A Deal on DADT?

[JB3]

As usual, you're completely delusional.

Obama is not resisting DADT repeal, lmfao. He was the one who first called for its repeal. Had the White House not chosen to make it a priority for their agenda earlier this year, the Congress would not now be examining it.

Just because Obama has not referenced it in every speech he has given does not mean he does not support it.

As I stated previously, the White House told the Pentagon earlier this year that DADT repeal was on the agenda, and that they should proceed on a "when, not if" basis. Everything has proceeded from there.

With this compromise, the White house is being dragged forward by congress, and is in no way "leading" anything. If the president had his way, they'd wait for the pentagon review before doing anything.

To be frank, I think Obama is taking credit for movement forward that's been initiated by democrats in congress, and isn't doing much on his own. Its all well and good that he's stated his support for repeal, but the actual push for repeal hasn't come from the white house.

 

[hotatlboi]

With this compromise, the White house is being dragged forward by congress, and is in no way "leading" anything. If the president had his way, they'd wait for the pentagon review before doing anything.

To be frank, I think Obama is taking credit for movement forward that's been initiated by democrats in congress, and isn't doing much on his own. Its all well and good that he's stated his support for repeal, but the actual push for repeal hasn't come from the white house.

The initial push for repeal did come from them, at the beginning of the year. The specific legislative approach has come from Congress, since that is the lawmaking body. I'm amazed at the number of people who think Obama can just do anything he wants whenever.

Now maybe Obama could have been more involved in the legislative process, but as we've seen previously with health care, he typically doesn't become involved unless there is some kind of huge loss of support as that's not his style. Maybe that is a flaw, but he certainly does not disagree with this reform path, that was an erroneous suggestion. I think both the he and congress knows there is no guarantee on anything after the election.

 

[MercuryJones]

Obama is such a pathelogical liar he can't help himself.

Congress is trying to get it done now, it's Obama who's dragging his feet.

Didnt you just a few posts earlier write "Republican Susan Collins has said she'll vote for it. But Democrats Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd are still questionable. And Republican Scott Brown, being from MA, could be a swing vote if Obama and Gates lobbied him"?

 

[NickCole]

As usual, you're completely delusional.

Obama is not resisting DADT repeal, lmfao. He was the one who first called for its repeal. Had the White House not chosen to make it a priority for their agenda earlier this year, the Congress would not now be examining it.

Just because Obama has not referenced it in every speech he has given does not mean he does not support it.

As I stated previously, the White House told the Pentagon earlier this year that DADT repeal was on the agenda, and that they should proceed on a "when, not if" basis. Everything has proceeded from there.

You are wrong.

Obama has resisted repealing DADT and Congress was "examining" it long before Obama mentioned it earlier this year. One of the members of Congress "examining" it a year ago, as I posted here, was Joe Sestak, whose run for Senate the Obama WH did everything they could to block (including offering him a job to step aside, which may have been illegal). The only reason Obama mentioned it in his SOTU and ordered pointless hearings and studies, and the only reason it's happening now, is gays who refuse to sit down and shut up as Obama wants us to. And you go along with him with that, which makes you part of the problem not part of the solution.

 

[hotatlboi]

pointless hearings and studies

And yet again you prove how fundamentally lacking you are in understanding on this issue.

The hearings earlier this year, where the military for the first time in history expressed support for open service was one of the most important events in this entire process.

Without the approval of the military leadership, this would not have happened.

 

[NickCole]

And yet again you prove how fundamentally lacking you are in understanding on this issue.

The hearings earlier this year, where the military for the first time in history expressed support for open service was one of the most important events in this entire process.

Without the approval of the military leadership, this would not have happened.

The hearings were completely unnecessary and nothing more than time filler for a President who either isn't interested or doesn't have what it takes to lead.

Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of Joint Chiefs Mullen could have expressed their support alongside the President and Commander in Chief in a press conference announcing exactly how the White House planned to work with Congress to immediately repeal DADT. That would have been a more striking and widely-seen event.

The ONLY reason this is happening is because of gays who have the balls to fight for our rights as Obama's apologists try to drown us out with their ObamaNation chant Yes We Can.

 

[NickCole]

This isn't what insiders are saying, and that doesn't include either of us.

Actually it is what they're saying privately.

Did you listen to what Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) had to say?

Patrick Murphy is trying very hard to get repeal of DADT passed and he is doing everything he can to get the President's support, however tepid, behind it. Of COURSE he's going to flatter Obama.

