Dallas Co. Democratic leaders call on Dan Ramos to resign for comparing gays to termites, Nazis

Dan Ramos

The other day we told you about Bexar County Democratic Party Chairman Dan Ramos’ recent comments, in which he called gays “termites” and compared the Stonewall Democrats to “the fuckin’ Nazi Party.”

Today, Dallas County Democratic Party leaders joined the growing list of groups that have released statements condemning Ramos’ remarks and calling for him to resign. Here’s what they said:

“As the leaders of the Dallas County Democratic Party, we join [State Party] Chairman [Boyd] Richie in calling upon Dan Ramos to resign as Chair of the Bexar County Democrats. His hateful, bigoted comments have no place in the Democratic Party. We are a party of inclusiveness that supports and promotes equality, diversity, and tolerance. The comments of Mr. Ramos are not reflective of our party’s philosophy and we condemn and disavow the comments and the opinions he expressed. Mr. Ramos has proven he does not support nor represent our party’s ideals and therefore we call upon Mr. Ramos to resign. Bexar County deserves a true Democrat as the county chair.”

J. Darlene Ewing, Chair
David Bradley, SDEC Senate District 16
Susan Culp Bradley, SDEC Senate District 9
Theresa Daniel, SDEC Senate District 16
David Griggs, SDEC Senate District 8
Ken Molberg, Former County Chair, SDEC Senate District 23
Steve A. Tillery, SDEC Senate District 2

UPDATE: Ramos is ignnoring the calls for his resignation, according to the San Antonio Express-News, and he isn’t backing away from his hateful comments. Ramos claims his critics have skeletons in their closet that will be exposed in the upcoming embezzlement trial of Dwayne Adams, the Bexar County Democratic Party’s former treasurer. “Seems like those with skeletons in their closet are the ones screaming the loudest,” Ramos said in an e-mail to the newspaper. “Come check out the criminal trial of Dwayne Adams … We may get to see who the real criminals are.”

 

—  John Wright

Pentagon report sets up Senate showdown on ‘don’t ask don’t tell’

LISA KEEN  |  Keen News Service

Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent mixed signals Tuesday, Nov. 30 in releasing the Pentagon’s long-awaited study about how to implement repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell.”

Gates said repeal “can and should be done,” but he urged Congress to consider the views of all-male combat units who expressed concern about negative consequences. He said the concerns of those combat units were “not an insurmountable barrier” to repealing the ban on openly gay people in the military, but said the military should be given “sufficient time” to exercise “an abundance of care and preparation” in rolling out that repeal. And neither he nor any other top Pentagon official were willing to give even a vague estimate of how much time would be sufficient.

But in a statement released Tuesday evening, President Barack Obama urged the Senate to act “as soon as possible,” saying he is “absolutely confident” troops “will adapt to this change and remain the best led, best trained, best equipped fighting force the world has ever known.”

The president reportedly spoke to Republican and Democratic leaders about DADT during a meeting at the White House on Monday to discuss a number of issues. Details of those conversations were not available.

Gates’ remarks and the report released by the Pentagon on Tuesday on how best to implement repeal of DADT will provide both proponents and opponents of repeal plenty of political ammunition once the Senate takes up the issue sometime this month.

The 256-page study is called the Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The report includes 20 pages of recommendations, presented in essay form, and 112 pages discussing and illustrating the results of surveys conducted of servicemembers and their families. Most media reports focused on the survey results, but the recommendations have, perhaps, the greatest importance for the LGBT community. The most significant of the recommendations include:

• Issuing “an extensive set of new or revised standards of conduct” for servicemembers while in uniform, including for such matters as “public displays of affection,” dress and appearance, and harassment, and that those standards “apply to all Service members, regardless of sexual orientation”;

• That military law not add sexual orientation “alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin as a class eligible for various diversity programs or complaint resolution processes.” Instead, the report recommends DOD “make clear that sexual orientation may not, in and of itself, be a factor in accession, promotion, or other personnel decision-making.” Complaints regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation would be addressed through “mechanisms” available for complaints other than those involving race, color, sex, religion, or national origin — “namely, the chain of command … and other means as may be determined by the Services.”

• Repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to the extent it prohibits consensual sodomy, regardless of whether same-sex or heterosexual;

• Amend the code to “ensure sexual orientation-neutral application” with regards to sexual offenses. For instance, Article 134 prohibiting adultery, would be rewritten to include a married female servicemember having sex with another woman who was not her spouse;

•  No separate housing or bathroom facilities for gay or lesbian servicemembers and no assignments of sleeping or housing facilities based on sexual orientation “except that commanders should retain the authority to alter … assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission”;

• No revision “at this time” of regulations to add same-sex committed relationships to the current definition of “family members” or “dependents” in regards to military benefits, such as housing, but to revisit the issue at a later date;

• Review benefits “that may, where justified from a policy, fiscal, and feasibility standpoint,” be revised to enable a servicemember to designate “whomever he or she wants as a beneficiary”;

• Evaluate requests for re-entry into the military from those servicemembers discharged under DADT “according to the same criteria as other former Service members seeking re-entry”; and

• No release from obligations of service for military personnel who oppose serving alongside gay and lesbian service members.

