Obama: 'don't ask, don't tell'

[Txgoodoldboy]

I saw this earlier. Then, when I saw your thread, I realized it was from the Washington Times. Isn't that the Moonie paper?

I think the time is right to do it now. He should go in with full force. Put it all on the table.

The guy is intelligent. Let's see what his plan is.

 

[Sausy]

^ Yep, it's the moonie paper, but if it's true I find it rather disappointing!

I agree with you however, that he should go in with full force and do it now!

He's not going to go too fast on this.Clinton made the mistake of going too fast and had to settle on DODT as a compromise.Obama's doing the smart thing...he's got to make a substantive impact on the economy and other more immediately pressing issues before he can be in a position to risk his capital trying to get it through without building a track record of accomplishment in tackling the issues that affect people directly in this economic mess we're in.I read the article,and I support how they're approaching this as understandably frustrating as it is in terms of justice.

 

[NickCole]

This isn't 1993; it's a totally different cultural and political landscape. In 1993 the country wasn't yet past the assault of anti-gay forces that came out with both barrels as soon as they realized they could use AIDS against us; it had been a nasty 10 year fight and the religious right had put out a ton of ugly stuff about us.

Starting in 2009 we have a solid Democratic majority in Congress and this could probably get through fairly easily. By midterm elections who knows what the makeup of Congress will be; if Obama and the Democratic Congress are unsuccessful at turning around the economy, it if continues to deterioriate and we're still in Iraq, voters may decide divided government is a good idea. And putting it off for a year or two gives anti-gay forces a good chance to organize and spend all kinds of money in marketing against us. They did it in California on Prop 8.

We'll see what happens but I think this "strategy" has the hallmarks of another missed opportunity.

 

[josher]

He'd be an idiot to focus on this right now.

His immediate agenda must be the economy, Iraq and health care.

He has to build consensus before talkling more devisive issues.

The problem with this forum is that many people have opinions, but don't understand how things work in D.C.

I would be very surprised, if there was any action on the "gay agenda" items before late '09 - early '10.

 

[construct]

Here, I agree with robertac's analysis. I fear that the Blue Dogs might balk at gay stuff during a midterm election. However, I wouldn't mind putting it off until after the first hundred days.

I'm encouraged by this Obama quote from the article.

The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute," he told the group, in a statement posted on their Web site. "It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols.

I think it shows a sensitive pragmatism that is likely to succeed.

 

[Sausy]

Hey Sausy,

I disagree! It's really a matter of what's right and wrong IMHO! A lot of very qualified good men and women have been forced out of the military, qualified people that the military needs I might add, on this archaic policy. What this country needs is some leadership and vision, not a bunch of pussy footing around with a bunch of old brass in the Pentagon!

I'm starting to think I might be more liberal than you Sausy! LOL

I wish it could be pushed more urgently,damn I hate DODT because it keeps dedicated gay service men and women in the closet.It is archaic,unfair and bigoted...I'm just saying this is good strategy to lay the groundwork for ultimately overturning it.Clinton moved too fast and we got stuck with something that hasn't served gay and lesbian military personnel well,DODT.

Your heart is in the right place,Robert!

 

[NickCole]

Two of you have mentioned the economy as if the Administration can work either on the economy or on DADT. They're totally separate issues, will have different advocates and could be handled at the same time. Also Obama said he'd work to overturn DOMA; will that be put off as well?

Obama is almost certainly not going to have to expend any political capital getting through economic legislation. If his policies are a failure they may cost him political capital down the line but right now Congress doesn't know what the hell to do with the economy and my bet is they're going to be willing to go along with just about anything Obama puts forth.

I know how Washington works. You either use your power when you have it or you risk losing it. Obama will tackle DADT and any other gay rights issues only if it's safe, and if it's never safe, he'll keep nudging us aside saying, "Later." And why shouldn't he? Gays are saying to the President who made promises to us, hey it's okay to ignore our rights -- while at the same time having hissy fits at Mormons who never promised us anything.

