops" and would therefore vote for the larger bill even if they didn't want to vote for DADT repeal -- and that other Senators who may have wanted DADT repeal but didn't want to vote for it would be spared a separate vote. Perhaps that's worked with some marginal Democrats (all Dems but Manchin voted yes today), but it certainly didn't work with Republicans.
And here's where I think this process is telling us something. Under current conditions, it sure seems to me that this particular kind of procedural trick is useless. No one can "sneak" a vote through. In particular, that's the case for partisan information flows. If GOP-aligned media sources said that Dick Lugar, or Scott Brown, or other Republican Senators were betraying their party by voting in favor of the Defense Authorization bill, then Republican activists in their states would hear about it and know about it, and it might well spark a primary challenge. Once upon a time, Members of Congress could cast these sorts of confusing votes and assume that the only person they had to worry about was the Washington correspondent(s) of their local paper(s). Now, those Washington correspondents are gone, but there's a whole internet (not to mention lots of paid lobbyists, think tankers, and others) watching everything, and transmitting the information relatively efficiently to party activists.
(For that matter, once upon a time Congress used "teller" votes rather than recorded votes in most cases, and unless the reporter happened to be in the untelevised chamber at the time there was no way of knowing how anyone voted).
Now, that doesn't mean that logrolling is no longer viable; there are still plenty of issues that no one is going to care about unless partisans get pumped up about them. But it does mean that for high-profile issues like DADT, it probably matters a whole lot less how they're packaged. We can't be sure; it's possible that bundling the two together did win the votes of some marginal Democrats -- who now, having voted for it, will presumably stay for it in stand-alone form. But odds are that the whole clever strategy was a full waste of time.
DADT
(Updated below)
I'm afraid I can't help anyone understand what's up with Harry Reid pushing a vote on the Defense Authorization bill, including DADT repeal, that he knew was going to fail, despite what appeared to be continuing good faith negotiations with moderate Republican Senators.
What Greg Sargent had been reporting is that Susan Collins was negotiating for has been more time to debate the bill, more amendments, and, as Senatus tweeted, GOP freedom to offer the amendments they wanted. It seemed, yesterday, that they were moving towards an agreement -- and it seems on the face of it that such an agreement is possible -- but then, for unknown reasons, Reid brought the bill to the floor. Or, to be more precise, tried unsuccessfully to bring it to the floor. It was defeated, with Republicans who have said that they want to vote for repeal opposing Reid's motion.
As I write this, no one seems to have an explanation for why Reid brought this to the floor today, or what his next step on the bill might be. As I said earlier today, there's still plenty of time to do this one. Does Reid believe that Republicans were not negotiating in good faith, so there was no point in going forward? Is there some particular amendment that Reid is trying to prevent from being offered in order to protect Democratic Senators? Is he planning multiple votes? Did he think that when push came to shove they would vote with him, and it didn't work? I'm a little baffled.
UPDATE:
OK, Greg Sargent continues his terrific reporting on this, but I'm still baffled. Sargent:
Meanwhile, Mark Udall just went to the Senate floor and said he'd like to see either another bite at this, or an attempt to bring back DADT as a standalone bill. Reid's office apparently believes that, too, could be blocked, but I'm not really sure why they believe that, if there are really 60 votes for it and, say, ten calendar days remain after the rest of their business gets done.
I'm afraid I can't help anyone understand what's up with Harry Reid pushing a vote on the Defense Authorization bill, including DADT repeal, that he knew was going to fail, despite what appeared to be continuing good faith negotiations with moderate Republican Senators.
What Greg Sargent had been reporting is that Susan Collins was negotiating for has been more time to debate the bill, more amendments, and, as Senatus tweeted, GOP freedom to offer the amendments they wanted. It seemed, yesterday, that they were moving towards an agreement -- and it seems on the face of it that such an agreement is possible -- but then, for unknown reasons, Reid brought the bill to the floor. Or, to be more precise, tried unsuccessfully to bring it to the floor. It was defeated, with Republicans who have said that they want to vote for repeal opposing Reid's motion.
As I write this, no one seems to have an explanation for why Reid brought this to the floor today, or what his next step on the bill might be. As I said earlier today, there's still plenty of time to do this one. Does Reid believe that Republicans were not negotiating in good faith, so there was no point in going forward? Is there some particular amendment that Reid is trying to prevent from being offered in order to protect Democratic Senators? Is he planning multiple votes? Did he think that when push came to shove they would vote with him, and it didn't work? I'm a little baffled.
