Actually, no… at least thats not the official position on it. It goes more on the line of ‘unit stability’.

I was, of course, not attempting to quote or paraphrase the official position, that (open) homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

Of the various rationals offered to justify said official position, the one constant seems to be the assumption that homophobia is so prevalent in the military that it is more practical to punish the victims of it than it is to go after the homophobes. Or more bluntly, the rational is that homosexuals are to blame for homophobia.

That is why I wrote what I wrote.

I beg your pardon.

I didn’t realize that mocking the absurd fawning over the president-elect, the great Barack Hussein Obama, was beyond the scope of a serious discussion.

I was also unaware that the term “messiah” was so holy that it could never be used in a secular or less-than-serious way. I will have to remember to correct others who use it in such a fashion from now on.

It’s so strangely heretical for the Right to use such a holy word as a schoolyard taunt.

You shouldn’t assume that everyone to the right of Obama and the Democrats is religious.

By the way Tauscher ironically is considered among the more conservative of SF Bay Area congressional democrats in Congress. Perhaps the strategy is going to be to have this thing introduced and pushed from the bottom of the congressional ladder, rather than from Pelosi, Reid and Obama. If that is their strategy, fine, but there sure as hell better be action on this issue in the first 2 years of this administration.

1) Pelosi – we probably can’t win a primary against her in SF dem primiary, but we could cause her some serious embarrasment. I’d say 30-35% would be a reasonable goal for a reasonable Gay (not some Green or ‘freind’ but one of our OWN) challenger (not Cindy Sheehan) in a SF Dem primary. We should look for Dem committee chairs in areas with large Gay populations as well. No ENDA, No PPIA, no HCPA, no DADT repeal, and lets go for it. For example, if Sheila Jackson Lee heads a committee that kills one of our bills, then lets go after her too.

2) Areas where the Dems expect our help. If the Dems nominate another anti-Gay candidate in New Orleans to try and take out Anh Cao, we should have a third party run. Would the gay candidate win? No. Could the gay candidate get 15% yes.

3) The Senate is another area where we can go after those against our interests. So Jim Webb wants to keep DADT in place. Fine. Lets see him try to keep his seat in Virginia if we can get 5% of progressives to vote 3rd party.

The Dems see us as expendible. Because we have leaders that don’t fight for us. We have to cause trouble for them to take us seriously. And trouble isn’t part of the HRC’s retinue.

1) Engage in MEDIA campaigns beyond issuing press releases

2) Fight for Gay causes, and not try to go along to get along

3) Not be interested in being a permanent organization but exist to enact ENDA, repeal DADT, repeal DOMA, enact PPIA, etc. and then fold.

4) This organization will not be tied to any political party. If Pelosi doesn’t LEAD on our issues, we will run someone against her in a SF Democratic Primary. We will run an independent progressive in New Orleans’ CD 7 district. If Webb wants to kill DADT repeal, we will run an independent in the next VA general election. If they aren’t in power to work for our rights, then I don’t see any reason why they should be in power period. Who cares if the GOP takes advantage? Because I can get 3 5th level appointments and 2 ambassadors from the GOP. Is that all were gonna get from the Dems.

Give to HRC and get a nice dinner with a black tie. Give to others and get SOMETHING done.

Back then, the gay moderates took a similar wait-and-see approach and were content to just elect liberal “friends” who then sat around and did nothing for the gay community, but would gladly sell out the gays for the sake of political expediency.

If the Democratic party is afraid of a backlash from overreaching in the first two years of the Obama administration, all they really have to do is help the military to itself recommend the repeal of DADT.

If I were a congressperson, I might be willing to bet a little political capital on a small appropriation attached to a defense spending bill for the military to conduct a complete study of DADT financial and readiness impact. Do it early, say in the first two years, and there is a strong chance we could still see a repeal of DADT in the first term of the Obama Administration. The study would almost certainly reveal that the military benefit of DADT is negative. Congress, seeing that is has little legitimate criticism to risk, should then be unafraid to repeal the act.

Early on, the Obama Administration needs to be getting the superstructure if its legislative agenda planned, and that means gathering information on the scale appropriate to make national policy. This is the ideal time to launch a low visibility but politically valuable series of studies that get the right information into the hands of policy makers. These in turn can be used to legitimately steer public opinion by translating measurements into statements of policy that benefit society without relying on superstition, or the distortion of partisanship.