Aren't Gay Rights and Immigration Priorities? Why Is Obama Silent?

A few weeks ago, President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House with several members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss the passage of the DREAM Act in the lame-duck session. The act would offer a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children age 15 or younger. If they met certain criteria, they would be eligible for military service, federal student loans, state aid and in-state tuition. After completing two years of college or military service, they would also be eligible for citizenship.

The CHC members seemed optimistic, if not invigorated, that the president was supportive of the legislation. As Lynn Tramonte of the immigration advocacy group America's Voice told Politics Daily, "Obama has voiced his support and spoken elegantly on the issue, but he should put some muscle into the DREAM Act to show that he's serious."

Others were more skeptical. Tamar Jacoby, president of the pro-immigration business advocacy group Immigration Works, was concerned that the issue of immigration had merely become political football. "Latinos voted for Democrats in this year's elections," she said at the time, and meetings like this one "are the president's way of saying, 'We heard you.'"

In a similar vein, at the end of October, the president held a closed-door meeting with gay-rights groups to discuss the repeal of the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy in the remaining weeks of the congressional calendar. Groups at the meeting were unable to discuss specifics, but representatives who spoke to Politics Daily following the pow-wow expressed optimism that the policy stood a chance at being repealed in the waning days of the session -- especially if the White House put its weight behind the matter.

The administration has trotted out any number of experts and Cabinet-level officials in support of both measures -- Secretaries of Education, Homeland Security and Commerce all voiced their support for the DREAM Act in recent days, while the White House designated Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to run point on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during congressional hearings this past week.

But the president himself has been curiously, conspicuously silent.

In the meantime, the prospect of passage for both pieces of legislation remains in limbo -- and time on the clock is running out. Speaking to the DREAM Act's prospects in Congress, America's Voice Executive Director Frank Sharry said, "The problem is the Senate. Will the Republicans play ball? So far, they're showing no signs. It's still an uphill battle." Asked how he felt about Obama's leadership on the issue, Sharry offered only, "The White House is trying hard."

It's a similar story with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "The White House continues to reiterate that this is a priority for them, but the measure of success is whether the repeal happens," said Michael Cole-Schwartz, press secretary for the gay-rights group, Human Rights Campaign. "Everyone is looking for the president to be active and take an interested role in the coming days. 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is listed among a number of priorities, but it needs to become clear that this is among [the administration's] highest priorities.'"

Of all the pending legislation that the White House has highlighted as a "priority" in the lame-duck session, with the exception of the Bush tax cuts, the issue the president has put the most energy and time into is passage of the New START Treaty. The U.S.- Russia joint arms agreement, which significantly reduces each country's arsenal of nuclear warheads, has long been an Obama favorite -- and never more so than today.

Though the measure previously enjoyed broad bipartisan support, when Senate Republican Whip John Kyl of Arizona expressed concern earlier last month that Congress needed more time to debate its merits (thereby throwing its future into doubt), Obama went into crisis mode. Stopping in at a meeting between White House officials and leading foreign policy experts last month -- including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright and James Baker -- the president declared that Congress had "no higher priority" in the lame-duck session.

At the NATO Summit in Portugal days later, Obama spent considerable time drumming up international support for the measure -- proof to the skeptics at home that not only was New START critical to America's national security, but that the country's reputation was hanging in the balance. "I have received overwhelming support from our allies here that the treaty is a critical component to U.S. and European security," Obama said. "And they have urged both privately and publicly that this gets done."

Still concerned that the agreement might slip through its fingers, on Thursday, Obama met with former Secretary of State Colin Powell in the White House to discuss -- what else? -- the New START Treaty. Powell's support was a nod to conservatives -- and Republicans in Congress -- that it was time to sign on.

Kyl, in recent days, has seemed to suggest he will relent -- and it may be that Obama has won this round, at least on New START. But some of the president's core supporters have expressed dismay that, in the process, the administration has sacrificed too much in return.

Privately, advocates grouse that Obama, a wonky, policy-driven president, has placed far too much priority on ratification of the arms treaty -- an issue that's been near and dear to his heart since his early days in the Senate. In currying favor with the GOP on New START, the president has stepped away from more incendiary, politically sensitive legislation -- including immigration reform and gay rights -- that could have had a considerable impact on American public life (and, it's worth noting, American voters, come 2012).

For a candidate who campaigned on these issues -- singling out environmental reform, gay rights and immigration reform as top concerns -- the retreat at the midnight hour has been surprising at best, demoralizing at worst. As my colleague David Corn points out, "There is no fierce urgency of now."

Said one advocate, "He's spent no political capital" on these issues. Given that, one can only wonder whether the White House will be surprised if its net gains at the end of the 111th Congress edge close to zero.