UPDATE:
OK, Greg Sargent continues his terrific reporting on this, but I'm still baffled. Sargent:
The aide rejected the claim that Reid should have extended the session another week in order to accomodate GOP procedural demands, as Joe Lieberman and others had asked, arguing that extended debate would actually have dragged the session into January, what with other things on the Senate to-do list.Read the whole thing. It's good reporting, but I still don't understand Reid's thinking. Yes, Republicans could have dragged things out until January...but so what, if ultimately it gets done before the clock runs out? And what exactly is the downside if they try and just can't quite finish?
Meanwhile, Mark Udall just went to the Senate floor and said he'd like to see either another bite at this, or an attempt to bring back DADT as a standalone bill. Reid's office apparently believes that, too, could be blocked, but I'm not really sure why they believe that, if there are really 60 votes for it and, say, ten calendar days remain after the rest of their business gets done.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
What Mattered This Week
Not, I should think, the deficit commission. I can see an argument for the DADT report; although it's not exactly a surprise. Wikileaks? Continuing trouble in Korea? The jobs report? Net neutrality? I don't know -- what do you think mattered this week?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Stapling machine, Mr Clarke
John McCain is an embarrassment:
Forget about civilian control of the military, and forget about the specific issue of DADT: does John McCain believe in in any notion of basic command structure?
The guy is lucky he didn't get hooted out of public life after his raw bigotry in the 2008 town hall debate. He's a disgrace.
We send these young people into combat, we think they’re mature enough to fight and die. I think they’re mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness.Does he really believe that? Does he really believe that troops should get to choose who they want to serve with?
Forget about civilian control of the military, and forget about the specific issue of DADT: does John McCain believe in in any notion of basic command structure?
The guy is lucky he didn't get hooted out of public life after his raw bigotry in the 2008 town hall debate. He's a disgrace.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Let It Roll?
I'm coming around to Ezra Klein's thinking on how Democrats should proceed on the tax cuts. Klein said that the Dems should go ahead and extend everything, but package it with UI and a debt ceiling extension. I think he might be right, but only if they go whole hog, which means adding whatever else the Democrats want to pass in this Congress, beginning with DADT repeal.
I know they put repeal on the defense bill, but that is perhaps too clever by half; it's a must-pass for Democrats as well as Republicans, so it doesn't really give the Dems as much leverage as they might have thought. But Democrats would certainly be willing to bluff that they'll let the tax cut bill go down over DADT, no? Seems like the perfect vehicle -- Democrats would be able to claim they support the tax cuts, and that Republicans are blocking tax cuts because of their (highly unpopular) obsession with gays and lesbians.
Basically, I see two reasonable paths for the Dems in how to package votes in the lame duck session moving forward. One is that they could tough it out on taxes. No question but that the Democratic position polls well, and perhaps they might have the votes to get it done -- or at least put the Republicans in a position to spike it in the Senate. The other path is to surrender in some way on taxes (three year extension on everything, for example), and then toss everything else Democrats want onto that bill.
Which one is the better path? I'm really not sure. It depends in part on whether the Democrats actually have the votes to pass their preferred tax plan. It also depends, if they don't have the votes there, whether they actually care about the possibility of passing no tax bill at all. If they're willing to take that risk, however, it may make sense to give it a try.
I know they put repeal on the defense bill, but that is perhaps too clever by half; it's a must-pass for Democrats as well as Republicans, so it doesn't really give the Dems as much leverage as they might have thought. But Democrats would certainly be willing to bluff that they'll let the tax cut bill go down over DADT, no? Seems like the perfect vehicle -- Democrats would be able to claim they support the tax cuts, and that Republicans are blocking tax cuts because of their (highly unpopular) obsession with gays and lesbians.
Basically, I see two reasonable paths for the Dems in how to package votes in the lame duck session moving forward. One is that they could tough it out on taxes. No question but that the Democratic position polls well, and perhaps they might have the votes to get it done -- or at least put the Republicans in a position to spike it in the Senate. The other path is to surrender in some way on taxes (three year extension on everything, for example), and then toss everything else Democrats want onto that bill.
Which one is the better path? I'm really not sure. It depends in part on whether the Democrats actually have the votes to pass their preferred tax plan. It also depends, if they don't have the votes there, whether they actually care about the possibility of passing no tax bill at all. If they're willing to take that risk, however, it may make sense to give it a try.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
What Mattered This Week?