 

[Spensed]

^ You're like Fox News, attacking Obama for not performing or delaying his election promises even before he's been sworn in.

Whereas Palin, who was rejected by the electorate, you praise for eating turkey and facing up to the fact that it's a live bird that has to be killed, etc, etc. Such wisdom and knowledge in one so young. LOL.

 

[letme]

^^ how does repealing DADT increase efficiency fighting terror ? Hell , it could make it worse. Islam hate gays & kills them for there thoughts ,let alone actions.

 

[MystikWizard]

It will happen soon enough. This is hardly a top priority given the challenges this nation is facing at the moment.

 

[letme]

Matthew , I can see/read your passion but there more important matters then fags waving flags.

 

[letme]

Why is it the nation can handle immigration, the economy, the war, education, etc...all at once

We have not even begun to handle any of the above things.

NOTHING

I have NO Rainbow Flag. My orientation and thoughts are mine. I don't live in a "our community and our issues"

Being gay is a fact not a political stance.

I am an American 1st aside from what a certain yellow dog may think . I am comfortable being a SWGM. I have a life , not a life style.

 

[Passion4Muzik]

I'm not seeing what the issue is. Did Obama ever state that repealing DODT would be the first thing he'd do? I think the man should be inaugurated before he is criticized for what he will or won't do. He is not in power now. The aide said he won't repeal for months and perhaps not until 2010 which would be the next year after he takes office.

 

[archive]

i can tell alot of people are kind of lacking on military culture.....to me gays in the military dont really want DADT to be repealed so they can serve openly, but more so that if found out....trust me...serving openly would cause more problems than its worth....they can stay in.....hell i love what i do....but military culture is much different from civilians......i dont believe he should start off with that...maybe progress towards it...but there are much more important (depending on who you ask) things to accomplish

 

[josher]

I know how Washington works. You either use your power when you have it or you risk losing it.

Ask Bill Clinton, who just after his inauguration wanted to integrate gays into the military openly by executive order, if he agrees with you.

It knocked the agenda for his first year in office for a loop.

 

[archive]

Prime example of that would be the linguists that were discharged. Most of them were actually out while in the military...ppl around them knew (it didn't cause them "more problems" as you suggest but I get what you're saying) finally the wrong person caught wind of it and they were booted. DADT would rid them of that worry...and they could reveal themselves to who ever they want to...or keep it under wraps...but either way, not worry about getting kicked out.

exactly...

 

[josher]

He was also blindsided by his own party (Sam Nunn)

That's very much part of my point.

Do you think a Democratic controlled Congress will automatically roll over and play dead for any given Democratic president on every issue? Not bloody likely. They always feel the need to push back against Executive Branch authorirty.

 

[construct]

I wonder if he's heard of something called an "executive order" This fancy schmancy term means he could order, as the Commander in Cheif of the Armed forces of the United States of America, a position bestowed upon him by the American public a decree that no-one could be fired for their sexual orientation in the military.

This order could be issued within a few minutes and is fully legally binding in the operations of the nation. He could issue the order while the debate is handled in congress and he 'slowly' works at it, or even delays the full initiative.

Will an executive order be written though?

No.

And $20 says by the time the 2012 election rolls around DADT is still in place.

You've been watching Bush too long.

The President does not have authority to repeal a statute by executive order. DADT is a statute, not a suggestion.

 

[NickCole]

Ask Bill Clinton, who just after his inauguration wanted to integrate gays into the military openly by executive order, if he agrees with you.

It knocked the agenda for his first year in office for a loop.

It's about to be 2009, not 1993.

Different cultural climate, different political climate, and not inconsequentially, different economic climate.

 

[NickCole]

Same anti-gay bigotry. He shouldn't risk the Democratic majorities, shouldn't waste political capital, on this, something that "could probably" (your words) pass.

A "waste" of political capital.

Self-hating homosexuals think gay rights don't deserve to be a priority.

Thank God our friends and lovers with HIV didn't have to depend on self-haters who excuse elected officials for not "wasting" political capital or risking Democratic seats.