Still Punting To Congress

Can't walk and chew gum, apparently:

In today's press briefing, David Corn of Mother Jones asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the report and whether the Obama administration thinks this is "the way to go." Gibbs largely dismissed CAP's recommendations, saying that the White House is not interested in signing an executive order to temporarily halt DADT:

GIBBS: Well, the President has had meetings about this, has talked with members of Congress. His staff has talked with members of Congress. All of them have talked to Pentagon officials and the administration believes that this requires a durable, legislative solution, and is pursing that in Congress.

Q: I understand that for the long-term solution, but what do you take issue with about signing an executive order that will suspend the separations before an endurable solution is reached through the slow legislative process?

GIBBS: I mean, I think there could be differences on strategy. I think our belief is that the only and best way to do this is through a durable, comprehensive legislative process.

Joe says:

There's that damn "durable" language. He's also used the word "sustainable." This White House could just come up with a practical plan that would stop destoying the lives of service men and women.

It's bizarre how obstinate the Obama administration is on DADT.

This is not a difference in strategy. It's a difference of priority.

Tags: Barack Obama, DADT (all tags)

Comments

91 Comments

Re: Still Punting To Congress

Josh,  what is your take on Charles' argument on DADT?

by mikeinsf 2009-06-26 10:28AM | 0 recs
Obama administration playing catch up ...

... with local Idaho TV:

by Chino Blanco 2009-06-26 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama administration playing catch up ...

Thank you for this wonderful post. Seeing the human face of these things is what allt he obstructionists pretending that this harm can be ignored because it protects President Obama's interest of avoiding the subject need to see.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama administration playing catch up ...

I love that none of the other commenters here bothered to respond to or uprate that video.  It's pretty telling that they're all more concerned with trying to marginalize your complaints against the administration.  I hope these people are paid operatives of the WH rather than people who actually consider themselves true progressives because liberal, they ain't.

This entire thread is so depressing.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama administration playing catch up ...

Well it's not all that surprising. The issues are not all that important to them in the final scheme of things.

by bruh3 2009-06-27 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Still Punting To Congress

The shellgame will continue so long as the great bulk of people see their goal as defending President Obama and/or the Democrats rather than addressing policy.

This has always been the flaw of the blogs- electing Democrats was never going to be enough to produce better results because Democrats are not the party of real reform. Not yet. For that you need better Democrats.  Why? Because Democrats are the party that spent the last 40 years trying to move right in order to win elections. Or as Bill Maher recently said- our choices are between the right of center party and the party of crazy.

Nate Silver had this excellent diary up post election about how if Obama could not achieve repeal of DADT this would say a lot about his administration. I agree. I think John Avarosis maybe gets it right by saying this is the canary in a coalmine.

I appreciate your post because of its grounding in reality that the Democrats are playing hot potato with this.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Still Punting To Congress

Executive orders based on temporary emergency powers aren't real. Legislation is. It would be nice to have both? But I could also see how in this case going with the first could get in the way of getting the second.

Obama is going with exactly what he said he'd do the entire time he was running for President: repealing DADT via legislation. Congressional leaders have been saying basically all year that a DADT bill will be the next thing up as soon as ENDA, now introduced, is passed. Blogs suddenly decided that they disagreed with the idea of a legislative DADT repeal in May of this year, AFTER supporting Obama on this for an entire campaign and in some cases the first four months of his presidency. Whatever. Meanwhile the resources of the gay rights movement are being wasted on infighting and an all-eclipsing debate over whether DADT will end in February of 2010 or July of 2009.

by mcc 2009-06-26 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Still Punting To Congress

Not only wold the executive order get in the way of the legislation to end DADT, it would get in the way of all legislation.

It's a surreal world, because I imagine that now I understand how John McCain and Bill Bennett feel. They (among others) have been apoplectic about Obama's "timid" response to Iran -- even though the rest of us understand that, in fact, Obama is doing exactly the right thing by not inserting himself forcefully and making the US a focus of the conversation there.

So while I often feel frustrated by Obama's "timidity" in repealing DADT -- or at least issuing an executive order to suspend it temporarily -- logically, I can certainly understand why in the long run it is the best strategy. Sometimes it's hard to reconcile the emotional against the logical.