The continuing debate over New START? The possible revival of DADT repeal? The evolving Democratic strategy on taxes? Sarah Palin's TV show? Ireland? I'm going to say that the budget commission stuff this week didn't matter much, but other than that, I'm open to suggestions. What do you think mattered this week?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Dogs, Not Barking
An occasional item about items that have not been in the news -- which is, therefore, newsworthy.
1. I've seen some outsider speculation about what Nancy Pelosi would do if the Democrats lose the House, but so far I don't think I've seen any actual whispers against her that seem to come from inside her caucus. As far as I can tell, she can have Minority Leader if she wants it (and my guess is that she will, especially if modest gains in 2012 would put her back in the big chair).
2. Crime bill. Remember when passing a crime bill was a major deal every even-numbered year? You wouldn't think that crime decreasing would end that, but I guess it has.
3. Combined item: Obama administration scandals/Cabinet Secretaries leaving. Haven't heard much on either count. Remember, Obama is about to be hit with a huge wave of out-of-work Democratic politicians looking for high-profile jobs (what -- you think they'll all just become slimy lobbyists?).
4. I'm less sure about this one, but...as far as I know, there aren't any gay-baiting ballot measures this fall, and I'm not hearing a lot of gay-baiting from GOP candidates this time around, whether on marriage, DADT, or whatever. If in fact that's the case, it's a significant item.
5. I always finish with the silence out of the White House on the Fairness Doctrine, but I'm sort of thinking that gun control is actually a better one. I know: both!
1. I've seen some outsider speculation about what Nancy Pelosi would do if the Democrats lose the House, but so far I don't think I've seen any actual whispers against her that seem to come from inside her caucus. As far as I can tell, she can have Minority Leader if she wants it (and my guess is that she will, especially if modest gains in 2012 would put her back in the big chair).
2. Crime bill. Remember when passing a crime bill was a major deal every even-numbered year? You wouldn't think that crime decreasing would end that, but I guess it has.
3. Combined item: Obama administration scandals/Cabinet Secretaries leaving. Haven't heard much on either count. Remember, Obama is about to be hit with a huge wave of out-of-work Democratic politicians looking for high-profile jobs (what -- you think they'll all just become slimy lobbyists?).
4. I'm less sure about this one, but...as far as I know, there aren't any gay-baiting ballot measures this fall, and I'm not hearing a lot of gay-baiting from GOP candidates this time around, whether on marriage, DADT, or whatever. If in fact that's the case, it's a significant item.
5. I always finish with the silence out of the White House on the Fairness Doctrine, but I'm sort of thinking that gun control is actually a better one. I know: both!
Saturday, September 25, 2010
What Mattered This Week?
So here's how this happened. Ezra Klein sent out a fun tweet on Thursday:
And I figured that John Sides could have said the same thing, and perhaps others, as well. Which got me thinking...of course, in neither case is it really true. Klein's a terrific blogger, and he's excellent at writing posts about things that matter but aren't being talked about all that much. I try to do the same. But I also (as we all do) focus especially on things about which I believe I have something to say that others aren't saying. It's not quite the same as "it matters/it doesn't matter." And yet that matters/doesn't matter distinction is actually a good one. On top of that, I really have been enjoying the threads coming out of my Sunday Questions (just wish I had more conservative readers who would participate, but that's how it goes, I guess).
The upshot is: I'm thinking of trying a new feature: What mattered this week? Now, it's a bit tricky...what "matters" depends on which outcomes we're interested in. Say, Barack Obama gives a major speech...it's possible that it will both not matter (to election outcomes) and matter quite a bit (in signals it sends to Washingtonians about the administrations positions on some issue). Anyway, I'm thinking of this as a question to everyone, rather than as something I want to make pronouncements about. We'll see how it goes this week. I ask the question, and suggest one answer, and then I'll toss it out to readers to see what they propose. If it produces interesting comments, I'll do it again next week Thus:
What Mattered This Week?
I think I'd say the DADT vote really does matter. It's a substantive policy issue, and the vote could have gone, I thought, either way...I've thought all along that the Democrats were going to get this one done, but now I think the odds have dropped dramatically, although it is still very possible it will happen. (By the way, I wasn't thinking of including "what didn't matter" as part of this, but even though I wrote a bunch about it, I don't think the GOP Pledge mattered much at all). But: what do you think mattered this week?
@annielowrey describes my typical blog post: "something happened, but it doesn't matter."To which I responded: "I thought that was my typical post."
