Obama vs. CAP on DADT

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Shortly after writing a post on a new Center for American Progress report that proposes a five-step plan for ending the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy banning out-in-the-open gays and lesbians from the military (Step No. 1: the president signs an executive order imposing a temporary suspension), I strolled over to the White House to see President Obama deliver a Rose Garden statement in support of the cap and trade legislation due for a vote in the House tomorrow (more on that in a coming post) and to attend press secretary Robert Gibbs’ daily briefing.

At the briefing, when it was my turn to pose a query, I cited the CAP report–quoting that first step–and asked Gibbs why the White House disagreed with the group’s proposal. Gibbs replied that Obama has held assorted meetings with staff, legislators, and Pentagon officials on ending DADT. “This requires,” he said, a “durable legislative” remedy.

It was the usual line: we need a law to overturn DADT for good. But there’s an obvious follow-up, and I asked it: Why not issue an executive order that suspends DADT while this legislation is being pursued?

Gibbs said that “there could be differences in strategies.” I wasn’t sure what he meant by this. That it’s best not to arouse (anti-gay) passions with a stop-gap measure, because this could interfere with a permament solution? He continued: the “best way to do it is through a durable and comprehensive legislative process.” Perhaps that’s the best way. But in the past months, hundreds of US military members have been kicked out of the service because of DADT. For these people–and others scared of a similar fate–a temporary suspension would certainly be much better than a long wait for congressional action. Whatever happened to the fierce urgency of now?

You can see my Twitter feed from the Gibbs briefing here.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest