Let's play the "Why won't Obama repeal DADT?" game!

[Steven Soderburgin]

Fun game time!

Despite the fact that top military officials and most Americans support a repeal of DADT, and a bill has been introduced to repeal the law, the Obama administration has no intention of pushing for a repeal of DADT this year

Q But he's committed to them letting the Pentagon work through its working group process until December 1st, is that true? He's committed to that?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. The President has set forward a process with the Joint -- the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and with the Secretary of Defense to work through this issue.


Q Before any legislative action is taken -- that rules out legislative action this year?


MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- the House and the Senate are obviously a different branch of government. The President has a process and a proposal I think that he believes is the best way forward to seeing, again, the commitment that he's made for many years in trying to -- changing that law.

In fact, Senator Carl Levin was pressured by the White House to hold off on the hearing that eventually took place to explore the possibility of repealing DADT. Here's how it went down!


link

Still, Obama included his intention to end the policy in his State of the Union address, saying, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law…”

Yet just days after the January 27 speech, White House officials convened a meeting on February 1 with LGBT advocates in which they said the policy would not be included in the president’s recommendations for this year's Department of Defense authorization bill, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the meeting.

“It was a definitive shut-down from [Jim] Messina,” said a source, who was present at the meeting and agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, referring to the White House deputy chief of staff. “He said it would not be going into the president’s Defense authorization budget proposal.” The news was a blow to activists since the Defense funding bill is the best legislative vehicle for including a measure to overturn the policy. “It almost seemed like the bar on the hurdle got raised two or three times higher,” said the source.

link

But just the White House has pushed other legislation into the forefront only to back away and watch the congressional fireworks from afar, so it seems to be with ending the military’s gay ban.

As Rep. Barney Frank told me Friday, “I’m disappointed with the administration talking about delaying legislation for a year. But I’m working with Patrick Murphy [the lead sponsor of the House repeal bill] on it and I’m hoping we can push ahead.”

Like many pro-repeal advocates, Frank has consistently pinpointed the National Defense Authorization Act as “the only vehicle” for overturning the ban legislatively. When I noted that the White House has failed to designate the defense authorization bill over a stand-alone bill as its preferred method for repealing the policy, Frank responded, “That’s because they don’t want it done this year, not because they want it done separately.”

If Frank is correct, that would help clarify two things: (1) why administration officials declined to comment on the introduction of Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s new repeal bill — because they actually prefer the defense authorization act over a stand-alone bill; (2) why they haven’t advocated for a repeal measure to be included in this year’s authorization act — because they would prefer the issue recede into the shadows until next year.

link

Democrats in the House and Senate — including two key lawmakers from Colorado — say they are unwilling to wait for completion of a 10-month Pentagon study on repeal of the policy known as \\"don't ask, don't tell\\" and are instead moving to include immediate repeal in the defense reauthorization bill, scheduled for mark-up next month.

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., among the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee backing the move, said the committee was \\"within a vote or two\\" of including repeal in the must- pass legislation. He met with three discharged members of the military Tuesday, using their stories to highlight the need for repeal this year.

Rep. Jared Polis, a Boulder Democrat and one of three openly gay members of Congress, holds a key position on the Rules Committee that he is willing to use to insert a similar provision in the House version of the spending bill, he said Tuesday.

Congressional aides said both approaches are likely to face opposition from the White House, which in February laid a timetable built around an extensive Pentagon study that won't be completed until Dec. 1, pushing a final move on the contentious issue past what's expected to be Democrats' toughest election cycle in years.

So what the fuck is going on here?

 

[Covar]

Clearly he is a bigoted homophobe.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

well he's certainly not an LGBT ally

 

[Iaculus]

I think the excuse I heard was that an executive order will not be passed because DADT was legislation passed by Congress, makingit Congress's business to overturn. To do otherwise would be to set an unfortunate precedent for presidential intervention. This is in contrast to the executive order banning racial segregation in military units, which did not contravene any existing Congressional laws.

As mentioned, though, that's only what I heard, and I leave it to people better-versed in US law to assess its validity.

 

[Dave]

The main issue is that he is a politician. He is trying to walk the fine line between keeping promises he can keep and keeping his electibility for the next campaign.

One thing I've always noticed is that campaign promises don't mean shit when you get into the office and begin to face the reality of what's actually accomplishable.

Of course, this is more of an executive order so it would be easier, but he is more privy to the possible ramifications of the action.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

It's not just that he's not issuing an executive order. It's that he's actively avoiding any kind of involvement on the issue despite pleas for leadership on it from Congress, military leaders, and gay rights groups. And as I pointed out in the OP, the repeal of DADT is something the majority of Americans support.

 

[Dave]

Yes, but the majority isn't who is being the loudest. He is also looking at what the opposition will use against him in the next election. No matter what he does he'll be incorrect to someone.

 

[GasBandit]

well he's certainly not an LGBT ally

To steal a quote from Bulworth, "Well, what are you gonna do, vote Republican?"