On the other hand, as has been noted elsewhere, it's past time to aggressively lobby Congress on this and other issues.

by fsm 2009-06-26 12:11PM | 0 recs
Absolutely

I don't want the emotion around this issue to be tempered, but I do think it should be joined with more strategy.  The whole OMG DO IT NOW!!1! could yield positive results if property channeled.

IMO, Congress should bear the brunt of the fury on this issue.  CAP's recommendations are politically flawed.  If Obama signs an executive order banning dismissals, it would certainly feel good in the short term.  But let's be serious- Reid will never force the Senate to take this up if that happens. He'll slither out of whatever issue he can, and this is his exit.

The President has shown again and again that his focus is on the long-term.  I want DADT to disappear forever and I want to be SURE that it is dead.  I think the concern about the durability of DADT's death are legitimate, Josh.  We all want JUSTICE! and yes, this is both a matter of priority and strategy.

by enr37 2009-06-26 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely

Is this the latest argument by the protect President Obama at all causes online community? Why is it either President Obama pushes for a legislative agenda or Congress must lead. This is a false choice. Both are possible and preferred.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it either...?

Because specific things are considered in their specific contexts.  Yes, President Obama does have the flaw of wanting to be liked; but while it would be nice for him to risk himself more, he's rarely more than three days behind the optimal strategy, often less.  

Do you have any more straw men?  

by Endymion 2009-06-26 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it either...?

I am at a lost to even understand how your analysis of Obama's personality is a response to why we should not both pursue a legislative push for DADT repeal as well as  push the WH. You throw out words like strawman, but that seems to be projection on your part since I was not discussing Obama's personality. I was discussing whether we should place pressure on him and the Congress. The latest game is to say "well put pressure on Congress but not Obama." Okay- why exactly should we not place pressure on Obama? Why just the Congress? Both are part of the process, and both need to be pressured. It's a false choice to claim otherwise, but protect obamat at all cost has not choice but to argue the absurd.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it either...?
The discussion of Obama's personality was an olive branch, moron; a point of possible mutual agreement to take away the sting from my rebuke of your ignorance.  
Your straw men are these:
  1. positing an online community of honorless, unthinking Obama loyalists.
  2. the implication that two separate sincere positions espoused by different people or in different times or regarding different subjects are mere rhetorical devices switched between at will by the aforementioned monolith.
3)that no one(except you suddenly now) is suggesting comprehensive course of action, presumably because of 1).
To these you have added 4) the supposed commandment that Obama must somehow not be pressured for the specific duration of our pressuring Congress.  You have also seen fit to take up the mantle of the educator, come to illuminate the nature of the process to us.  This then gives us the final straw man, which is really the first and the basis of your others: that all of us here are silently crying out for salvation from our crushing ignorance, enlightenment for our blindness, emancipation from the bonds of our loyalty to Obama.  
Your comments reveal an enthusiasm for your own ideas that precludes honest disagreement, and indeed ignores honest agreement as well.  The whole is also a little colored by a desire for self-aggrandizement(something I sympathize with; I had, perhaps have, that tendency myself(see what I did there?  Olive branch.  Hope you're taking fucking notes, this is the advanced class)), and a lack of patience.  Essentially, your initial dishonesty is so palpable that subsequent attempts to define the conversation come off as disingenuous and your otherwise reasonable questions seem a trap for the ingenuous.
by Endymion 2009-06-26 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it either...?

Why are you acting so dickish?  Perhaps you and Bruh were arguing on another thread, but in the context of this post alone, you seem really out of line.

I agree with you that this isn't an honest debate, but you're the ones being dishonest.  Any one of these lgbt issues must be put into the larger context of Obama's interaction with the gay community, beginning in the primaries.  If you're unfamiliar with his history of duplicitous actions, I suggest you familiarize yourself post haste as a truly honest debate would be otherwise precluded.