Obama's overly cautious and timid approach I think is more accurate a description. Yes I'm defending the president I approve of. You obviously don't, and that's your right. But no, I'm not impressed with his action on LGBT rights either.

 

[NickCole]

^^^

He's too cautious and it is a flaw. You know why? Because despite what Congress does the president takes the heat for it. So, why doesn't the president regardless of who it is take credit for signing legislation? It only seems reasonable to me. Not really but that is how our Declaration of Independence reads at a time when it was Parliament making most of the abuses against us. Funny how public opinion operates.

That's why being ready to be President means being mature enough to assume responsibility and courageous enough to fight for principled response, be decisive, take action, take the heat.

Obama was not ready and still is not.

But to both of you, we don't know anything, until insiders come to us and tell us what is actually happening behind closed doors. From what Murphy has said at the very least, it appears to me the president deserves a lot of credit.

If you don't know anything it's because you don't want to, neither of which I believe about you after reading your recent posts.

We know a lot and what we know doesn't support that Obama deserves a lot of credit for what's happening with DADT in Congress right now. Obama put this off as long as he could until a few gays started pushing back, and then all he did was call for hearings and studies that wouldn't be done until after the election when passing repeal will be even harder if not impossible. So that handful of gays kept pushing and a few members of Congress who've been on our side (NO, Obama, we should NOT holler at those who disagree with us, we should holler at those who support us and light a fire under them) agreed to help. And now Obama offers only grudging support for putting it in the defense bill, and even that tepid support only came after pressure from people like Murphy.

We know a lot, including what insiders are saying. Just have to use critical thinking to piece together what makes sense -- because although it's sometimes hard to take and sometimes hard to believe, the truth makes sense. Reports like this, for instance, have been around a while; here's one from a few months ago:

Congressional liberals were heartened when Barack Obama pledged to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but their initial elation has given way to concerns the repeal will stall in the penalty box of presidential promises: the U.S. Senate. ​

Obama’s historic commitment — featured prominently in his State of the Union speech last month — helped soothe his frayed relationship with the politically powerful gay and lesbian community. ​

It also sent a strong signal to the Democrats’ demoralized, demobilized progressive base that he’s still on their side, after delays and compromises on the public option, cap and trade and the closing of Guantanamo Bay. ​

But House Democratic leadership aides tell POLITICO they are growing increasingly worried over the lack of a detailed White House road map for passing a repeal — and that without such a road map, repeal will end up in the same kind of Senate gridlock that hobbled health reform. ...​

“Not only did Obama toss [‘don’t ask, don’t tell’] to a Congress that’s preoccupied with the economy and the midterms — he tossed it to perhaps the most dysfunctional Congress in the history of the country,” said a senior aide to a Senate Democrat who has been pushing for repeal. ...​

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32813.html#ixzz0p7dFW6ge​

 

[hotatlboi]

The hearings were completely unnecessary and nothing more than time filler for a President who either isn't interested or doesn't have what it takes to lead.

Hearings were for the benefit of Congress, they had nothing to do with the President, except in your mind of course where Obama is automatically the cause of everything you consider worthless and automatically has nothing to do with anything that is worthwhile.

 

[MercuryJones]

Hearings were for the benefit of Congress, they had nothing to do with the President, except in your mind of course where Obama is automatically the cause of everything you consider worthless and automatically has nothing to do with anything that is worthwhile.

Including complaining that Obama doesn't need to work on Congress a few posts after complaning that he's not working on Congress.

 

[NickCole]

Including complaining that Obama doesn't need to work on Congress a few posts after complaning that he's not working on Congress.

If you're referring to me, I never said Obama doesn't need to "work on Congress."

 

[palemale]

The hearings were completely unnecessary and nothing more than time filler for a President who either isn't interested or doesn't have what it takes to lead.

One would think congressional hearings are unnecessary if one does not understand the legislative process. Hearings are an integral part of law making and no legislation is passed without hearings and debate. It is the forum where Congress collects data and opinions used in formulating statutes. Indeed, legislative history is often cited and relied on by lawyers and judges in court cases interpreting the meaning of statutes.

It is incredibly naive to think that Congress would pass a law on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation on the calendar this year without hearings. To do so would show complete disdain for the voters, as well as members of the military.

 

[MercuryJones]

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

"I believe the American people don't want to see Congress move forward on a liberal political agenda."

What I really want someone to ask guys like this is: if the American people don't want these things, why did they vote for the people who ran on these things?