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

Yes, but the majority isn't who is being the loudest. He is also looking at what the opposition will use against him in the next election. No matter what he does he'll be incorrect to someone.

So why not do THE RIGHT THING? Why not do the thing he promised to do throughout his campaign?

EDIT: The thing he said he'd do in his fucking state of the union earlier this year while at the same time he was pushing Senators to hold off on bringing up the issue??

 

[Calleja]

He won't do it THIS year, he still has at least 3 more years to do so, yes?

 

[Chazwozel]

It's not just that he's not issuing an executive order. It's that he's actively avoiding any kind of involvement on the issue despite pleas for leadership on it from Congress, military leaders, and gay rights groups. And as I pointed out in the OP, the repeal of DADT is something the majority of Americans support.

Unless you've got numbers to back that ass up, I'm afraid I'm going to call bullshit on that.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

It's not just that he's not issuing an executive order. It's that he's actively avoiding any kind of involvement on the issue despite pleas for leadership on it from Congress, military leaders, and gay rights groups. And as I pointed out in the OP, the repeal of DADT is something the majority of Americans support.

Unless you've got numbers to back that ass up, I'm afraid I'm going to call bullshit on that.[/QUOTE]
there's the poll in the OP and this one.

 

[GasBandit]

Unless you've got numbers to back that ass up, I'm afraid I'm going to

.

 

[Chazwozel]

It's not just that he's not issuing an executive order. It's that he's actively avoiding any kind of involvement on the issue despite pleas for leadership on it from Congress, military leaders, and gay rights groups. And as I pointed out in the OP, the repeal of DADT is something the majority of Americans support.

Unless you've got numbers to back that ass up, I'm afraid I'm going to call bullshit on that.[/QUOTE]


there's the poll in the OP and this one.[/QUOTE]
So going along with what Dave said, for every 1 rational person you have 3 of these kinds of kooks:

I strongly believe gay and lesiban is wrong. If they open this box and allow gays to freely serve in the army than they are openly saying its ok to be gay or lesiban and it is not cause if it was than gay marriage would be legal. I have been thinking about joing the military and i would not want a man staring at me why i take a shower or use the bathroom and now you dont know if the girl watching you is lesbian but if they make it ok for gays to serve in the military than you will know and i personialy think that more people would end up dead if its legal for this to happen. It sickens me to know that the man i am serving next to would be to girly to stand up and be a real man….WE NEED TO GET OUR VOICES HEARD!!!!!

 

[Chibibar]

Heh Chaz, Sadly some of these guys don't realize that many gays DO already serve and guess what? they don't stare at your "ugly" ass (not yours Chaz the guy you quoted from) I do agree it is a fine line that the president don't want to touch until maybe his 2nd term. (since he can't get a 3rd hehe) If it is legal to be in the military and gay, then maybe gay marriage (U.S. wide) would be next. you be surprise how much "fear" these people have....

It is not as if a bunch of people will just "turn gay" they are already exist but don't have the same rights.

 

[Dave]

I want to take some flamboyant gays to one of those anti-gay rallies. I'll take the gays really close and say, "Don't worry! They are more afraid of you than you are of them!"


Really homophobic people hate gays with a passion and an even bigger erection at the thought of gay sex.

I think Willie Nelson said it the best....

 

[Calleja]

Y'know how abolitionists must have felt in the 1860s about slavers? That's how lots of us feel about openly homophobic people.

 

[Seraphyn]

As with many things, I'll just never understand how anyone can support this open discrimination of fellow human beings. Hell I even wiki'd gays in the army and it's kind of sad to see how far the U.S is lagging behind on this. I didn't even know this, but apparently we banned discrimination of gays in the armed forces in 1974 :O

 

[Chibibar]

As with many things, I'll just never understand how anyone can support this open discrimination of fellow human beings. Hell I even wiki'd gays in the army and it's kind of sad to see how far the U.S is lagging behind on this. I didn't even know this, but apparently we banned discrimination of gays in the armed forces in 1974 :O

Sadly.... people will always fear the "unknown" I have many gay friends and they think this is totally stupid. The hetro people are afraid that the military will just turn into a "flamboyant" gayfest or something if DADT is repel.

 

[GasBandit]

Ok, I guess I came off as too snarky by quoting Bulworth. So I'll give the answer in plain English -

The answer to the question at hand ("Why won't Obama?") is simple - the Democrat party feels it has nothing to win and everything to lose by pushing that issue in an election year already looking bad for them.

As part of the perils of our current system, we only have two "real" choices for political parties. Steven, do you ever really see the LGBT community voting Republican, for any reason, much less this? Even if Obama went on TV today and said "The LGBT community can suck on DEEZ NUTS," would even that be enough to convince you to vote Republican? For (likely) MITT ROMNEY?

I don't think so, and neither does the Democrat party.

 

[Krisken]

Sorry Dave, George Takei said it best.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

and as I pointed out in the OP, the repeal of DADT is something the majority of Americans support.

Do you really want government policy on LGBT issues decided based on the majority opinion?