And I figured that John Sides could have said the same thing, and perhaps others, as well. Which got me thinking...of course, in neither case is it really true. Klein's a terrific blogger, and he's excellent at writing posts about things that matter but aren't being talked about all that much. I try to do the same. But I also (as we all do) focus especially on things about which I believe I have something to say that others aren't saying. It's not quite the same as "it matters/it doesn't matter." And yet that matters/doesn't matter distinction is actually a good one. On top of that, I really have been enjoying the threads coming out of my Sunday Questions (just wish I had more conservative readers who would participate, but that's how it goes, I guess).
The upshot is: I'm thinking of trying a new feature: What mattered this week? Now, it's a bit tricky...what "matters" depends on which outcomes we're interested in. Say, Barack Obama gives a major speech...it's possible that it will both not matter (to election outcomes) and matter quite a bit (in signals it sends to Washingtonians about the administrations positions on some issue). Anyway, I'm thinking of this as a question to everyone, rather than as something I want to make pronouncements about. We'll see how it goes this week. I ask the question, and suggest one answer, and then I'll toss it out to readers to see what they propose. If it produces interesting comments, I'll do it again next week Thus:
What Mattered This Week?
I think I'd say the DADT vote really does matter. It's a substantive policy issue, and the vote could have gone, I thought, either way...I've thought all along that the Democrats were going to get this one done, but now I think the odds have dropped dramatically, although it is still very possible it will happen. (By the way, I wasn't thinking of including "what didn't matter" as part of this, but even though I wrote a bunch about it, I don't think the GOP Pledge mattered much at all). But: what do you think mattered this week?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
When It Was 60/Coalition Politics
Two topics here: questions about how the Democrats handled their temporary 60 seat supermajority, and some thoughts about party politics, issue advocacy, and DADT.
Kevin Drum reminds everyone of how brief that supermajority in the Senate really was:
So what did they do with that 14 weeks? Well, they moved to the health care bill just before Thanksgiving, and basically stayed on it for the rest of the year. That's five of the fourteen weeks, right there, and whatever some liberals think about the bill or the choice to put health care before climate, surely no one thinks that was wasted time.
What else did they do? Lots of routine, but important, stuff. Appropriations bills. Nominations. Those things have to be done (indeed, they didn't do enough nominations in my view), and they take time. The week that ended with cloture on the motion to proceed to health care, the Senate passed a noncontroversial veteran's bill; took a cloture and final vote on a nomination; and completed work on an appropriations bill. The week before that they did an unemployment benefits extension, the "HIRE Act" jobs bill, and more nominations. That's November. In October...I won't do it week-by-week, but it was mostly more of the same: appropriations, nominations, and earlier work on the jobs bill and unemployment extension. (I'm just looking at bills that required votes; they do process plenty of noncontroversial stuff without votes, but that's not relevant to the question of what the Dems did within their 60 vote window, although it's possible that some of the things that were passed and noncontroversial when the GOP didn't have the votes to stop them might have been blocked after the 41st Republican showed up).
Could they have scheduled a few more things? Perhaps, but not much. My biggest complaint was that they could have used their window to push through more nominations, especially once the window was in danger of closing. Large legislation, such as cap-and-trade or immigration? No way. not enough time, even if the votes were there. Smaller bills? Yes, that was possible, especially by adding those things to other bills that were going to be passed anyway. If, that is, they really had the votes. So I think complaints about DADT or DREAM Act (could have been done quickly enough as stand-alone bills or added to something else) are a lot more legitimate than complaints about comprehensive immigration or energy/climate. There just wasn't the time for those two.
Of course, the next question is whether it's reasonable to blame the Dems (or Barack Obama in particular) because they couldn't hold their last couple of votes, or because they made an error in assuming they would hold Ted Kennedy's seat and thus had plenty of time to work through their agenda. I'm a bit agnostic on this, specifically on DADT repeal. On the one hand, I thought that Obama's take-it-slow, build-a-consensus strategy was a smart one; indeed, I still think repeal is more likely by 2012 than if Obama made it a priority item in spring 2009, without doing the groundwork at the Pentagon, and lost. On the other hand, I do understand the frustration of repeal supporters. One of the dangers of coalition politics, or party politics, is that your issue will wind up further down the list of coalition priorities than you would like, and I think that's certainly the case here in a sense: surely, if DADT repeal was as important to the Democrats as passing health care or the stimulus, then it would have passed. Beyond that, things get murky...it's awful hard to know whether one's group would be better off threatening to bolt (or actually bolting), and when it's best to charge ahead and try to move up the priority list by demonstrating loyalty and the ability to bring assets to the party.