However, I suspect that you and everyone else here is aware of this history which is why it is no longer sufficient to defend Obama based purely on his rhetoric alone.  The new plan of action is to parse, parse, parse the words and get down to the wonkish details of the legislative, elective and political process so that we might divine Obama's true intent.  And herein lies the dishonesty:  there are only so many facts from which we can extrapolate intention, and we are extrapolating based on actions taken vis-a-vis rhetoric whereas you are extrapolating based actions yet-to-be-taken vis-a-vis rhetoric.  You're basically making arguments from inside Obama's head (which is pretty fucking extraordinarily stupid in-and-of-itself), and that you have the audacity to malign and dismiss those of us who are actually in the trenches feeling the repercussions is at best a grandiose attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance and at worst just selfish indifference.  And that's to say nothing of what I view as the borderline-bigotry in tone and comment that I see permeating these threads.  Apparently it's acceptable to label as "blackmail" standing up for equal rights.  It's amazing to me that such comments can be made on a supposedly-liberal blog and go unchallenged.  Shame on all of you.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it either...?

 I could not have said it better. Thanks.

by bruh3 2009-06-27 09:49AM | 0 recs
Right. Apply the same standard to health care...

Imagine if all the apologists saying Obama should wait for Congress to lead made the same argument about torture or health care--NOTHING would get done.

The President has a role in setting the agenda, and he's doing nothing substantial to advance civil rights (and some would argue, has done substantial damage to the civil rights cause).

by chiefscribe 2009-06-27 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely

What fury?  On DADT nearly 70% of the population favors overturning it, including a plurality of Republicans and conservatives.  This isn't an issue that requires political capital; it's an issue that requires a little leadership.  It's depressing the lengths that so-called progressives will go to in order to apologize and excuse this administration.  It's not at all any better than the Bush sycophants.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
can you count votes?

there are two reasons why a rational, objective person would applaud his courage for publicly acknowledging that he would keep his promise: first of all, despite what the polls say, republicans will definitely ravaged the president for it.  regardless of whether you think this will effect the poll number you cite, the history of how this issue basically destroyed any liberal intentions of the clinton administration has been instructive.

in fact, for some perverse reason, the country seems to be returning to the ideological arrangement of the clinton era.

gallup headlined this write-up as: "Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group.

now, i'm not familiar with the 70% poll, but i am familiar with the fact that americans tend to support overturning dadt.

as i've mentioned previously, my understanding is that it is the president's analysis that it is the general officer corps that remains most resistant to change in this area, and the one he seeks to change.  that's a real plan, one that will minimize the possibility of dividing the nation or descending back into the cultural wars.  we agree, it requires leadership -- and that's exactly what barack has promised to provide.

it's almost like you can't take yes for an answer.

the second reason that i think you ought to acknowledge the president's courage is that, in the face of considerably pressure, he knows where the votes are in congress.  how many republicans do you think are going to vote to overturn dadt?  i'd suggest that if you get more than a handful, you'd be lucky.

how many republicans do you expect to skip this vote?  again, if you get more than a handful, you'd be lucky.

so how the 40-odd members of the congressional black caucus votes on this issue looms large.  and this points back to my criticism that the equality movement hasn't done enough to build relationships with the leaders in black churches in this country.  you haven't given the african-american members of congress any cover (far too many of whom have made the absurd claim to me that there are no black gays).

so it is easy to defend this president against the rather visceral charges made by some gay activists.  he's given you his word, but you (i don't mean you specifically although you clearly qualify) have attacked him anyway.  you are making demands of a "constitutional scholar" that doesn't fit with how he sees the constitution or how he wants to govern while in office (something we knew before, both in his book and his campaign).  and you (the equality movement) has yet build sufficient support for the cause in congress -- and it still actively alienates key components of it!

but at least you are honest in preferring bush to barack.  i was struck by the fact that, for the first time ever (in my experience) the log cabin republicans had a float and major presence in the chicago gay pride parade.  so you're not alone...

by bored now 2009-06-29 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: can you count votes?

