Except that the gay elite (and, yes, plenty of non-elite gays and lesbians who genuinely give a shit about getting rid of DADT – but then again I don’t see anyone named Aravosis clamoring to leave cushy, oversexed DC digs to go samba with the scorpions in the Afghanistan desert, do you?) got screwed out of something that they wanted this time.
There’s a key paragraph in today’s Washington Post article on the DADT debacle:
When Reid said no, Collins erupted, angrily waving her arms about the process. She huddled with Lieberman and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), reading through legislative language on the floor. She opposed the process Reid had laid out, so Brown and Murkowski voted no. Collins waited until it was clear that the legislation had failed and then voted with Democrats to proceed on the measure.
Got that? It’s accurate.
But, Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart apparently didn’t read the article. He has a far different interpretation — a much simpler interpretation of what happened yesterday:
Those who questioned Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins’s sincerity in wanting to repeal don’t ask don’t tell (DADT) got their comeuppance when the Republican from Maine did what she hinted she might do when we talked yesterday: She voted for cloture on the motion to reconsider the defense authorization bill (NDAA).
I don’t feel any comeuppance. Anyone else?
Who to believe here? Hmm. I’m going with Ed O’Keefe and Paul Kane who understand how the Hill actually operates. Capehart just offered another of his overly simplistic interpretations of how DC works. It’s what one might expect from a neophyte, not an editor.
Apparently The John has no use for The Jonathan when The Jonathan cops an attitude against a position that The John is being sanctimonious about (albeit, I’ll reiterate, one that I think he happens to be on the right side of at least re: how the DADT debacle has unfolded in recent weeks, not necessarily the fact that it was pushed ahead of agenda items that far more LGBT people need.)
Any bets as to whether The John will decry The Jonathan as having an “overly simplistic” view of “how DC works” when next ENDA gets serious consideration (you know, like, Sept. of 2025?) and The Jonathan again opines:
It requires time and patience to educate the public and lawmakers about how prejudice harms some people. That’s what gays and lesbians have been doing in their quest for equality for nearly 40 years. And that’s what transgender people will have to do.
only this time The Jonathan is man enough to actually affix his name to it (along with snarkily changing “40” to “60”)?
I didn’t think so.
Memo to The John and The Jonathan: That’s a comeuppance that both of you should be feeling.