Kevin Drum reminds everyone of how brief that supermajority in the Senate really was:
Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election...there's a very limited amount you can do in the Senate in 14 weeks.Of course, the problem for the Democrats with their own disappointed constituencies is that "we only had 14 weeks" sounds pretty lame as an excuse, even if it is true. And of course another part of the problem is that the Democrats didn't realize until very late in the game that they were working under a 14 week deadline, since none of them took seriously the possibility that Republicans would win the Massachusetts Senate seat; that's to some extent their fault, but also to some extent excusable.
So what did they do with that 14 weeks? Well, they moved to the health care bill just before Thanksgiving, and basically stayed on it for the rest of the year. That's five of the fourteen weeks, right there, and whatever some liberals think about the bill or the choice to put health care before climate, surely no one thinks that was wasted time.
What else did they do? Lots of routine, but important, stuff. Appropriations bills. Nominations. Those things have to be done (indeed, they didn't do enough nominations in my view), and they take time. The week that ended with cloture on the motion to proceed to health care, the Senate passed a noncontroversial veteran's bill; took a cloture and final vote on a nomination; and completed work on an appropriations bill. The week before that they did an unemployment benefits extension, the "HIRE Act" jobs bill, and more nominations. That's November. In October...I won't do it week-by-week, but it was mostly more of the same: appropriations, nominations, and earlier work on the jobs bill and unemployment extension. (I'm just looking at bills that required votes; they do process plenty of noncontroversial stuff without votes, but that's not relevant to the question of what the Dems did within their 60 vote window, although it's possible that some of the things that were passed and noncontroversial when the GOP didn't have the votes to stop them might have been blocked after the 41st Republican showed up).
Could they have scheduled a few more things? Perhaps, but not much. My biggest complaint was that they could have used their window to push through more nominations, especially once the window was in danger of closing. Large legislation, such as cap-and-trade or immigration? No way. not enough time, even if the votes were there. Smaller bills? Yes, that was possible, especially by adding those things to other bills that were going to be passed anyway. If, that is, they really had the votes. So I think complaints about DADT or DREAM Act (could have been done quickly enough as stand-alone bills or added to something else) are a lot more legitimate than complaints about comprehensive immigration or energy/climate. There just wasn't the time for those two.
Of course, the next question is whether it's reasonable to blame the Dems (or Barack Obama in particular) because they couldn't hold their last couple of votes, or because they made an error in assuming they would hold Ted Kennedy's seat and thus had plenty of time to work through their agenda. I'm a bit agnostic on this, specifically on DADT repeal. On the one hand, I thought that Obama's take-it-slow, build-a-consensus strategy was a smart one; indeed, I still think repeal is more likely by 2012 than if Obama made it a priority item in spring 2009, without doing the groundwork at the Pentagon, and lost. On the other hand, I do understand the frustration of repeal supporters. One of the dangers of coalition politics, or party politics, is that your issue will wind up further down the list of coalition priorities than you would like, and I think that's certainly the case here in a sense: surely, if DADT repeal was as important to the Democrats as passing health care or the stimulus, then it would have passed. Beyond that, things get murky...it's awful hard to know whether one's group would be better off threatening to bolt (or actually bolting), and when it's best to charge ahead and try to move up the priority list by demonstrating loyalty and the ability to bring assets to the party.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Now Tell Me What the * Am I Supposed To Do?
Speaking of the DADT/DREAM Act vote, Greg Sargent argues:
The GOP just blocked the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell in the Senate, and the immediate conclusion to be drawn is that this is yet more proof that GOP obstructionism works brilliantly. It fires up the GOP base, while simultaneously demoralizing Dems who want their leaders to prevail despite the GOP tactics.Well, maybe. The problem is that while the Democrats are in fact losing (apparently) on this one, that hasn't always been the case, to say the least, during this Congress. When the Democrats did pass the stimulus and health care reform, the result was...a fired up GOP base, and if not a demoralized group of Democrats, at least no noticeable surge in Dem enthusiasm. Same results! While I think it's true that Republican rejectionism has prevented passage of some bills (and thus has some important substantive consequences), I'd stick with structural reasons and chronic Democratic habits to explain the effects Sargent is trying to explain. I'm really not convinced at all that rejectionism does the GOP much electoral good beyond that.