This is all absolute tripe.  You're obviously operating in state of alternate reality in which you see your buddy "Barack" as not a politician, but someone who doens't rescind on promises (he already has) and someone whose word is as good as actually taking action.  It's absolutly moronic.  He's not your close, personal friend; he's a politican.  And this is what I meant when I referred to the Bush sycophants.  I never said that Bush was better than or as good as Obama.  I'm talking about the core supporters who refused to ever see anything but the good even when the "good" was bad.  You're basically just like them except on the other side of the aisle.  And those people were fucking lunatics.  Just saying.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-30 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Still Punting To Congress

Every president signs executive orders, but this is the first time I've seen it argued that they impede legislation in general.  May I request further explanation on your part?  The very first executive order was the Emancipation Proclamation; was Lincoln wrong to not wait for Congress to act?  History recognizes that act as a good thing, but perhaps it's overlooking specific legislation that was impeded because of it.  Enlighten me.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 09:14AM | 0 recs
Dumb comparison

Congress was powerless to pass any law emancipating slaves because of the Dred Scott decision, which left the decision to the states. Techinically Lincoln's executive orders were Unconstitutional, but by the time the war ended, most states had banned slavery anyway.

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Dumb comparison

Straw man.  We are talking about executive orders inhibiting future legislation as implied by the above commenter, not individual reasoning for the employment of such orders.  Further, DOMA has been upheld by the courts, too, and yet it can still be overturned by an act of Congress.  Or so I've been told.

I wasn't posting the above comment to be snarky.  I was being sincere when I was requesting further information becuase I'm not an expert.  I'd honestly like to know more.  Unlike you and your little friend, this issue is actually important to me, and I'd like all the facts.

Speaking of which, do you take your sidekick everywhere you go?  It's seriously lame.  Are you two teenage boys?  Ugh.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:26AM | 0 recs
This is completely different

this doesn't make any sense. First off, Lincoln COULDN'T wait for Congress to act because they couldn't act.

DOMA decisions were made on constitutional question of legisltion, Congress can repeal legislation...Dred Scott wasn't a ruling on legislation...Congress can't pass a law banning abortion either because of Roe.

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: This is completely different

Just for the record:  My initial question has still not been addressed.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:41AM | 0 recs
Well you weren't asking me.

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Well you weren't asking me.

I don't want to pretend that I'm an expert on the legislative process, becuase I'm not.  I also am not anywhere close to expertly when it comes to the context of the Emancipation Proclamation.  But I do have a cursory understanding of how our government works, and I know that none of the three branches over-powers the others, and each has checks and balances it can employ in relation to the other two.  So your contention that Congress could not act and Lincoln's action was unconstitutional doesn't seem right to me.  The Supreme Court doesn't have ultimate authority.  Congress, for example, can amend the Constitution.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Well you weren't asking me.

He's not going to answer your question

by bruh3 2009-06-27 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Dumb comparison

One of the reasons I believe them to be socket puppets is that they do tend to post together quite frequently and at odd times where they would almost have to be , at the very least, coordinating schedules.

by bruh3 2009-06-27 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Still Punting To Congress

If Obama were putting in efforts to repeal DADT, you would not see the response you are seeing in the gay community. Instead, he is neither attempting the executive order or approacing Congress for repeal. As it is, to claim that he must repeal through legislation when he's not pursuing legislation as a response to questions  over executive order is bad faith. It's really that simple.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Still Punting To Congress

You don't explain how an executive order would get in the way of legislative reform in your view.  A conclusory statement like that is meaningless.  Please provide your rationale.

by orestes 2009-06-27 08:01AM | 0 recs
it is a difference in strategy...

it's way beyond me to understand why anyone would want a temporary solution to this problem that only promises to re-ignite the culture wars.  do you really want a mexico city consensus solution to dadt?  (i mean, i guess you do.  i just wonder if you've carefully thought about it.)

but it is also clearly a difference in priority.  the president obviously thinks that saving the economy, getting out of iraq, fighting terrorists in afghanistan/pakistan, passing health care reform, passing a global warming bill, saving public education, rebuilding our credibility in the world, getting his supreme court nominee through the senate, staffing his administration etc are higher priorities that gay rights.  the question is, who's to argue with him?

to act like the president will break his promise to move equality forward, and specifically to repeal dadt, is absolutely immature.  we have no reason to believe that he will not keep the promises he made -- even if gay activists abandon him.

the difference is in timing.  he has his own time-frame, and it clearly is not your's...

by bored now 2009-06-26 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: it is a difference in strategy...

