It was December of 2010 and Congress was in a protracted battle over a host of issues, including an extension of expiring tax cuts, the Defense Authorization bill which included a contentious repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
Sen. Susan Collins, who I worked for at the time, had just come back from a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. She and Sen. Joe Lieberman had presented Reid with a very reasonable and fair proposal to allow a limited number of Republican amendments on the Defense Authorization bill as a means to secure enough GOP support to invoke cloture on the bill, allowing debate and securing its eventual passage.
Immediately after that meeting (and without telling Collins), Reid marched onto the Senate floor and announced that he was scheduling a vote. Something very strange was happening, because Reid knew that without a deal to allow Republican amendments, the bill would fail.
Collins was incensed. The defense bill and DADT repeal both were important to her and she had expended a great deal of political capital advocating for them. At this point, she was the only Republican willing to publicly push for the repeal and she knew that holding a vote at that time would kill all the progress that had been made.
She virtually sprinted to the Senate floor to make an impassioned speech, expressing her bewilderment at the majority leader’s actions and taking him to task for sacrificing a vitally important bill on the altar of partisan politics. Reid, of course, walked away and moved forward with the vote anyway.
The bill promptly was blocked by a GOP filibuster, just like Reid knew it would be. There were real concerns with the legislation that Republicans wanted to address and the majority leader knew that without any allowance for amendments the bill would die. The fact that he brought it up anyway meant he was up to something.
Before we could even blink, a report by Greg Sargent of the Washington Post hit, quoting anonymous aides to Reid, claiming that Collins was making unreasonable demands such as an insistence on unlimited debate, which were of course complete fabrications and never part of the proposal she had made.
My email account simultaneously was being overwhelmed with liberal authors from leading gay rights blogs, parroting the exact same narrative and demanding answers. It quickly became obvious to us that Reid and his allies in the White House were actively engaged in a coordinated attempt to torpedo the defense bill and blame Republican hyperpartisanship for its failure and for blocking repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell.
The White House and Reid had decided that hammering home the “party of no” narrative and painting the Republicans as obstinate obstructionists was, to them, good politics. Since that wasn’t actually happening, they tried to make it appear that it was.
But Reid got outflanked. Collins, together with Lieberman, unexpectedly introduced a standalone bill to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell, intended to go around Reid’s roadblocks. After a great deal of lobbying to rally a number of other Republicans to support the bill — a necessary step to prevent a filibuster — the Collins bill eventually passed 65-31.
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama completed his supposed “evolution” on the gay marriage issue by coming out in favor, personally. In the fawning coverage by much of the media for his “support,” the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell often has been cited as an accomplishment of his, which it was not.
The president, who we all knew favored gay marriage since at least 1996, pretended to oppose it in 2008 for his own political benefit. Then he winked at the gay community by saying he was “evolving” on the issue, which is political code for, “I can’t say what I really believe right now, but elect me to a second term and we’ll talk.”
Politics is, above all, what matters to this supposedly postpartisan president. I saw up close the White House and its Democratic allies actively trying to stop, for political purposes, the very legislation they are now taking undue credit for.
Instead, a lone Republican senator from Maine was the one actually taking a phenomenal personal and political risk and ultimately proved to be the real engine behind the repeal.
So while I consider the president’s rhetorical support for gay marriage to be a welcome development, I’ll believe the conversion genuine when I see some tangible proof.
Until then, I’ll believe this — like so much with Obama — is a cynical case of political gamesmanship driven by opportunism, not principle.
Matthew Gagnon, a Hampden native, is a Republican political strategist. He previously worked for Sen. Susan Collins and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You can reach him at matthew.o.gagnon@gmail.com and read his blog at www.pinetreepolitics.com.
Senator Collins was important in ending DADT. But why give the credit only to her?
President Obama was also important for ending DADT. He supported ending it and put together a strategy that enabled him to tout support from military leadership.
If John McCain had been elected president, DADT would still be in place. From a report of McCain’s comments the day the repeal passed: “I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage,” said the four-term incumbent before the vote, according to ABC News. “Today is a very sad day.”Senator Collins would not have had a chance to exercise her leadership on this issue without a President Obama.
Credit for the repeal should be shared between Collins, Obama, and many others.
Put together the strategy? Amy, he and Reid were actively trying to kill it behind the scenes. That’s the point. Public posturing goes one way, actual governing goes another.
DADT passed because Collins and Lieberman were pissed the White House wanted to play politics with a bill they cared about, so they engineered the stand alone bill, and worked their tails off to get it passed.