 

[thewiz]

Now up, Jared Polis (D-CO) for a few minutes. Speaking out against the requirement to lie as immoral, that a majority of even Republican voters support a repeal of DADT, and that DADT actually takes military decisions out of the hands of the military which is something Gingrey complained about.

[11:03 EST]

Diaz-Balart back up defending the general Republican reluctance to take action before the December report from the military.

[11:07 EST]

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) in favor of repeal on the grounds of discrimination and freedom. He would like to send a message to the World that this repeal is a symbol of American freedom.

[11:11 EST]

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) angry and screaming at the top of his lungs against a repeal of DADT. By the way, this guy is one of the most outspoken homophobes in Congress. I've heard him speak over a dozen times. "The military is not a social experiment." Yeah yeah yeah, Gohmert, we've heard it all before. Now sit down before you have a stroke.

[11:14 EST]

Pingrie back up defending LGBT service members.

I wonder how long it will be before Gohmert and some others are found in a bathroom at Union Station or some other location? Usually those screaming the loudest are trying to cover for their own sins....

 

[KTheLibra]

Wow, Republicans are on our side all right...

 

[Kulindahr]

What I really want someone to ask guys like this is: if the American people don't want these things, why did they vote for the people who ran on these things?

They choose between the [STRIKE]puppets[/STRIKE] candidates the money men [STRIKE]have bought[/STRIKE] will support. So we get garbage no matter which way we go.

^^^ Gohmert is just pure asshole. Just listen to him speak. There is sincere anger and hate about gay rights legislation in his speeches, and he never misses an opportunity to get speaking time to speak out against it. One time he brought a Bible and started reading verses from it.

I would love to be there for such a stunt, and stand up and start reading back at him -- in Greek.
I have rarely heard someone read from a Bible in a public place who wasn't a bigot of some sort, using the Bible as a hatchet for cutting down opposition.

 

[hotatlboi]

lmao at all the Republican excuses. "The review is not completed", "relinquishes Congressional authority", etc.

How many PC ways can they come up with to say "I hate gay people and don't want to see them treated equally ever"?

 

[Kulindahr]

In 2007 during the debate on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which by the way, passed by a comfortable margin although did not protect transgendered people. Gohmert spoke like a fire and brimstone preacher.

Update on progress in the house, McKeon continues to insist on using his time to debate DADT, while not out of order, it is certainly irrelevant to the amendments being discussed. His aim is to make this vote as painful as possible for pro-repeal congressmen by quoting the generals who oppose a repeal of DADT.

[3:18 PM EST]

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) stands up and fires off conservative arguments against gays in the military, the usual ones, about cohesion, religious freedom, and gay marriage as well, citing spousal benefits.

[3:30 PM EST]

Forbes couldn't help himself, continuing the lie that Congress is about to vote to end DADT. The Murphy amendment only removes the law, not the policy.

[3:32 PM EST]

McKeon comes back to repeat himself, this time with a smirk, because he knows he's only doing it to try and embarrass the Demcrats.

If there's a pro-repeal Republican in there, he should stand up and read the entire list of patriotic Americans who've been booted because of being gay.

Occasionally throw in the quote, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country", and note that these people were not even allowed that privilege.

Occasionally he should yield the floor to someone who will read letters from Republicans urging the repeal.


I've been seeing poll figures as high as 77% of U.S. citizens of voting age wanting it repealed, and none lower than 2/3. That's enough support to get a bloody amendment to the Constitution, if our so-called representatives would listen! And these.... poor examples of freedom, who would have been Tories helping supply the Hessians back in the day, can't wake up and smell liberty.

I've decided that McCain's problem is he's afraid of freedom. Maybe it's a disease....

 

[hotatlboi]

I've decided that McCain's problem is he's afraid of freedom. Maybe it's a disease....

McCain's problem is that he's facing a primary challenge from the right, so he's lost all principles he ever had and has decided to pander to the extreme right in any way possible in a desperate bid to save his job.

 

[Apollo]

And yet again you prove how fundamentally lacking you are in understanding on this issue.

The hearings earlier this year, where the military for the first time in history expressed support for open service was one of the most important events in this entire process.

Without the approval of the military leadership, this would not have happened.

lets not forget they led to Adm. Mullen coming out in full support of repeal with the SecDef. And Obama has not said one word agaisnt them. He is letting, right now, our two biggest allies in getting rid of the law do what they need to to make it a smooth transition.