The attempts to mischaracterize the gay rights activist argument through hyperbole (by claiming they wanted it yesterday!) is one of the reasons gay groups question the good faith on gay rights issue of the administration. If you respond in ways that do not distort their views- which is to ask for a real course of action or a time table of action that does not require as it does not a second term, then you would see a different result. The fact is this desire for executive order is coming out of the administrations statement that it will not repeal DADT until after 2012.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: it is a difference in strategy...

When did the Obama administration say it would wait until after 2012?

by fsm 2009-06-26 01:06PM | 0 recs
consider the source...

if you don't agree with him, he'll invent facts and distort your views so that he can feel better about his argument.

having said that, i don't expect the administration to move on dadt until 2011 (an impression coming out of my own experience in the primaries)...

by bored now 2009-06-26 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: consider the source...

It's funny how you attempt to demonize me, but at the same time innoculate your b.s. by saying "well but if it's true, then this was always the plan."  Except it wasn't.

http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/obama- team-denies-it-will-delay-dont-ask-repea l/

"A member of Barack Obama's transition team is denying media reports that the president-elect has decided to delay efforts to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" until 2010.

"An Obama transition team spokesperson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the decision on how to approach repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which prohibits gays from serving openly in the military, would be made after more experts have joined the Obama administration.

"These decisions will not be made before the full national security team is in place," the spokesperson said.

The Washington Times reported last week that two people who have advised Obama's transition team said the president-elect "will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010" to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which Congress passed in 1993."

this is one among many stories that came ouf of the administration's positioning after the Washington Times claimed that the administration would push the repeal back to 2010. Now, you are arguing it was always planned to be 2012.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 02:02PM | 0 recs
Follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole...

Is there anyone else besides me that reads the last sequence of Bruh posts, and is feeling like it was a master class in circular arguing?

State a point as fact, THEN show some posts that don't really prove that fact, THEN accuse someone of arguing something that has NOTHING to do with what they said?

It's like bait, switch, switch again, accuse something else completely different, and sit back and declare victory!

Wow, just wow!

by WashStateBlue 2009-06-26 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole...

cut and past what part of my statement is circular.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 03:32PM | 0 recs
I ain't your monkey....

And I wasn't posting it for you, any-who!

I am not interested in trying to prove something to you that you disagree with, that is acknowledged as a MyDD impossibility.

It's like trying to argue with a Bible Thumper, it ain't about logic, it ain't about any dialectic, it's about blind faith.

You have blind faith in your rightness.

The rest of us think faith has nothing to do with it.

by WashStateBlue 2009-06-26 03:46PM | 0 recs
i'm not demonizing you, i'm describing you...

specifically from what i've observed and how you interact with others.  if you think that it is demonizing than i would suggest that you think about how you interact with others.

a perfect example of this was in your attempted quote: "well but if it's true, then this was always the plan."  except i didn't say that.  you made it up.  and you put quotes around it to infer that i did.  which is intellectually dishonest.

you can be forgiven for not understanding the real quote that you posted.  my work with the transition was not in this area, so i'm just assuming that the methodology was the same.  in my own work, we wrote our reports, met and wrote up a transition report (a plan) always knowing that the administration would redo the entire process with a completely different set of experts once obama was sworn in.

your problem, which appears pretty consistent to me, is that you force facts into your own peculiar perspective which seems (to me) wholly unrelated to the real world.  so i can see how you can look at that quote and think that it contradicts what i said.  that's what you want.  that's what you need.  so that's what you see.

i look at that quote and see nothing in it that contradicts what i said.  the president likes input.  he likes a lot of input and from a lot of different sources.  now i have no doubt that you find this process by the president greatly offensive.  you are opposites that way.  but obama is president, and i think many if not most voters knew that we were voting for (or against) a remarkable thinker who was going to look at issues from all the different sides.

i suspect this, more than anything else, explains your irrational jihad against the president...

by bored now 2009-06-26 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: i'm not demonizing you, i'm describing you...