Does she deserve 100% of the credit? No… but without her, none of that would have happened, and without her leadership you wouldn’t have seen Brown, Murkowski, and the other Republicans vote for it… and they were the real constituency that needed to be convinced because of the filibuster.
Obama lied to the country about what he really thought about gay rights in 2008, for his own political benefit… he completely abandoned the gay community in Maine in 2009 to instead campaign for Jon Corzine, leaving OFA and the bully pulpit on the sidelines. He actively tried to sabotage the DADT repeal so he could maintain a political weapon.
This is not a president that deserves to gain credit on the hard work of others while he showed unbelievable cowardice on this issue. The only credit he gets for DADT in my book is actually signing the bill which took no political courage at all after the bill passed the Senate with 65 votes, the most important of which were all delivered by Collins.
Let me flip your question around – why are you insistent on giving credit to the president, when he lied to you, betrayed the principles he espouses in public, and then tried to take credit for the work of people who had actually expressed political bravery? If I were a leftist, that would offend and anger me.
You presume that upending a short term legislative maneuver by Reid, which could have been revisited in many different ways, is “the” reason why DADT repeal happened. Are you suggesting that all the work done before it was on the Senate floor was inconsequential and took zero leadership?
DADT repeal would not have gotten to the Senate without Obama as president. It didn’t magically appear there.
For a longer-term perspective on the strategies that got the repeal bill to the Senate, I suggest “How We Won” by Aaron Belkin.
It’s true that Obama did not work on marriage equality in Maine, nor did he in North Carolina. From my point of view, he has been rightly criticized for that. At the same time, his Department of Justice has taken the position to not defend DOMA, which was hardly an obvious move, and which has greatly upset some, particularly some House Republicans.
From your perspective, Senator Collins is the hero and Obama is the goat and every other political observer has gotten DADT repeal wrong. As I’m reading the latest Caro book, I’m reminded of how Johnson, depending on the time and place, did little and did much on civil rights. And so I think the world, including the political world, is complicated. At the same time, there is a long list of policies the Obama administration promulgated, making it the most pro-LGBT civil rights in American history.
Obama was not the reason the issue was up. That bill has been submitted ad nauseum by Democrats since it was first implemented in 1993. The only reason that issue was debated and voted on then was because the Democrats had lost their majority in the mid-term elections and needed to act on it before the Republicans officially took over. That’s why they were in an insane, mad dash on things like DADT, and START… Obama had nothing to do with it.
If I’m giving any Democrats credit on this, it is the *congressional* Democrats who pushed it when the president ignored it and actively tried to squash it. But, more importantly, I don’t feel any of that represents a profile in courage as those championing it were traditionally liberal members in traditionally liberal districts. The people who took risks and actually MADE it happen were Lieberman and Collins.
Amy, I told ONE story because I’m limited to 700 words in these columns, but what Reid did that day was HARDLY the only instance that he sacrificed a bill to make the Republicans look bad rather than work with them to try and actually pass it. That happened, by my count, at least a half dozen times, and the reason I told THIS story was because it became clear this was the “endgame” for him, and the bill would no longer be considered after this point… this wasn’t some kind of Johnsonian tactical maneuver to get something done Amy… it was a political maneuver to give the Democrats a talking point. Those are two very different things.
And, you know what, I don’t even care. Its politics, that is the game that is played and sometimes “winning” to you is making the other guy look bad so you can beat him over the head later. I get it. I’m not even offended by that. That’s how this town works.
What I do care about is the usurpation of the issue, and the claiming of credit by people who don’t deserve credit. The White House and Reid both made it very clear to those of us watching from close up that they had no intention of passing the bill and wanted the talking point more… but when a Republican (Collins) and an Independent Democrat (Lieberman) got sick of the games and decided to MAKE something happen, those obstructionists who wanted to play politics decided to try and steal the spotlight and pretend that they were integral cogs in its passage.
They weren’t, and THAT is what I resent. Not the political game, so much, as the disingenuous glory hounding.
And with due respect to the established history on this situation, most of it was written by accounts from people like Reid and his staffers, who had been planting lies to sabotage the legislation. When a reporter asks a senior Reid aid (because they weren’t there and don’t know any better) “how did this get passed?” what do you think their answer is going to be? Come on.
I remember very clearly during the fight, I was doing outreach to a number of prominant gay rights bloggers, and I was continually dismayed, day by day, by the spin they were being fed by the White House and Senate Democrats, which they believed because it came from the left. There’s no way to convince them of what was actually happening, because they have confirmation bias and tunnel vision, so ultimately when the history was written, a very inaccurate account is what we heard.
Which is why this column was entitled “the untold story”. Would love to have written something like this at the time when I was an employee of hers, but, for obvious reasons that wasn’t possible.
