Not enough votes to end DADT filibuster?

[Kulindahr]

Bill Clinton can go fuck himself.
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=279951

I can't believe I'm defending Clinton, but you guys who condemn him so much are like British citizens after Dunkirk, heaping abuse on the commanders for not driving the Germans clear back out of France, when they'd done an admirable job defending an unavoidable retreat -- though the analogy fails; Clinton managed something that was at least a flawed advance on DADT.

 

[BostonPirate]

I've been avoiding this thread because I knew the Republicans were going to run in here and gloat.

Sadly I was right.

To gloat this way for THIS reason is disturbing.

 

[MoltenRock III]

To be more precise, that's an adversarial-confrontational zero-sum worldview, where everything is done by opponents out to get each other and there are no partial victories. Unfortunately, a great number of Americans view things that way, maybe even a majority.

Personally, that's why I think this election is going to be extremely hard to poll or predict a winner. Let's be honest having voters en masse vote against someone / something has always been a stretch. It's going to be extremely hard for the Republican Party to get people to vote against Obama, as it is for Democrats to get their brothers and sisters to vote simply to stop the haters. However, the edge does come into play that Democrats actually have a vision, a plan, and solid achievements in their first 2 years back in power. They now need to stop being so damned afraid to run on those achievements and tout them from the highest mountaintop.

Trying to get voters to vote against the opposition is a fool's errand. The Republicans tried it with Bob Dole back in 1996. The Democrats tried it in 2004 with John Kerry. Mondale was another good example of just being against something rather than for something.

You need to have a plan, a way forward, in order for Americans to vote for you. The Republicans right now have no ideas, no plans, no achievements, and no solutions, so I am doubtful they will be as "successful" come November as a number of others think they will be.

 

[hotatlboi]

I don't hold it against him at all.

Now DOMA is somewhat of a different story.

Well it was either sign DOMA or have his veto overridden, not much choice there either.

The outcome would have been the same, but he could still have taken the principled position.

 

[Kulindahr]

Personally, that's why I think this election is going to be extremely hard to poll or predict a winner. Let's be honest having voters en masse vote against someone / something has always been a stretch. It's going to be extremely hard for the Republican Party to get people to vote against Obama, as it is for Democrats to get their brothers and sisters to vote simply to stop the haters. However, the edge does come into play that Democrats actually have a vision, a plan, and solid achievements in their first 2 years back in power. They now need to stop being so damned afraid to run on those achievements and tout them from the highest mountaintop.

Trying to get voters to vote against the opposition is a fool's errand. The Republicans tried it with Bob Dole back in 1996. The Democrats tried it in 2004 with John Kerry. Mondale was another good example of just being against something rather than for something.

You need to have a plan, a way forward, in order for Americans to vote for you. The Republicans right now have no ideas, no plans, no achievements, and no solutions, so I am doubtful they will be as "successful" come November as a number of others think they will be.

Thus the Pledge: they at least look like they have a vision. That it's recycled ideas they didn't take care of while they could have doesn't register with many people.

Well it was either sign DOMA or have his veto overridden, not much choice there either.

The outcome would have been the same, but he could still have taken the principled position.

 

[koontzfanwv]

So you think that he'd help things by confusing the issue?

And second lieutenant in ROTC could tell you that's messed up: you have a goal, you fight for the goal, you don't divide your attention.

Point of information: how is Clinton "using the blame game"?

Kuli,i wasn't bashing Clinton,i'm just not fooled by him. He wagged the dog quite a bit in his administration,pretending to fighting terrorist attacks against the US when in reality bombing empty buildings didn't solve a thing.It only gave the appearance that something was being done. That's how i feel about his DADT remarks,Wagging the dog once again. as to your q,i was referring to him saying "his hands were tied." In a thread about repealing DADT i was also sadly amused that when i mentioned Bill Clinton,some seemed to be defending DADT. That's what i was reacting to.How quickly the tide turns in political waters.

 

[construct]

Kuli,i wasn't bashing Clinton,i'm just not fooled by him. He wagged the dog quite a bit in his administration,pretending to fighting terrorist attacks against the US when in reality bombing empty buildings didn't solve a thing.It only gave the appearance that something was being done. That's how i feel about his DADT remarks,Wagging the dog once again. as to your q,i was referring to him saying "his hands were tied." In a thread about repealing DADT i was also sadly amused that when i mentioned Bill Clinton,some seemed to be defending DADT. That's what i was reacting to.How quickly the tide turns in political waters.

I wasn't satisfied with DADT at the time, but I recognized it as an improvement over the Reagan/Bush policy that it overrode. If it had been studiously followed it would have eliminated the witch-hunts of the preceding period. But the policy wasn't always followed, and it became increasingly apparent that the trade-off of freedom of speech and association for freedom from pursuit and harassment was neither fair nor workable. And that's where we are today.

 

[SuperPsyze]

It's one of those policies that are good in theory (compared to an outright ban), but in practice it wasn't any different.

The thing is, if an officer orders a witch hunt to find homosexuals, he's breaking policy. However, if the target is found to be gay through this illegal investigation, then he/she would be ejected from the military. If the officer is tried and found that he was guilty of violating policy, he would get a slap on the wrist, and the victim would still be ejected from the military. Basically, DADT is no different from a ban, but conservatives can just hide behind it yelling "That is not the policy! That is not the policy!"