You junior rove wannabes are amusing. You continue to attempt to demonize even while spinning your own unproven assertions. You claimed he was referencing 2012 as a back up because you couldn't be certain whether I would find the link or not regardging what I remember from the Yahoo news article. That's the sole reasn you made that statement.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 03:55PM | 0 recs
right. because i said something like that...

of course, i never "claimed he was referencing 2012."  you just made that up (again).

see the pattern here?  i'd bet everyone else does!

my comment had nothing to do with a yahoo news article.  i don't even know what you are talking about.  but it is typical bruh to invent things just so that you can disagree.  oh, and sound authoritative.

it is intellectually dishonest, but then, we've already covered that...

by bored now 2009-06-26 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: PWNED!

For the record, more people have been following this thread than have been commenting.  Bruh is just the one doing the leg work.  I've had enough and had to weigh in, though, because the rest of you are more concerned with protecting the Obama administration than standing up for basic civil and HUMAN rights.  That's not progressive, and that's not liberal: it's political hackery and, frankly, indecent.

And none of you have "PWNED!" anyone here, so you can quit saying it.  It's not cute.  This isn't a cutesy issue, so take your fist-bumping elsewhere; it's obnoxious and lame.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 08:34AM | 0 recs
Most people?

The mysterious person who randomly pops up in one thread suddenly knows what everyone is doing?

What? are you following EVERYONE's reading habits on the internet?

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people?

I think you misread my comment.  I said "more people" not "most".   For future reference I'm not going to be responding to you if all you're doing is looking for excuses to be catty.  It's pointless.  I just wanted to make clear that Bruh is not some lone wolf.  As a member of the lgbt community, I wanted to call all of you out as no friends of ours.  I'd seriously love to see you guys take some of these arguments over to some gay blogs though.  You should try being in the minority sometime, then maybe you wouldn't relish so much ganging up on others.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:17AM | 0 recs
Gay blogs, whatever

I've taken my argument to gay friends and they're not acting like you or bruh.

I really don't need to be your ally...if you want to burn your bridges, then fine, burn your bridges.

Stop playing victim, it doesn't win you any friends

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Gay blogs, whatever

"Stop playing victim, it doesn't win you any friends"  I think Dick Cheney said the same thing to the ACLU.  God, you're embarrassing.

There's ignorance, and then there's willful ignorance.  The ignorant should be pittied and an attempt to educate should be made.  But the willfully ignorant have all of the information at their disposal but are happy to remain where they are.

Guess which category you're in.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Gay blogs, whatever

You have made it abundantly clear that you are not an ally to the glbt community, so there is no bridge to burn with you.  You are the one plkaying the victim (you don't want me to be your ally, so I'm going to take my toys and go home).  What you can't handle is that the glbt is not willing to be a victim of this administration.  You are threatened by an active gay community flexing its muscles to obtain their equality.  But see that's how progress is made.  There were a lot of white people who were threatened by African Americans demanding their rights too (they're so pushy; they want everything for themselves).  Your views have a long history in this country.  You're just on the wrong website.  

by orestes 2009-06-27 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: PWNED!

Thanks, but it's not necessary. As I was recently told about this posters behavior by a front page diarist- Nf is transparent, so just ignore him.

by bruh3 2009-06-27 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: PWNED!

By the way- the same goes for Dt. He or she is a sock puppet that appears to post at the same time as Nf does.

by bruh3 2009-06-27 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh look bruh called in reinforcements

Not at all.  I happen to read this blog because I'm a Democrat.  You can find comments from me regarding the VA gubernatorial race under "Mario Democrat";  apparently that named was barred from making comments after I called out Jerome for being a hack.  So I've been reading these threads and other lgbt-related threads but have been unable to comment.  I just got to the point that the things being said were so offensive I had to create a new name and stand up for my community.  Thanks continuing to marginalize us, though.  It's nice to know people's true colors.

Also, I really hope you're something like 13 years old becuase that's the only way I can excuse your tone and comments.  PWNED!

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh look bruh called in reinforcements

as I said I think you are wasting your time. He is just throwing shit against you to see what will get you to respond.

by bruh3 2009-06-27 10:13AM | 0 recs
what is shocking to me...

is that you seem to think that a republican administration would be better here.  i understand the argument that gays should be republicans in order to protect their money, but on equality?

really???

by bored now 2009-06-29 04:08AM | 0 recs
Re: what is shocking to me...

