Rachel Maddow chats with the Congressman quarterbacking the repeal of DADTRachel Maddow continues her important and ongoing series "Fierce Advocate" with another look at DADT, this time from the viewpoint of an enthusiastic ally in Congress. Congressman Patrick Murphy is an Iraq war veteran (he was the first elected to Congress) from Pennsylvania who has volunteered to "Quarterback" the legislation that will eventually repeal DADT, because it's too important to "punt" it anywhere else. Football analogies aside, having the support of an exuberant (and might I add, adorable) straight politician such as Patrick is crucial if DADT is to ever be repealed. Here is an actual war veteran, someone who has been on the front lines, who can stand up to the ill-informed arguments that say having out service members will harm troop cohesion. Here's hoping Murph (that's what his friends call him, so I will too) keeps up the good fight, and Rachel continues reporting on it. Submitted by on Thu, 2009-07-09 14:35. |
![]() Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|







new look
is anyone else here not feeling the new look of MSNBC? all the 'designs' and crap?
ugh
YAY!
Today is a good day to be from PA!
Kudos to Murphy for rising above all the petty bs.... I particularly like the part when he chuckles after her question about "vigorous intellectual debate"
Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn't "special" to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship."
Murphy a good egg
Great to have a former soldier with his rising star credibility taking the helm. His taking on of the other side last year was incredible to watch and hear. I think he will get this done.
How singularly innocent I look this morning.
Murphy's military experience is essential...
...to getting a bill moving, debated RIGOROUSLY AND INTELLECTUALLY, and moving to a (hopefully successful) vote.
Personally, I can't wait for Murphy -- a decorated U.S. warrior -- to have a chance to respond to bigoted comments from some Representative who never served in the US military yet suggests he/she knows what's best for U.S. troops. Go, Murphy!
Voices of Honor Tour
In other words, a vote against his bill would be a vote against national security not a vote against gays.
Anyone else writing their local news outlets and asking them if they are planning to report on this important issue of National Security (the repeal of DADT)? Send along with a link to video
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31808452
Also today HRC has launched their Voices of Honor Tour to Support DADT Repeal (click to see the videos at HRC's site)
In his speech, Murph reports that 75% of americans are in favor of repeal, and the numbers are even higher amongst the age group we are recruiting into the services.
Read the main page here: "Voices of Honor"
Being out is not "being an activist." It is being honest. Unfortunately it's such a rare commodity in this world that honesty often seems like activism.
Anyone who's still been
Anyone who's still been doubting Obama, shouldn't be anymore after watching this. This guy explains exactly why Obama hasn't used his executive order and that's because it's the Congress' job to overturn DADT. Like i've said before, we don't want another Bush on our hands. Obama has done things exactly the right way. I've told you all this from the start.
No doubts
However, Obama is NOT doing his job. His job is to keep America safe and secure. Allowing service members to be discharged today and tomorrow while we wait for the bill to pass was, is and continues to be a dereliction of his duty and oath, in my opinion. Obama is doing nothing but promise that he will do something some day.
I am sure there are those out there who believe that Obama is some sort of God who can do no wrong. That is the very kind of thinking that brought us Bush, if you remember. What I have been advocating is that Obama acts more like Kennedy or Lincoln. But you may be right, if you're trying to infer that Obama is more like Bush then the other two.
Being out is not "being an activist." It is being honest. Unfortunately it's such a rare commodity in this world that honesty often seems like activism.
No to Nuance
A few things:
It's been amazingly disappointing to me that the left can't engage in a fair, even-handed debate about the process to attain the policy changes that are uniformly agreed upon, without resorting to attacks. Moreover, I wonder what the state of our movement is if we're unwilling to engage, in good faith, with people who agree with us...what hope does that leave for engagement with people who don't?
An Obama that acts more like Kennedy or Lincoln? Really? All due respect, I think you're romanticizing history somewhat. It took a civil war to get the Emancipation Proclamation signed (and even then, Lincoln relented). And Kennedy's progress on the Civil Rights Act...well, if you know the history, I think it's hard to argue that Obama's actually moving faster on the civil rights of his era than Kennedy did on the civil rights of his.
At any rate, kudos to Congressman Murphy for his work on DADT and for his willingness to engage in a nuanced debate on the issue, where reason allows for it. I hope calls to my representative and a contribution to his re-election campaign bolster his work.
---
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." - MLK
Nuance? Moi?
As DaChickenLady points out below, Obama should be judged on his actions. Is he using his position to strong arm congress, just as every president before him has done? Not on this issue, apparently. If Obama was a fierce advocate he would. It seems that 'fierce' is just a word; a word that doesn't seem to carry much nuance these days beyond describing a drag queen strutting her stuff in wicked stilettos.
Unfortunately it's such a rare commodity in this world that honesty often seems like activism.
