E-Mail Wars: DADT

I wrote this blog entry some weeks ago. Upon completion, I decided not to publish it. Since that time, new developments have brought a change of mind: Don Ask, Don't Tell has come up for a vote twice in the Senate only to be blocked by Republicans.

The video below is at the heart of this blog entry. When first I heard it, I'll admit, my blood boiled a bit, not because the speaker, Alex Nicholson spoke untruths, but because he seemed to make a conscious decision to lay the repeal of DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) squarely at the feet of the president.

I'll concede, readily, that I, too, feel that President Obama hasn't done enough, and hasn't gone far enough, to effect a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't tell, but what I'm not prepared to do is zero in on him as the prime culprit in this melodrama.

Congressional Republicans, I believe, have stonewalled the repeal, and, at least on one occasion, filibustered it. Congressional repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would have, by now, been a foregone conclusion had Republicans stepped up and voted for the repeal--the Congressional remedy, I believe, that Obama is seeking, rather going over Congress' head, or using his executive power for a quick, but not a lasting, fix, that could be easily overturned by a future hostile congress.

So it was balance that I saw missing when I listened to the exchange between Alex and Keith Olbermann. As a member of the Log Cabin Republicans group, Alex appeared downright obsessed with blaming Obama, rather than Republicans, more intent on drawing partisan lines in the discussion, rather than identifying all those who're really to blame.

Harry Reid, at the behest of Lady Gaga (who has on a number of occasions used her considerable celebrity power to advance a repeal of DADT), attached the appeal onto the Defense Authorization Bill—including the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Reid says that the repeal provision in the bill was already scheduled, and that Lady Gaga's request was not the reason why it was included.

The following information comes from Fox News' web page. It's a breakdown of how the bill fared in Congress:

massive defense spending bill that includes a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law banning gays from serving openly in the military stalled Tuesday after failing to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate.

Senate Democrats were unable to corral the 60 votes necessary to overcome Republican objections blocking the package from advancing to the floor. The bill failed in a 56-43 vote.

The vote makes it all the less likely that Congress will take any substantive action on "don't ask, don't tell" or the broader defense package before adjourning for the November midterm elections.

Had Republicans not objected, DADT would have been one step closer to being reversed, and a repeal of DADT one step closer to becoming law.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins was seen as a key 60th vote because she has voiced support for repealing "don't ask, don't tell." But she ended up opposing the bill out of concern that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid limited debate and did not give her colleagues opportunities to offer amendments.

Accusations flew after the vote. The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP organization, accused Reid of refusing to compromise. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the Republican filibuster leaves gay members of the military "forced to lie about who they are."

According to Log Cabin Republicans, DADT went down to defeat for something Harry Reid did, not something the Republican Party did. Keep this in mind as you proceed here. This outcome was another reason why I responded as I did to the interview you're about to watch below between Keith Obermann and Alex Nicholson.

After watching the video, I promptly e-mailed the Log Cabin Republicans and expressed my outrage over the partisan way that Alex had acquitted himself. After watching the video, you can read the e-mail exchange that took place between myself and Alex. Initially, I sent the e-mail to Log Cabin, and not to Alex, hoping, at the very least, that someone would relay by displeasure to him at what I saw was a partisan attempt to score political points, rather than garner broad support for a repeal of DADT.

With the background in place for a better understanding of what's to follow, I must clarify one thing first before proceeding: I'm not looking for agreement here on the position I took. If you agree, that's okay, and if you don't, that's okay. Had I availed myself of a longer cooling-off time, I probably wouldn't have voiced my objection at all.

Congressman Barney Frank, who was interviewed after Alex, saw Alex's response as partisan, too, a position that I held before Frank spoke, which he confirmed, and which prompted Alex to characterize my position as "spoon-fed," and "regurgitated."

Here's my initial e-mail to the Log Cabin Republicans:

I'm pleased with the court's recent ruling to suspend DADT. But I just listened to the plaintiff in the case and a member of your organization who used his interview to MSNBC to make the issue partisan, and to slam the president and his administration. As someone who has taken a stand with e-mails to my representatives, including the president, I'm angry as hell.

I'm a liberal. How many Republicans have stood up to end DADT? It could have been history months ago if John McCain and other Republicans had supported a repeal.

Perhaps you can justify being a Republican in light of their resistance to ending DADT, but it would be better to place the blame where it's deserved--on your own party.

Disgusted, but not surprised at how you have used DADT,


Xxx Xxxxxxx

Here's Alex' response to my response (It's getting harder to keep up with the responses.)

As someone who has dedicated five years of his life to work on repealing DADT full-time and without pay, your comments are what an objective observer would find disgusting. Despite the talking point that Barney Frank spoon-fed you and which you regurgitated in your email about my appearance, there was nothing partisan about what I said. I run a non-partisan organization, Servicemembers United (the largest gay troops and vet organization) and I simply laid out the facts. If holding up a mirror in front of you makes you see partisanship, then that should tell you something about who's really being partisan. Everyone who has commented on that interview, except for you, agreed that it was Frank that brought the party politics into it. If you REwatch the segment, I talked plainly and clearly about ALL sides that held blame. I mentioned Republicans, the Senate leadership, and the President.