The survey part of the report indicates:

• 69 percent of servicemembers believed they had already served with someone they knew to be gay;

• 70 percent to 76 percent said repeal would have “a positive, a mixed, or no effect” on task cohesion; and 67 percent to 78 percent said it would have positive, mixed or no effect on “social cohesion”;

• 92 percent of those servicemembers who said they served alongside a gay person said they did not consider the gay servicemember’s presence to have created any problems for unit cohesion; and

• 26 percent said they would take a shower at a different time than a gay servicemember.

The report noted that the responses of Marines Combat Arms units (fighting forces on the ground) were “more negative” than the forces overall concerning how gay servicemembers would affect unit cohesion. Overall, 21 percent said gays in the unit would negatively affect their unit’s readiness, but while 43.5 percent of Marine Combat Arms said so.

Both Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen also underscored a need to move slowly and carefully to implement repeal, should Congress approve it. In doing so, Gates highlighted a finding that between 40 percent and 60 percent of all-male combat arms and special operations units predicted a negative effect of repeal on unit cohesion. He said this finding was a concern for him and for the chiefs of the branches of service. And he urged Congress to consider this in its deliberations.

But Gates said he did not consider that finding to be an “insurmountable barrier” and said he does believe repeal “can and should be done without posing a serious threat to military readiness.”

Even before the report was officially released at 2:15 Eastern time on Tuesday, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said it expected the report to be “overwhelmingly positive” and “one of the best tools that repeal advocates can use” in the lame duck Congress.

The report will be the subject of two days of hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday and Friday, Dec. 2 and 3. Republican opponents of repeal, led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are expected to challenge the legitimacy of the study and to tweak out information within it to support their position against repealing the law.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who had been considered a potential vote for repeal, surprised many over the weekend when he began to parrot a criticism of the study that McCain raised in recent days — that the Pentagon studied “how” to repeal DADT, not “whether” to repeal it.

Gates rebuffed this criticism previously and again during today’s press conference.

“This report does provide a sound basis for making decisions on this law,” said Gates. “It’s hard for me to imagine you could come up with a more comprehensive approach.” More than 400,000 servicemembers responded to a survey, as did thousands of family members. And Mullen said data “is very compelling.”

But Graham also told Fox News Sunday on Nov. 28 that he doesn’t believe there is “anywhere near the votes” to repeal DADT “on the Republican side.”

Democrats don’t really need Republican votes to repeal DADT; it takes only 51 and, with Independents, they have 58. But many took Graham’s remarks to suggest that Republicans would stand together as a party to block the Senate from even considering the Defense Authorization bill that contains the DADT repeal language.

“I think we’ll be united in the lame duck,” said Graham of Republican senators. “… So I think in a lame duck setting, ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ is not going anywhere.

And that’s where the uncertainty lies: Will Democrats have 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster in order to begin deliberation on the FY 2011 Defense Authorization bill?

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he expects McCain and others to try and thwart repeal. He said he was hopeful Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be able to reach an agreement with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on some number of amendments either party could offer on the annual Defense Authorization bill which contains the repeal language. Among those amendments, said Sarvis, will almost certainly be one to strip the repeal language from the bill, but Sarvis said he does not believe there are enough votes to do that.

Sarvis also made clear during a telephone press conference with reporters Tuesday morning that his group is not going to put all its eggs in the lame duck basket.

Sarvis said his organization would — “early next week”— file at least one lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco to continue pressure for eliminating the ban on openly gay people in the military. He said the group would likely file two more lawsuits soon after that. Each lawsuit, he said, would represent the interests of different groups affected by the law — those on active duty, those who have been discharged and seek reinstatement, and those who would like to join the service.

Gates and Obama have both spoken out against lawsuits currently pending in the 9th Circuit seeking to challenge DADT — one from the Log Cabin Republicans (challenging the law on its face) and one from Air Force nurse Margaret Witt (challenging the law as applied). Both have been successful, thus far.

In an interview with ABC News, released Nov. 9, Gates said he thinks the end of DADT was “inevitable.”

“My hope, frankly,” he said, “is that … if we can make the case that having this struck down by the courts is the worst outcome, because it gives us no flexibility, that people will think I’m called a realist, a pragmatist. I’m looking at this realistically. This thing is gonna go, one way or the other.”