The Line
You assume incorrectly, on both counts. I'm talking about engaging in a conversation that ensures that we accomplish our shared goal, without seeking to ostracize those who think differently than us about process. That doesn't excuse inaction by the President or Congress or suggest that you don't move forward...but I don't think that conversations about the best path to get there should be treated with such disdain.
FWIW, the President has, by expressing unambigious support for the policy's end (and legislation to achieve that), meetings with LGBT groups and the LGBT Caucus and instructing the Defense Department to develop a plan for implementing the repeal, been an advocate for the repeal of DADT. I don't know if I'd call it fierce...but it's something...
The debate has not been fair and even-handed, not in the least, as exhibited in your response to me. Because we have a disagreement about process, I'm an Obama apologist or I believe that Obama walks on water. Because Rep. Murphy says that an Executive Order is not the way to go, he's protecting the President from criticism (which is pretty funny, considering he's a Blue Dog and they criticize the President all the time). That's not a debate, that's villifying someone because they won't do things the way that you think they should be done.
It's not a debate...it's us vs. them, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. I get that after eight years of the Bush administration, we're socialized to think that way, but there's something wrong with a politics without nuance...and we'd do well to avail ourselves of that.
The President should be judged by his actions and he should be criticized when he's wrong...I'm not disagreeing with you on either of those points, but there's a point at which the line is crossed from accountability to scapegoating...and I think a lot of "progressives" are far beyond that line.
---
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." - MLK
Crossed
I'm just not seeing ostracizing. At all. I am also having trouble figuring out what you mean by a "process" that is being disrespected. I would like to help, but I really don't see someone who is seeking to ostracize anyone else because of their process. If I have insulted you or your personal process, I find that remarkable because it was far from my intention. But now I'm thinking, are you talking about your "personal process" or the various processes within our branches of government? If you are talking about governmental process, then yes, we do seem to disagree on that, don't we? And to be quite frank, sometimes grownups say things that confuse and hurt children who end up feeling ostracized and persecuted. That is why I always suggest that children have adult supervision when they participate in grown up discussions.
I have never said anything against the Presidents stated support, other than to remind everyone that words are cheap. And point out that words seem to be as far as his support will extend. It is the very least that he can do, anything less might alienate the left wing of his party.
I never said Congressman Murphy is protecting the president. But for the record, I think it is likely that because Murphy is taking such an active and vocal role on this legislation, he doesn't want his ambitious initiative to look like an affront to the President who happens to be sitting on his fat ass (in regards to this issue.) As a Blue Dog he would want to appear as working with the President as much as possible, rather than appear as an obstructionist, as you seem to suggest.
Pointing out that a politician might have ambitions beyond a single bill or act, that he might be looking at his political career, that he might be trying to work with his colleges rather than against them -all of that you consider "vilifying?" You may be right, perhaps this isn't a debate.
Allow me to put it another way. if Dick sits on his ass, he is pretty much sitting on his ass. Yes, the 'nuance' of that is that Dick might be daydreaming and speechifying about a better future, or might be saving his energy for that special moment when he sees fit to do something or he just might be selfish and chicken. All of those are nuances, as you say. The fact that Dick is sitting on his ass is an observational fact. But I can still debate the merits of those nuances. And if I go so far as to suggest that Dick is selfish and chicken and that his supporters are blind fools, believe me when I say this: I would mean that in the nicest way.
I am glad that you concede that Obama should be judged by his actions. I am judging him for his lack of action (which is the same thing.) You suggest that progressives are "Scapegoating?" Again you seem to be making the same point that perhaps this isn't a debate.
Not even close
I have both hopes and doubts w/ Obama. I will continue to base my opinions of him on what he does, and doesn't, do -- and that includes whether or not he uses his constitutional powers and political capital for our benefit.
I have been very disappointed with this "fierce advocate" so far. The proof is in the pudding. I hope an effective bill (i.e. not watered down too much) does get to his desk. Then, we shall find out whether he is a true ally.
I refuse to judge him using Bush as the standard.
Patrick Murphy
Patrick's the congressman for our district and he's a really good guy. Also, having recent military experience he's able to stare down people who make the same old tired arguments about "morale" and "unit cohesion".
I wouldn't necessarily link Murphy to Obama. Patrick is a party loyalist to be sure, but he's also a Blue Dog Democrat and likely to end up opposing the President on a lot of debt-raising issues. Likewise, he's savvy enough not to bash the President on issues like DADT, but he also knows that the main reason he has to push legislation is because Obama is not going to budge one single inch until it reaches his desk.
Consequently, if this does go through I will thank Patrick before I thank Obama.
Congressman Patrick Murphy
Rachel + Cute PA Congressman against DADT = Awesome
I loved this segment yesterday.
Rachel was awesome, as always, and Patrick is kind of wonderful. I'm glad US queers have a good ally with military experience looking to make sure all qualified Americans can serve. He gave good analysis and made the complicated, messy issue make more general sense.
Can't wait to hear more on this front with the same kind of positivity and excitement the Congressman exhitibited.
Aw, how adorkable!