 

[Kulindahr]

It's one of those policies that are good in theory (compared to an outright ban), but in practice it wasn't any different.

The thing is, if an officer orders a witch hunt to find homosexuals, he's breaking policy. However, if the target is found to be gay through this illegal investigation, then he/she would be ejected from the military. If the officer is tried and found that he was guilty of violating policy, he would get a slap on the wrist, and the victim would still be ejected from the military. Basically, DADT is no different from a ban, but conservatives can just hide behind it yelling "That is not the policy! That is not the policy!"

Although....

I met a gay Marine who went on and on about commanding officers. He had one who never exactly did a witch hunt, but everyone in the unit knew that any hint of being gay could be reported and the officer would act on it.

This guy was one of the best men in the unit. One day a close comrade mentioned that he'd been reported, but not to worry about it. Somehow the report in the files suddenly said the commanding officer had been purposely investigating, and the guy who'd done the reporting was in the infirmary from a real severe accident.

The higher-ups sent investigators, who found the commanding officer had been violating the policy, and filed that in a report. They got a new CO who did it the way I've humorously recommended: DADTDC, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Care.

The former CO? He got promoted back to the states.

 

[Kulindahr]

True enough, but I wish he would've made more of a fuss about the infamous Section 3.

And really, knowing that it was unconstitutional, he should have just vetoed it for the hell of it. At least he would have been on the right side of history.

And then the fight for an amendment to the constitution would have begun.

He could have been creative, and done a Bush: make a signing statement.....

 

[islgb12]

This thread might be dead, so sorry for the bump.

This thread is sort of funny, because there is all of this hate on Republicans, when our DEMOCRATIC President, as Commander in Chief of our national forces, has the power to end DADT.

I'm not saying Republicans are right in what they've done. I just think it's ridiculous that Obama won't overturn DADT.

 

[BostonPirate]

no he does not have that power

he cannot undo a law.

that would be a dictatorship.

He needs congress to undo DADT. He has already ordered the millitary to not enforce the law, but that puts him in conflict with his oath of office as president.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[BostonPirate]

^^^

If ONLY Obama were a dictator, right?

LOL

on one hand they say he is, and then when he doesn't act like one, they say he is doing badly

 

[Kulindahr]

This thread might be dead, so sorry for the bump.

This thread is sort of funny, because there is all of this hate on Republicans, when our DEMOCRATIC President, as Commander in Chief of our national forces, has the power to end DADT.

I'm not saying Republicans are right in what they've done. I just think it's ridiculous that Obama won't overturn DADT.

What, you think we changed to a monarchy somewhere along the line?

DADT is law. The Constitution names him CiC, but it also specifies that Congress has the authority to set out how the military is going to run. In those terms, they outrank him in the chain of command. "Commander in Chief" doesn't mean "absolute monarch", it means he gives orders within the established rules. He doesn't even have the authority of one of ancient Rome's elected dictators; all he can do is take the military as Congress constitutes it and give it orders.

The funny thing is how often this misconception keeps popping up.

 

[Kulindahr]

He needs congress to undo DADT. He has already ordered the millitary to not enforce the law, but that puts him in conflict with his oath of office as president.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Congress or the courts -- so at the moment he's covered. We'll have to see how his strategic appeal goes.

 

[hotatlboi]

Correct me if I am wrong, but DADT per se is just regulation issued by the Secretary of Defense.
The statute(s) passed by Congress which require dismissal of individuals who engage in homosexual behavior long predate the 1994 Department of Defense DADT directive that has forbidden the military from asking about sexual orientation or behavior in the absence of reliable evidence suggesting someone engages in homosexual behavior.

The law which informed the regulation was updated in 1994, it is true that the "don't ask" part is just regulation, but this is what the law says.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

Unless the president has the legal authority to nullify this law under stop loss powers (which I've heard competing opinions on) then ordering the military to halt separations of known gay people would be contrary to law, not just regulation.

 

[laikaNYC]

It's called not giving fodder for your enemies.

This is the most pro-gay US President in history, a Democrat, and it drives you up the wall so badly you can't stand it.

Yeah, that's like being the skinniest kid at fat camp.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

- Barack Obama, the most pro-gay US President in history.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/20081101/story.jhtml

 

[BostonPirate]

It's called not giving fodder for your enemies.

This is the most pro-gay US President in history, a Democrat, and it drives you up the wall so badly you can't stand it.

I think your answer once again should be directed at laitkas last post.

 

[BostonPirate]

just a reminder here....

DADT would have been repealed if John McCain hadn't led the filibuster of the bill.

He was supported by every single republican in the senate.

THAT is the fact of the issue.

 

[SuperPsyze]

Yeah, that's like being the skinniest kid at fat camp.



- Barack Obama, the most pro-gay US President in history.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/20081101/story.jhtml

Yeah, we already know that part, Laika. Despite that remark, he's still the most pro-gay President so far. Clinton tried to fight for us, but didn't really do the best job (he ended the military ban, but gave us DADT, which didn't really work...). It sucks, definitely, that we don't have a true advocate, but we work with what we got.