Not even true. Stop lying. Don’t you have any integrity?
What isn’t true? Were you there?
Right, because your proximity to DC makes you an automatic expert and all your lies suddenly become truths? Come on.
Very few Republicans have integrity on this matter, and you’re, with all certainty, not one of them. You push candidates that incite violence and bigotry towards gays and now you want to take credit for this? It’s repulsive.
My proximity to Washington doesn’t, but my involvement in this legislation, working on the issue, in Senator Collins’ office certainly does.
Probably the first time in my life I’ve been accused of not having integrity on gay rights issues, given my history. But, I suppose it is more convenient – much like Harry Reid – to just rely on the talking point than discuss this in good faith.
So where was she on the issue before? It’s easy to wait until the wheels are turning and then swoop in at the final moments.
I would never say Collins deserves no credit. But for you to act like she, or even you (good god, get a grip), deserves to be highlighted so prominently in this history of this is a bit wild.
I don’t see anywhere that Matthew claimed credit, he just said he had worked on the bill as part of the Senators staff, like he would have with other bills.
Unfortunately – and I say this because I’ve never been a supporter of repeal of DADT – I knew about Collins’ position on DADT at least one year before the bill passed. She was in fact openly supporting repeal of DADT. For that reason I had made up my mind she would never get my vote again.
Again, I must say, your attack is baseless.
Well, the R leadership is certainly happy to rely on the talking point, too, and it isn’t just self-preservation. I know you can’t talk about it now, but I’d love to see staffers from both sides talk candidly about these last few years.
That’s the trouble with people like you. They can’t deal with the facts. If someone reveals something that does not agree with their world view they attack the messenger, which in this case, is Matthew Gagnon. Look, I don’t agree with the
repeal of DADT – and never will, but Matthew’s opinion about Reid’s maneuver seems dead on. You have nothing to fight back with to challenge his opinion piece but empty, baseless accusations of lies.
Also, one more thing: you further give your own bias away when you say few Republicans have any integrity as if Democrats don’t. You do the same with the accusation Matthew supports candidates who incite violence and bigotry without mentioning who those candidates are.
My conclusion about you is this: You’re not credible and have little regard for truth.
So congressional Democrats don’t deserve credit for repealing DADT because they had tried to pass it before and their views were consistent with their constituents? What an interesting view.
I read it that the Majority Leader plays hardball, and both parties do it.
Read what I said again, I gave them credit. I said I wasn’t giving them any credit for any supposed profile of courage, because their constituencies wouldn’t be politically threatening to them for their stance.
Warms my heart to see you two fighting to see who’s more of a Liberal.
Matthew was referring the the last effort to bring up the bill to repeal DADT, which Reid and Obama had nothing to do with but nevertheless claimed undue credit for it. Matthew did not say they didn’t deserve any credit for the ultimate passage of DADT. Read his opinion piece again.
You lie.
About?
Matthew your article is 100% correct but I think it also leaves out the fact that is was a gay REPUBLICAN group (not dems) who sued and won the lawsuit against DADT.
What did John McCain have to do with this report? Just another cheap, irrelevant shot – that’s all your comment is – as you omitted to take a shot at all the other senators and representatives who opposed DADT. But since you mentioned Senate John McCain’s position – which we all knew what it was going to be – I believe his prediction will turn out to be true.
Matthew it is so nice to see your column again. I thought that the BDN had relegated you to blogger status.
This is purely revisionist.
Senator Collins played a HUGE part in the repeal, there is no denying it. However, there was months of debate prior. Including a year long study of the potential impact. The repeal was initially included in the Democratic Defense authorization bill and there was no way it was going to pass as whole. Collins came afterwards with the proposed stand-alone.
Gagnon. Your pieces, without fail, contain half-truths and non-truths. You’re dishonest and that’s fact.
You’re right. Republicans like Collins and Mccain were weary and demanded the year long study. They then tried denounce the study after it was completed. Collins eventually pushed for the repeal. She shouldn’t be forgotten for her role, but in no way did she play hugely significant part in this. There would have been no repeal without the Democratic party.
They were demanding it rightly, so that the military could conduct a review and decide what the implications of a change in policy would be on the entirety of the United States military. Perhaps you think they should have just flown by the seat of their pants, but you’re talking about the single largest budget line in the federal government, millions of people to think about, and frankly the impact on the gay soldiers to think about. A study was appropriate.
You can hold up the Democrats and minimize Collins’ role if you want… but one fact and one fact remains. If not for her, the bill would have never passed. Simple as that. Without her maneuvering, her standalone bill, and her work to gain Republican votes (eight in total I believe, after all was said and done), DADT would have been filibustered, blocked, and would have been dead.