DREAM, DADT, and Majority Rule in the Senate
Last time I mentioned Brian Darling of Heritage here is was in connection with his appearance at the APSA panel on the filibuster. I was not kind. As I hinted at in that earlier post, what really bothered me is that I think there are indeed strong arguments in favor of current Senate rules, and although on balance I'm for reforming rules and procedures, I'd like both sides to make their cases without resorting to partisan bickering and nonsense.
I'm happy to report that today Darling has a much more reasonable post, pointing out the complexity of the Senate situation with regard to the Defense Authorization bill, including (or not) the DREAM immigration provision and DADT repeal. His specific complaint here is that Harry Reid planned to use procedural mechanisms available to him as Majority Leader ("filling the amendment tree") to prevent Republicans from offering popular amendments. Now, I haven't been following this particular debate closely enough to know whether Darling's complaint in this particular case has merit -- whether the fault lies more with Reid, for structuring votes to allow skittish Dems to avoid legitimate issues they would rather avoid, or with the Republicans, for filibustering everything (including some Republicans willing to filibuster measures they themselves actually support. Still, regardless of who might ultimately be at fault, it will be true that if the bill remains stuck it will only be in part because of Republican obstruction. It will also be in part because Democrats chose to fight for a configuration of provisions for which they (apparently) did not have the votes.
On the larger issue, however, I think Darling is generally correct: while the minority uses Senate rules to force supermajority votes, the majority party uses those same rules to manipulate votes as they see fit. In other words, the notion that the Senate would have some sort of pure majority rule if only the filibuster was eliminated (read as: simple majorities were needed on all votes) is incorrect. Such a Senate would not have majority rule; it would have majority party rule, which is a very different thing. One can, of course, argue that majority party rule is a good thing, but not on the grounds that the will of the Senate (defined as simple majorities) would prevail on each issue. Moreover, it's hardly the case that winning a majority in Congress, even a very large majority, means that a party has the support of the American people for each and every one of its policy initiatives. And even if both of those were the case, one might still believe that minorities should have the right to force votes on items they feel strongly about. Again, none of that to me leads to the conclusion that current Senate rules and procedures are ideal. However, both sides in my view have reasonable arguments available, and I think there's a chance that reform, when it comes, may be better if those arguments are more fully debated.
I'm happy to report that today Darling has a much more reasonable post, pointing out the complexity of the Senate situation with regard to the Defense Authorization bill, including (or not) the DREAM immigration provision and DADT repeal. His specific complaint here is that Harry Reid planned to use procedural mechanisms available to him as Majority Leader ("filling the amendment tree") to prevent Republicans from offering popular amendments. Now, I haven't been following this particular debate closely enough to know whether Darling's complaint in this particular case has merit -- whether the fault lies more with Reid, for structuring votes to allow skittish Dems to avoid legitimate issues they would rather avoid, or with the Republicans, for filibustering everything (including some Republicans willing to filibuster measures they themselves actually support. Still, regardless of who might ultimately be at fault, it will be true that if the bill remains stuck it will only be in part because of Republican obstruction. It will also be in part because Democrats chose to fight for a configuration of provisions for which they (apparently) did not have the votes.
On the larger issue, however, I think Darling is generally correct: while the minority uses Senate rules to force supermajority votes, the majority party uses those same rules to manipulate votes as they see fit. In other words, the notion that the Senate would have some sort of pure majority rule if only the filibuster was eliminated (read as: simple majorities were needed on all votes) is incorrect. Such a Senate would not have majority rule; it would have majority party rule, which is a very different thing. One can, of course, argue that majority party rule is a good thing, but not on the grounds that the will of the Senate (defined as simple majorities) would prevail on each issue. Moreover, it's hardly the case that winning a majority in Congress, even a very large majority, means that a party has the support of the American people for each and every one of its policy initiatives. And even if both of those were the case, one might still believe that minorities should have the right to force votes on items they feel strongly about. Again, none of that to me leads to the conclusion that current Senate rules and procedures are ideal. However, both sides in my view have reasonable arguments available, and I think there's a chance that reform, when it comes, may be better if those arguments are more fully debated.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
On Joementum, 2010
I haven't commented yet on the news that Joe Lieberman is carrying the bill to repeal DADT.
For all of those who were upset that the Democrats didn't throw Holy Joe out of their caucus at various points of the last year: do you get it now?
Yes, Joe Lieberman is a very annoying Senator, by all accounts, and certainly (well, I suppose I should say in my opinion) in his public persona.