In the end, it may take more than just one showdown vote in the Senate. In addition to needing 60 votes to begin debate on the defense spending bill, SLDN’s Sarvis said Tuesday he expects Senate Democrats will need 60 votes to force a vote to end debate as well. Then a final version of the bill must be hammered out in a House-Senate conference committee and returned to both chambers for a final vote.

© 2010 Keen News Service

—  John Wright

Obama to Dems: ‘This is the time that counts’

President, other party leaders aim to fire up core constituents

LIZ SIDOTI  |  Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Democrats desperately need other Democrats — to vote.

With midterm elections in just six weeks — and Republicans fired up and ready to go — Democratic leaders are pushing issues that resonate with their constituencies, from trying to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military to allowing thousands of young illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military to become legal U.S. residents.

Democrats also have expressed outrage over Republican-aligned, big-money shadow groups. And they’re intensifying efforts to reach out to their core backers.

“This is the time that counts,” an equally fired-up President Barack Obama told Democratic donors Monday, Sept. 20 in Philadelphia as he harkened back to the energy in his 2008 campaign. “I want all of you to remind yourselves why you got involved and why you care deeply and not lose heart. But gird yourself for a battle that’s worth fighting.”

Two days earlier, Obama urged the Congressional Black Caucus to redouble its efforts: “I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back to your workplaces, to go to the churches and go to the barbershops and go to the beauty shops. And tell them we’ve got more work to do.”

His appeal to the bedrock groups of the Democratic Party comes in the homestretch of an election season in which Republicans are poised to gain seats in the House, possibly seizing control, and the Senate. Polls show Democrats far less excited about the Nov. 2 elections than Republicans are, while independent voters tilt heavily toward the GOP. The onus is on Democrats to mobilize their core constituencies — minorities and die-hard Democrats among them — to show up at the polls.

“It’s going to be very hard to win if the base doesn’t turn out in big numbers,” said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who votes with Democrats. Given the landscape, he said: “Democrats have to try to change the minds of some independents, and that’s going to be hard. So, the main priority of Democrats, to avoid what could be a disastrous election, is to bring out the Democratic voters.”

A recent Gallup poll shows that among self-identified members of each party, 47 percent of Republicans say they were very enthusiastic about voting while 28 percent of Democrats say the same. Republicans also now have a 55 percent to 33 percent advantage among independent voters.

Efforts by Obama and his beleaguered Democrats to rallying dispirited foot soldiers have been clear over the past week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, locked in a close race in his home state of Nevada, dangled before the party immigration legislation that Democratic-leaning Hispanics favor. And, with the White House’s support, the Democratic-held Senate forced a vote Tuesday on repealing the law banning gays from serving openly in the military, a priority for gay-rights advocates.

But neither effort went anywhere. Reid never did more than promise to try to get the Senate to act on immigration, and Senate Republicans blocked the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation in a defeat for Democrats and gay rights advocates.

Despite the failure, Democrats, nonetheless, sent a message to their rank and file: We’re working for you, now work for us.

Republicans painted Democrats as desperately playing election-year politics.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the committee in charge of electing Senate Republicans, accused Democrats of “a blatant attempt to score last-minute votes just weeks before an election.” He added, “These tactics are an insult to millions of Americans.”

And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, “In Sen. Reid and the Democrats’ zeal to get re-elected, this is a cynical ploy to try to galvanize and energize their base.”

Reid, in turn, castigated the GOP for blocking the defense legislation on which he had hoped to attach the immigration and gay-rights measures, saying, “Republicans are again playing politics with our national security.”

At the White House, Obama and his aides have spent the past week hammering Republicans anew for blocking legislation aimed at limiting the amount of money corporations and unions can spend on campaign advertising.

“It’s politics at its worst,” chided Obama in his weekly Internet and radio address last Saturday. He said Republicans want to “ride this wave of unchecked influence all the way to victory.”

White House aides have been playing off that theme, vociferously objecting to GOP-aligned outside groups with anonymous donors who are spending millions to run negative advertising in Senate races across the country without having to disclose their identities.

Democratic officials say they hope the pitch will help motivate what many Democrats acknowledge is a moribund base, and, perhaps, persuade at least some independents to vote against Republicans.

From the White House to Capitol Hill, Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants also have been granting interviews to black and Hispanic media as well as other outlets whose listeners and viewers are heavily Democratic.

And starting next week, the president will participate in the first of four big-city rallies in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada aimed at once again firing up backers of his 2008 presidential campaign.

The efforts to stoke the Democratic base are a striking turnaround from the last two national elections, when it was Republicans who were depressed and seeking to fire up enough of their core constituents in the campaign’s final weeks to fend off Democrats. They didn’t succeed; Democrats attracted wide swaths of voters to rise to power in Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008.

—  John Wright