
l to r: Socarides, Capehart, Stachelberg, Frank
Lively discussion called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Where Are We and How Did We Get Here?" last night at NYC's LGBT Center, with two gay heroes and two Washington insiders. The heroes were brilliant, shrewd, honest, and frustrated. The Washington insiders were even-handed, in that they balanced their question dodging with answer avoidance and matched their defense of the administration with their defense of the military.
DADT expert Nathaniel Frank, author of the great, great award-winning Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, made clear that the current situation is the result of the Obama team's 2009 strategy of "stalling" and "waiting." He said, currently we're "here because it was a bad plan." Miserably, this is exactly as he and others had warned them from the start. Later in the evening, former HRC political director and now CAP svp Winnie Stachelberg said "We find ourselves in this environment," to which Frank said, "They created the environment," to audience applause.
In her opening answer Stachelberg characterized Obama's promise to lift DADT in his 2009 HRC dinner speech as "Huge" yet, later, offered the opinion that she was "not sure" if the president "had been more engaged on the issue in May it would have made any difference." Throughout the night Stachelberg employed a seesaw style of responding in general summaries without giving her own opinion, "Some will say the study was needed. Some will say it was a delay." She often mentioned "variables."
In his reponses, Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart so often said, "I'm not sure," "I don't know, Winnie would know," that the cute, angry liberals seated in my row wondered why he was on the panel. Certainly he offered variety. Capeheart defended his Post piece endorsing the administration's appeal of Judge Phillips' landmark decision overturning DADT. He said, "The appeal was the right thing to do," and his justification for that was "It is an important tradition to uphold," claiming that if we do it now, then "President Palin in 2012 or 2016" will also "have to appeal the laws" she doesn't agree with.
That. Is. Ridiculous. And it shows a profound ignorance of how she operates.
Nathaniel Frank refered to an article that named thirteen times the present administration has not appealed cases.
Capeheart has also written against the option of Obama signing an executive order to halt DADT discharges. Nathaniel Frank told him, "You were undercutting a very useful strategy." Capehart responded he did "not appreciate" that, and told Frank, "You should have called me and told me that was a strategy."
After that, Nathaniel went out of his way to praise the intelligence of Jonathan's editorials. Jonathan did not return any compliments.
When asked if he thought the adminstration now understood the level of LGBT frustration, Capehart looked incredulous. He repeated, "'Now'?" and said, "They've always gotten it."
Three times throughout the night Capehart informed the large audience that he was "someone who has worked in the White House." The second time saying this, he peered down at the crowd and said, "I don't know if any of you have worked in the White House."
Seated next to him was the evening's ace moderator, Richard Socarides, former White House Special Assistant to Clinton. Socarides tried hard to get real answers from his panelists. Foremost, he wanted to know if DADT would pass during this Congress, and what would happen if it didn't. Cue the hedging. [Obviously, no one knows.] They more or less agreed they were "more hopeful" tonight than they had been Tuesday night. Informed and insightful, Socarides did the best anyone could. But there was too much of this, and not enough time for questions:
Capehart: "They're pushing like crazy."
Socarides: "Who?"
Capehart: [Surprised] "Everybody."
Frank: "What does that mean?"
Capehart: [More surprised] [Silence]
Another account of the panel can be found at Gay City News.