But kick Holy Joe out, and:
He wouldn't have voted for the stimulus, whihc passed with one vote to spare.
He certainly wouldn't have walked for miles in the snow to vote for health care reform, which is alive now because it made it through the Senate with no votes to spare.
And one can never know, but I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't be taking a leadership role in DADT repeal, which in my opinion at least is very helpful to that cause.
All that, because Harry Reid and Barack Obama treated Joe Lieberman as if he was King of the World, despite liberal pressure to exile him to the other side of the aisle.
Hey, a lot of the people who were upset with Reid and Obama had never been active in politics when their side had a chance to actually get something done, and may not have realized that there's more to it than just winning elections. Consider it a useful lesson: sometimes, Congressional leaders, presidents, and White House staff actually know what they're doing. Not always, of course (I'd never say to just assume that Obama or anyone else in office Knows Best), but sometimes, they really do, and it's generally a good idea, especially for activists, to try to understand why things are happening.
For all of those who were upset that the Democrats didn't throw Holy Joe out of their caucus at various points of the last year: do you get it now?
Yes, Joe Lieberman is a very annoying Senator, by all accounts, and certainly (well, I suppose I should say in my opinion) in his public persona.
But kick Holy Joe out, and:
He wouldn't have voted for the stimulus, whihc passed with one vote to spare.
He certainly wouldn't have walked for miles in the snow to vote for health care reform, which is alive now because it made it through the Senate with no votes to spare.
And one can never know, but I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't be taking a leadership role in DADT repeal, which in my opinion at least is very helpful to that cause.
All that, because Harry Reid and Barack Obama treated Joe Lieberman as if he was King of the World, despite liberal pressure to exile him to the other side of the aisle.
Hey, a lot of the people who were upset with Reid and Obama had never been active in politics when their side had a chance to actually get something done, and may not have realized that there's more to it than just winning elections. Consider it a useful lesson: sometimes, Congressional leaders, presidents, and White House staff actually know what they're doing. Not always, of course (I'd never say to just assume that Obama or anyone else in office Knows Best), but sometimes, they really do, and it's generally a good idea, especially for activists, to try to understand why things are happening.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Textbook
I've found that one of the hardest things to teach is the idea that executive branch departments and agencies are constitutionally and practically separated from the president -- that they respond to the president, but also to Congress, to interest groups, and to their own bureaucratic impulses. When I teach Neustadt, students understand right away that the president cannot give orders to Congress or foreign powers and expect them to be followed...but they are quite resistant to the idea that the same goes for the EPA or the Department of Energy.
Or, in this week's big story, the Department of Defense. DADT repeal may have majority support out there in the country, and Obama wields unusually strong Constitutional powers with respect to the Pentagon (being Commander in Chief is a lot less useful when it comes to Justice or Agriculture). Still, the way Obama has handled repeal appears to be a perfect example of what Neustadtian persuasion, with the payoff being, first, the hearing yesterday, and then today's perfectly choreographed announcement by Colin Powell. Here's Andrew Sullivan and one of his readers, summarizing (and here's Mark Kleiman, all over this for some time now -- but he's wrong about Sullivan!). Time to quote Richard Neustadt, from Presidential Power:
Of course, DADT repeal isn't yet a fact, so we don't yet know whether Obama will emerge victorious on this one or not. But from what's been reported and from how things look so far, I think Richard Neustadt would be impressed at how the new president has handled this one.
Or, in this week's big story, the Department of Defense. DADT repeal may have majority support out there in the country, and Obama wields unusually strong Constitutional powers with respect to the Pentagon (being Commander in Chief is a lot less useful when it comes to Justice or Agriculture). Still, the way Obama has handled repeal appears to be a perfect example of what Neustadtian persuasion, with the payoff being, first, the hearing yesterday, and then today's perfectly choreographed announcement by Colin Powell. Here's Andrew Sullivan and one of his readers, summarizing (and here's Mark Kleiman, all over this for some time now -- but he's wrong about Sullivan!). Time to quote Richard Neustadt, from Presidential Power:
Not only are these "last" resorts [i.e. governing by command] less than conclusive, but they are also costly. Even though the order is assured of execution, drastic action rarely comes at bargain rates. It can be costly to the aims in whose defense it is employed. It can be costly, also, to objectives far afield.Obama could have moved quickly to implement DADT repeal, using his Commander in Chief powers to push through statutory DADT. He probably had the authority to do so. But it would have been costly. It would have been costly to the rest of his goals for equality in those areas, such as the hate laws extension and the end of the HIV ban (..."in whose defense it is employed"). And it would have increased friction between the president and the Pentagon, probably making it harder to achieve goals such as his preferred Afghanistan policy, and procurement reform. And defeat on any of these items would have made the president look weak to Washingtonians, hurting him in each of the battles he will have to or will choose to fight (..."far afield").
