Would it be better strategically to have a gay or straight person start a DADT repeal in congress?

[Cant trust em]

Obviously a gay person would make sense since they are the ones being affected by the policy. However, it could send a signal that this affects everyone if it were a straight person.

Any thoughts?

[xultar]

1. WTF I don't think it matters. Would you ask the same if it were a bill for Asians or AfricaAmericans

[Cant trust em]

4. Yeah. I think it's the same principle.

Does it seem more legit if it comes from within the specific community, or does it make it seem more noteworthy if it comes from the outside (ie, I don't really benefit from this, but it's just the right thing to do)?

I think that a little PR and imagery can go a long way.

[Oregone]

2. It depends on exactly what they want to move to

There is a large group of people in Congress who want the right to serve in the military to be a right, insofar as you purchase such a right from a private corporation. If you cannot afford the price of the transaction, you may be subsidized by the federal government. If you are gay, the corporations selling the right to serve will only be able to price such a right 3X as high. Purchasing the rights from corporations should only entail you with an actual 60% entitlement to serve, in which case, you will be responsible for securing the other 40% of your right individually.

Honestly, thats one hell of a realistic, pragmatic start, which is progress in my opinion.

[Hekate]

3. If you're talking about Barney Frank, he is a long-time legislator and is skilled at what he does...

I expect him to be in the forefront anyway. Beyond that, there are legislators who are straight who have a friendly interest in this topic, and I expect them to ALSO be in the forefront. Everyone who isn't under a rock knows it's time to repeal this bad law, and it has to go through Congress. The only ones seriously standing in the way are the same ones who voted a straight party line to keep us from having health insurance reform.

IMO it's not about who's "better strategically," it's about enough of Our Guys just girding up their loins and getting it done immediately if not sooner. Maybe Obama can do a little vote-whipping on this issue now.

Hekate

[Cant trust em]

6. While I expect everyone to take a stand, there will probably be a point person or two

Much like Anthony Weiner and Howard Dean have been the guys for health care reform. Is a better symbol for HCR someone who doesn't have insurance so they know first hand what it's like to not have it, or someone who does have it, but sees the essential element being equality for all?

[KamaAina]

5. How about an Iraq vet like Patrick Murphy?

This is supposed to be about military readiness, right?

[walldude]

7. It would be best if someone with a fucking lick of common sense

just fucking repealed it. Screw this "start the repeal process". It could be done with the flick of a pen.

[onehandle]

8. Joe Lieberman is already starting this.

I know we are not his biggest fans, but I think this is a good thing.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/2/lieberman-announces-plan-to-introduce-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell

[Cant trust em]

9. Lieberman does something right every now and then.

He's a tough one to pin down. I'm never really sure if we need more people that are in the middle or less.

[BR_Parkway]

10. Straight man - President Obama - most of the policy wonks say that

unless it is included in the Defense Appropriation that is sent over from the President's office, it probably won't be repealed during this Congressional session. Including it makes it almost a foregone conclusion.