In my book, “if this person wasn’t there it wouldn’t have happened” is the very definition of “hugely significant”.
Matthew, you made a clear case that liberal posters have trouble to deal with. I have little doubt you are not telling the entire truth let alone the mere truth. With that, let me say I am nevertheless disappointed with Collins’ effort to repeal DADT. It’s a regressive piece of legislation, I believe. It certainly won’t improve the military.
If you are going to lecture me about my revisionist history, I’d like to hear where your expertise in the situation comes from. Were you a staffer for Reid? No?
You’d have a lot more credibility if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about. That’s the point, the Defense Authorization bill WAS going to pass and it WAS going to pass with DADT in it. McConnell was on board with ending the filibuster if Reid simply allowed a limited number of Republican amendments to be voted on… which is only fair… they weren’t demanding unlimited amendments, they weren’t trying to gum up the wheels with unlimited debate… they asked very specifically for a handful of amendments so a few small but important changes could be made to the Defense bill…
Had Collins, Lieberman and Reid come to an agreement, the filibuster would have ended and the Defense bill would have passed very easily. So, no, if you want to talk about revisionist history, take a look at your entirely fabricated account.
Collins did not “come in late” – she had been working on the DADT repeal for a very, very long time, and the stand alone bill was a response to Reid’s b.s.
You’re either forgetful or a liar.
John McCain led a successful filibuster of the repeal when it was included in the Defense bill. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-21/politics/senate.defense.bill_1_defense-bill-immigration-provision-illegal-immigrants?_s=PM:POLITICS
Gates then asked Congress to pass a repeal as he knew court challenges were making their way through the judicial system. He preferred a smooth transition over an abrupt one. Hearings were held and heads of the Navy, Army and Marines urged a speedy repeal.
Then during the lame duck session the Defense bill was filibustered again. Only Collins crossed party lines. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/12/dont_ask_dont_tell_procedural.html
Then days later the stand alone was introduced. Contrary to your dishonest narrative, the other Republican votes switched at the final moments and they did little to garner additional support, both in Congress and with the public.
You are the one fabricating things. Collins gets some credit, but that’s it. Republicans deserve very little credit in terms of gay rights. In all honesty, they contribute greatly to anti-gay biases in this country. Whatever they’ve done as a party to assist gays, they’ve done more to hinder by at least 10 fold.
Of course there’s also the possibility that Reid got exactly what he and Obama wanted: A Defense bill without the undesired amendments and the DADT repeal. Isn’t that what Reid asked for and got?
Gotta give you credit for not lowering yourself to the wolf’s namecalling antics Matthew. Its the oldest lib tactic in the book. When presented with facts they call names because they can’t back up their accusations. The fact is it took both sides to make this happen, but Sen Collins outplayed Dirty Harry in this case and the Dems can’t admit it.
LOL, my comment is full of references and citations. What are you even talking about? And now the party that fought tooth and nail against the repeal of DADT, the party that dreamt up all sorts of doomsday scenarios, wants credit for the repeal? Wow.
It’s whatever though. This is about more than petty politics and the lies pundits want to spew. It’s about right and wrong. The day DADT was repealed, a wrong was made right. That’s what’s most important.
No argument on the fact that its done and thats a good thing. My issue is the “you lie” and “you’re dishonest” and You’re dishonest and thats a fact”. Others who disagreed with him didn’t resort to those tactics. They stated their opinions without the personal attacks. What a concept……
And this shows what a wonderful job our CIC is doing. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0509/Ouch!-Obama-loses-41-percent-of-W.Va.-primary-vote-to-federal-inmate
Look, if you say something that isn’t true and you know it’s not true, that’s being dishonest. You can’t get around that.
True. But there is a right and a wrong way to make that point. And if that person believes what they are saying it doesn’t make them a liar. It makes them sadly misinformed. Big difference.
The point I am trying to make is that you do seem to have some references to back up your opinion, so I can understand why you feel the way you do. But I have always thought that personal attacks and/or vulgarity are nothing more than crutches for the conversationally handicapped. Debate away, and I respect every person’s right to their opinion. Just keep it civil and make your points that way.
A lie is a lie though. Someone who lies is a liar. That’s it. Perhaps it’s not the best way to put things, but let’s get some perspective here. This is the author that call the President classless last week.
I also have very little tolerance for demands of civility and respect when it comes to gay rights issues. Gays have been historically discriminated against, persecuted, etc. And so when a right wing pundit (or whatever Gagnon wants to call himself) wants to claim to be some pioneer on gay rights issues when his party is the one fanning the flames of bigotry, I do get a bit upset. For that, I apologize.