Of course, DADT repeal isn't yet a fact, so we don't yet know whether Obama will emerge victorious on this one or not. But from what's been reported and from how things look so far, I think Richard Neustadt would be impressed at how the new president has handled this one.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Analyst/Advocate
Lots of rumbling over the weekend about DADT, marriage, and other civil rights issues after the HRC dinner and the Washington march. The best thing I've seen about it is Mark Kleiman's piece (Drum is good, too). Kleiman argues that Obama is actively working to repeal DADT:
As an analyst, he knows it. As an advocate, he can't know it. As an advocate, Sullivan needs to do (within the bounds of ethical conduct) what he thinks is good for the positions he believes in. And, as an advocate, I think he's generally right: acting as if there's a major threat that Obama will sell out his supporters on DADT and the rest of the agenda does keep pressure on Obama to deliver. I don't think Obama intends to sell out anyone, or backtrack on any of his promises, but a quick trip to the good folks from the St. Petersburg Times will remind us that he made over 500 promises in the campaign. No, he doesn't want to sell out anyone, but he does constantly need to prioritize, and any group that was content to just sit around and wait for him to do what he said he would do is in grave danger of being placed on the permanent back burner.
I don't have any pithy way to conclude this...just that the line between analyst and advocate is a difficult one, one that all analysts have to negotiate, one way or another. Given that Sullivan is an inner-circle HOF blogger (at least if I had a vote), he's obviously found a solution that works for him.
On the issue -- I think Kleiman's correct about Obama, but I'm not sure that he's going to get a DADT bill through the Senate even with the support of as much of the military establishment as possible. I don't think Obama will "sell out" DADT opponents, but I do think there's a decent chance that he'll just lose; indeed, I think that's the correct interpretation of what happened in 1993. Now, Obama is a much more skilled president than Clinton was in 1993 (and he has the benefit of having seen how it played out then). It certainly helps him that public opinion has shifted substantially against the ban. Is that enough for Obama to win this fight? I don't know, but I fully agree that it's a tough one for him to take on.
Obama’s problem is to make the change bubble up from the services...A paper shredding the arguments for DADT, and explicitly comparing opposition to repeal to opposition to the racial integration of the armed services by Harry Truman, won a prize awarded by the Secretary of Defense and was published in the Joint Forces Quarterly. Lt. Dan Choi was invited to speak at West Point.I think all of that is correct. What's more, I think Andrew Sullivan, who is impatient with the rate of change and composed several scathing posts over the last few days (here he uses a reader letter to make the point) knows it.
As an analyst, he knows it. As an advocate, he can't know it. As an advocate, Sullivan needs to do (within the bounds of ethical conduct) what he thinks is good for the positions he believes in. And, as an advocate, I think he's generally right: acting as if there's a major threat that Obama will sell out his supporters on DADT and the rest of the agenda does keep pressure on Obama to deliver. I don't think Obama intends to sell out anyone, or backtrack on any of his promises, but a quick trip to the good folks from the St. Petersburg Times will remind us that he made over 500 promises in the campaign. No, he doesn't want to sell out anyone, but he does constantly need to prioritize, and any group that was content to just sit around and wait for him to do what he said he would do is in grave danger of being placed on the permanent back burner.
I don't have any pithy way to conclude this...just that the line between analyst and advocate is a difficult one, one that all analysts have to negotiate, one way or another. Given that Sullivan is an inner-circle HOF blogger (at least if I had a vote), he's obviously found a solution that works for him.
On the issue -- I think Kleiman's correct about Obama, but I'm not sure that he's going to get a DADT bill through the Senate even with the support of as much of the military establishment as possible. I don't think Obama will "sell out" DADT opponents, but I do think there's a decent chance that he'll just lose; indeed, I think that's the correct interpretation of what happened in 1993. Now, Obama is a much more skilled president than Clinton was in 1993 (and he has the benefit of having seen how it played out then). It certainly helps him that public opinion has shifted substantially against the ban. Is that enough for Obama to win this fight? I don't know, but I fully agree that it's a tough one for him to take on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