I am at the epicenter of the DADT repeal fight. I'm in all the meetings with the White House, the issue leaders on Capitol Hill, leaders in the Pentagon, AND I'm at the center of the court battle as well. I, more than anyone, see with a crystal clear view what's going on with DADT and who is (and is NOT) doing what they CLAIM they support. This issue is not about McCain. He's a lost cause and he's not movable. Smart activists concentrate their time and energy on those who are movable, and especially on those who SAY they support us but are not acting on that claim. That would be, first and foremost, the President. Anyone who thinks he has done all he can to get DADT repealed is just plain crazy.

And as to your closing remark ("Disgusted, by now surprised by how you have used DADT.")... I was DISCHARGED involuntarily under DADT. DADT came to me, I didn't seek it out. Are you kidding me? You should be ashamed of yourself for such a senseless and irresponsible remark. Do your homework!

Alex Nicholson

Now, here, again, is my response to Alex responding to my response (whew!).

As someone who has dedicated five years of his life to work on repealing DADT full-time and without pay, your comments are what an objective observer would find disgusting.

You, it seems, are the one who's not an "objective observer." You're too close to the problem for that kind of clarity. Further, your political propensities color the issue with a political bias--very disturbing when you say repeal of DADT is your aim.

Despite the talking point that Barney Frank spoon-fed you and which you regurgitated in your email about my appearance, there was nothing partisan about what I said.

Clearly your objectivity has been severely compromised, and severely crippled. Barney Frank spoke eloquently for your cause, more eloquently than you, laying out the path ahead. Would you not agree were it not for Republican filibustering on this issues it would have been resolved weeks ago? It's my firm belief that you have placed politics above your stated interests.

I run a non-partisan organization, Servicemembers United (the largest gay troops and vet organization) and I simply laid out the facts. If holding up a mirror in front of you makes you see partisanship, then that should tell you something about who's really being partisan. Everyone who has commented on that interview, except for you, agreed that it was Frank that brought the party politics into it. If you REwatch the segment, I talked plainly and clearly about ALL sides that held blame. I mentioned Republicans, the Senate leadership, and the President.

Your mirror has flaws. It's distorted by biases that you have projected on me. I'm not the problem. You are! Barney Frank, like me, saw what your unstated, but manifested, intentions were during the interview. Everyone who commented, obviously, are as politically biased as you are, and are from your political neck of the woods. No surprise there, that they would run to your defense. I have no dog in this fight (I'm not gay), and can approach this issue with far more detachment than you, and a helluva lot more objectivity than those who ran to your defense.

I am at the epicenter of the DADT repeal fight. I'm in all the meetings with the White House, the issue leaders on Capitol Hill, leaders in the Pentagon, AND I'm at the center of the court battle as well. I, more than anyone, see with a crystal clear view what's going on with DADT and who is (and is NOT) doing what they CLAIM they support. This issue is not about McCain. He's a lost cause and he's not movable. Smart activists concentrate their time and energy on those who are movable, and especially on those who SAY they support us but are not acting on that claim. That would be, first and foremost, the President. Anyone who thinks he has done all he can to get DADT repealed is just plain crazy.

Smart activists would, in addition, point out all those who stand in the way, not just those who're still active in the fight--unless, of course, other considerations preclude that--such as scoring cheap political points, for example. I have supported you, and have acted consistently on that claim, but that hasn't stopped you from berating me, after I offered you my perspective on your performance. Your response--which has been more focused on maintaining a defensive posture than in retaining an ally--is further proof of your political bias, and myopic view. You know that old statement, "The enemy of my enemy...," but you clearly see all those who might criticize you as an enemy, and fodder for your customary knee-jerk reaction which is to treat them with the same heavy hand, and dismissive attitude as those opposed to your stated goals.

And as to your closing remark ("Disgusted, by now surprised by how you have used DADT.")... I was DISCHARGED involuntarily under DADT. DADT came to me, I didn't seek it out. Are you kidding me? You should be ashamed of yourself for such a senseless and irresponsible remark. Do your homework!

How condescending! How presumptuous! You have, in ways impossible for me, made my case, and proved my point. I will continue to push for an end to DADT in spite of your response, and my belief that you shouldn't be the torchbearer for the cause. You have shown yourself to be more petulant than helpful in advancing your interests. If you're on the front line battling the forces that oppose you, God help your cause--you lack civility, and the reserve required to bring people together. Further, by making DADT a partisan issues (which you did, despite protestations to the contrary), by not calling out all those who are an impediment, regardless of politics, then you do the cause a disservice, a cause that would be better served if you stood down, and allowed others who know how to "win friends and influence people" to take the lead.

Still disgusted, and now mortified,

Xxx Xxxxxxx.

No, he hasn't responded to my response, and I don't think he will. I think he realizes that e-mailing me at all with his diatribe was ill-advised, and that his e-mail could be used in the manner in which I'm now using it--giving it a broader readership than he intended, but I don't think I owe him confidentiality, since he, too, can do with what I wrote to him in anyway he sees fit.

A postscript: Alex, during the interim, has appeared on MSNBC several times since this exchange. On those occasions, he was careful to point his anger, and his frustration, to the Right as well as the Left. Who could ask for anything more?