Again you make good points and I respect your opinions. It is an emotional issue to say the least, and those make for raw nerves and occasional outbursts. Been guilty of that myself more times than I want to admit to. No need for an apology as far as I am concerned. Was just trying to keep focus on the issue and not the personalities.
I apologize for getting on my high horse, because I probably fall off it as many times as most other folks do.
Why don’t you find an anti-gay article to rip on rather than an columnist and a Senator who support the repeal? I didn’t know Matthew had been elevated to the leader of the GOP. You make it sound as such. He is giving you his perspective from his work with the Senator, disagree if you wish but having opinions doesn’t make someone a liar. It’s also easy to accuse people when your posting on an online message board annoymously.
No, you are trying to change the subject now that you know you’ve have been proven wrong. The Republican party is not in fact taking credit for the repeal. In fact it is doing the very opposite by distancing itself from that measure. But that’s not the subject of Matthew opinion piece, and you know it. Matthew is right and you know that too. Be man enough to admit it, if you have any ounce of worthwhile character in you left.
By the way, if I sound impatient with you it’s because I am. It’s tiring to hear from someone like you who constantly has a need to be right and will never own up to their own wrong. You owe Matthew an apology, but I suspect your ego has overwhelmed you.
Do any of you know the names of the Republican members of Congress who support gay rights and have gone on record as doing so?
The 8 senators who voted for DADT repeal are here:
http://www.logcabin.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=nsKSL7PMLpF&b=6420733&ct=8977239
The 15 members of the House who voted for it are here: http://www.logcabin.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=nsKSL7PMLpF&b=6420733&ct=8975403
Of course, there are others who are supportive and have voted for or co-sponsored other bills, but that’s not a bad start.
Let’s give credit where credit is due and be reminded of Lady Gaga’s influence on this matter. In September 2010 “Gaga swung off her tour to go to Maine, where she headlined a massive rally, asking the crowd: “Should the military be allowed to treat constitutional rights like a cafeteria? In the military, is it acceptable to be a cafeteria American? What I mean to say is, should soldiers and the government be able to pick and choose what we are fighting for in the Constitution or who we
are fighting for? I wasn’t aware of this ambiguity in our Constitution. I thought the Constitution was ultimate. I thought equality was non-negotiable.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2010/0920/Lady-Gaga-Can-she-sway-Maine-Senators-with-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-rally-today
It would seem that not using crude language in the postings does not apply to those who have blogs– Matt Gagnon’s first paragraph in post.
Matt, you really sound as liberal as Amy Fried, also. Are we really supposed to support Susan for her “stand,” knowing that her campaign coffers are filled with money from ant-family groups such as Emily’s List, Log Cabin Republicans, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and many others?
Mr. Gagnon’s story is a bit short on sources. True, Rachel Maddow once identified him as a “long-time Republican operative.” Even if he had the seniority and insider knowledge that went with that high title, he is not omniscient. We will need to see what others who were in on the backstory have to say, and how they corroborate their allegations.
Great article Matt…
Let’s get real here a little folks. The Democratic party has used the LGBT Community for political capital only when it has been convenient for them. What enrages me most as a gay American is the fact that they always wanna step in when it is “Too Little and Too Late”. I am more and more enraged by my gay friends who want to shout from the rooftops their Thank You’s to President Obama for finally coming to the same conclusion that Dick Cheney had come to years ago by supporting these issues. But, I think we might be hard pressed to find many gays in North Carolina (a solid Red State) by Mr. Obama’s “Day After” profound support for their cause that they might have been able to use a few weeks prior. Then, even more enraging, is the “spin” they put on it by saying VP Biden wasn’t supposed to say that yet. Really?? Are we all this gullible and plain stupid. The pressing issue at the time is the NC Vote coming up and Mr. Biden goes on air without being briefed on what to say or what not to say by the NO DRAMA OBAMA campaign. It is disgusting. And yes, I am Gay, I am Conservative and a Conservative Christian, but this whole thing just stinks. So after seeing the events that unfolded around this this past week, I can’t believe for a second that Mr. Obama has anything but politics on his mind and has no care in the world for the real needs of the LGBT community. It’s a farce to believe otherwise and yes I will call anyone gullible, stupid and just plain ignorant for thinking he has somehow been our “Saviour”. Thank you Mr. Gagnon for this report. It does not surprise me in the least, and a huge THANK YOU to Senator Collins for actually fighting for what she says she believes in even before it is “popular” And to the other Republicans not yet in line with these civil liberties…well I would rather have you tell me boldly what you think, no matter how wrong you are then skirt the issue again and again and suddenly “Change your mind” a day after it is necessary.