LGBT Leadership Town Hall: What Grade Would You Give Obama And Congress?
Participants included National Gay & Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey; Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese; National Center for Transgender Equality executive director Mara Keisling; Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis; former Clinton White House advisor on gay rights Richard Socarides and blogger and activist Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend.
It was a great show, and I encourage everyone to take the time to listen to it. We owe Mike a debt of gratitude for his hard work and hard-hitting questions.
You can listen to a rebroadcast in full this weekend (schedule here.) If you’re not a Sirius subscriber, think about signing up — Mike is great! But you can get a free pass at the site if you want to try it out first.
I’ll be posting some highlights and my thoughts here.
So, here’s the first question Mike asked:
Pam Spaulding: D
Richard Socarides: D
Rea Carey: D
Joe Solmonese: B for president, House a B, Senate a C.
Pam sited her frustration with communication, including “mixed messages” and a “press secretary that can’t answer yes or no.”
Aubrey supported his ‘C’ “because an extraordinary thing happened” in that Mullen and Gates both called for repeal.
Mike reminded Joe that “everything that has happened has not required the president to spend a lot of political capital…” Joe said we saw Obama spend capital on the hate crimes bill, and offered this on Obama and DADT:
“[If] we are able to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” we may not be as far along as we would like to be but I think he is as far along as he probably ever thought he would be.”
Socarides: “[Obama] has turned out to be an incrementalist of the purist order,” and said “the stuff that has come out of the justice department is despicable.” he also chastized Obama and the Democrats for not moving forward on marriage equality.
Mara said, “We’re getting a lot done,” and offered a comprehensive list.
Rea: “I expect more… the standards are higher.”
Now, I know you probably did a double-take on Joe’s comments. And let me say that Joe was the punching bag of the day, as he has been for quite some time now. I’ll leave that for later, but I’ll offer this now.
It’s three months, almost exactly to the day, since Obama declared,
“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
Solmonese immediately after said,
“Ridding our laws of discrimination that weakens our national security will require continued leadership from the President as well as Congressional allies.â€
By comparison, Lt. Dan Choi, immediately after, said, “Now I have a job. To make sure it happens.†He’s chained himself to the White House gates twice and risked his career in the military. Draw your own conclusions.
I think it’s pretty clear, amid news that the White House has all but publicly back-pedaled on the president’s promise to repeal DADT this year, that we’re not seeing “continued leadership from the President.” And yet, Solmonese gives Obama a ‘B’?
Even Congressional Democrats want to move faster. (Read Clarknt67’s “Hill Democrats: Obama’s making a “huge mistake” on DADT, “we need the gay vote” at Daily Kos.)
In college, one of my professors graded us on what he thought our potential in life would be. I got a B+. It did nothing for me or for my life (although it might have raised my GPA.)
I don’t think the head of our country’s largest LGBTQ activist group should be grading the president on where the president “probably ever thought he would be.”
We’re literally talking about our lives, and make no mistake: LGBTQ issues are life and death issues. I don’t think we should let our leaders grade or be graded on a curve.
I agree with Rea Carey on this. “I expect more… the standards are higher.”
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.