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

No, it would be terrible to base civil rights off of majority opinion. You're missing the point. My point is not that it should be done just because most people want it done. The point is that it should be done because it's the right thing to do, and arguments about how Obama would have to face a huge shitstorm for repealing DADT are pretty baseless BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WANT IT REPEALED. It would be easy to implement and fairly popular and there is NO REASON, NOT EVEN A SHITTY REASON LIKE A MAJORITY OPPOSITION NOT TO DO IT.

 

[Dave]

I think we all agree DADT doesn't work and should be repealed. But that wasn't the question you posed. The question you posed was why Obama hasn't. You can get as indignant as you want but that won't change the political realities of what is happening.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

The political reality is that the Obama administration and the Democrats are huge fucking cowards. That's what I'm indignant about. There have been some Democrats in Congress had been pushing the White House to move on this issue, and it would be an easy win for the Obama administration. There is no reason AT ALL for the Democrats not to push this through. Want to know how cowardly the Democrats are? In addition to the polls above showing that most Americans support a repeal, there was also a general poll of Tea Party sympathizers recently and most of them support repeal of DADT:

Tea party sympathizers believe blacks are less intelligent, hardworking and trustworthy. They appear to be particularly wary of immigrants. And they don't much care for gays, either. (Although note that two-thirds of them support gays in the military, an issue on which policy has long lagged public sentiment.)

That is 67% of people who strongly approve of the Tea Party movement supporting gays serving openly in the military. On all other issues (gay marriage, gay adoption, anti-discrimination laws), there was very little support, but not on DADT.

Oh and GasBandit, I'm not going to vote Republican, but between the expansion of executive power beyond what Bush did (declaring indefinite detentions at Guantanamo, approving the assassination of American citizens) and this, along with weakness and waffling on other issues, I'm not going to vote for Obama again.

 

[Chazwozel]

Go ahead, throw your vote away!

 

[Espy]

Seriously, if Obama and the Democrat Late Night Band overturn this it means...

1) They can't campaign on it.
2) They can't rile people up with it.
3) They can't save it for when they can't pass something big.
Which basically comes down to this: They can't use the civil rights of others as a tool to keep themselves in power.

I think GB is right here. They know most LGBT folks aren't going to do anything but keep voting dem so why throw away such a nice little political playing card here?

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

Yep! And the really big gay rights lobbies (like HRC) don't want to rock the boat by actually lobbying for changes because they might lobby themselves out of existence!

It's so fucking stupid and makes me so mad. The Dems get by on paying gays lip service and occasionally throwing us a bone (like the hospital visitation thing, which is admittedly a very good and much-needed move) but when it comes to the big stuff, they constantly drop the ball, and the big gay lobbies (heh) don't do shit. Fuck this straight Earth.

 

[GasBandit]

Damn you, big gay lobby!

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

hey you got the joke

 

[Dave]

The Dems get by on paying gays lip service and occasionally throwing us a bone (like the hospital visitation thing, which is admittedly a very good and much-needed move) but when it comes to the big stuff, they constantly drop the ball, and the big gay lobbies (heh) don't do shit.

Just as the Bush administration payed lip service to the Religious Right and then did nothing to further their causes.

It's not just Obama, but nearly all current era presidents who campaigned on one thing and then had to deal with the realities of office once elected. It's like his promises of being totally transparent. Sure it made good press, but in practice it's not a good idea, which ticked off his followers.

Welcome to politics.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

I had a really long reply typed out, but I'll just say this: I'm not going to surrender to cynicism and say that this is just how politics works, because it hasn't always been like this and doesn't have to be. I am upset with the Democrats and with the Obama administration, but I think and I hope that gays will not respond to this with resignation and will instead actually push the administration to move on DADT and get it repealed. When it comes to election time, I'm going to follow the words of Eugene Debs: "I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than for what I don’t want and get it."

 

[Krisken]

The Dems get by on paying gays lip service and occasionally throwing us a bone (like the hospital visitation thing, which is admittedly a very good and much-needed move) but when it comes to the big stuff, they constantly drop the ball, and the big gay lobbies (heh) don't do shit.

Just as the Bush administration payed lip service to the Religious Right and then did nothing to further their causes.

It's not just Obama, but nearly all current era presidents who campaigned on one thing and then had to deal with the realities of office once elected. It's like his promises of being totally transparent. Sure it made good press, but in practice it's not a good idea, which ticked off his followers.

Welcome to politics.[/QUOTE]
He campaigned on one thing? Now that isn't really fair. There were a lot of issues that all the candidates campaigned on.

 

[Espy]

I don't think dave means "one thing" the way you think he means it. I don't think he's implying Obama didn't campaign on other things.

 

[Krisken]

I don't think dave means "one thing" the way you think he means it. I don't think he's implying Obama didn't campaign on other things.

He's implying that DADT was his major campaign promise. Never mind Finance Reform, Healthcare, Reduction in Nuclear Arms, etc. I think those issues were as heavily pushed, if not more, than DADT.