There you go, again, mischaracterizing what a commenter said.  The commenter said nothing about a repbulican administration.  I love how you will offer baseless and non sequitur responses to a comment, yet you vehemently deny the logical implications of your own comments.  

by orestes 2009-06-29 12:15PM | 0 recs
she is free to correct it...

i do.  here's the irony.  you absolutely refuse to allow me to correct your mischaracterizations, but then whine that i should do exactly what you refuse me!

we clearly don't agree on what constitutes logic.  maybe you should do the math so i can understand.  more likely, though, you perceive that your idea of the implications are universal, when they are obviously not.  regardless, i reject your mischaracterization of what i said.  honesty should compell you to accept that.

by bored now 2009-06-29 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: she is free to correct it...

With a name like "Mario" I'm really not sure why you would assume that I'm female, but whatever.  Not only do I not believe that this issue would be any better with a Republican administration, but I seriously have no idea where you think I even implied as much.  When someone criticizes your good friend "Barack" it doens't necessarily mean  we're threatening to go Republican.  The way you view things is so warped.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-30 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: it is a difference in strategy...

It was reported on Yahoo News as a part of a greater story and a few gay news sites (I believe Pam's House of blend, the Advocate or Towleroad).  I read a lot of gay related news sources like the Washington blade, and therefore, can not remember reported the quote. I believe it came from discussing the issue with the Press Secretary.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: it is a difference in strategy...

I read a lot of gay related news sources as well, though I don't remember reading that. Plus I have googled extensively, and the only places I can find where anyone said it would be delayed until 2012 is from blog entries worrying if that was his plan. Of course, the most recent story about it on advocate.com is that Reid thinks they will do it this Congress (not that Reid has a great track record IMO....)

Perhaps you've mistaken someone's blog comment for an administration position. From what I can see so far, Obama has consistently said from the primaries until today that he wants DADT repealed, that Congress has to do it, and that it won't be a major priority for him in his first year.

by fsm 2009-06-26 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: it is a difference in strategy...

Perhaps, but I distinctly remember seeing this as a news item. I also remember that issue come up here, and one poster providing a link to the article. Google search will not necessarily help if it was in a Yahoo News item.

If I am wrong, I am willing to admit regarding the date that I am wrong. I have no vested interest in being right about this point other than my concern that gay rights will not be addressed. I would prefer that i am wrong.

My first and only interest is the resolution of the issue. The by product of that here is that I face people who are at odds because their first goal is not gay rights, but instead Obama.

As for the rest of your statement- what he has said he wants and what he is doing regarding Congress is 2 different things. Part of this I believe may stem from the fact i see Obama aas a politiciana nd treat his words as such. When a politician does what Obama is doing- its called punting. When they are saying COngress has to do it, but then they do nothing to push that ont the legislative agenda, I suspect punting.

Saying he wants Congress to repeal is not a response to his lack of pushing for said bill in Congress.

I am and continue to be perfectly willing to wait so long as their is active effort like a real time table to push for this after healthcare, etc. I believe a lot of gay people have as their problem the fact that rather than addressing time tables, we are often faced with bad faith arguments such as bored nows claimt hat it was 2012 all along. When the singals, at the very lest we can call them that, that his administration was putting out was something entirely diffrent like 2010.

DADT is not even my big issue- ENDA and DOMA come before that for me. but to the extent that this is the canary in the coalmine , I am concerned.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: it is a difference in strategy...

I have no doubt that you distinctly remeber reading the quote, but that the quote was someone's opinion rather than a statement of the administration's position.

For that matter, what Obama said during the primaries that he would do is exactly what he is doing: being supportive but not making it a primary issue. You say you are willing to wait as long as he is working on his other priorities, but your constant complaints about what he hasn't done so far belies that claim: you clearly feel he hasn't done enough yet. There's nothing wrong with feeling that; as I said earlier, I feel that too even though I understand that politically he's doing the right thing for now. And that's the real difference here.

Well, that and that I'm not accusing people of hyperbole while engaging in it myself...

by fsm 2009-06-26 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: it is a difference in strategy...

The information came from Yahoo News and additionally was reported on Pam and other sites. I simply can not remember the article. That does not make it hyperbole or wrong. it means I can not find the link. Hyperbole is where you exaggerate facts or change them without any basis. What is your basis for claiming that this is what Obama promised all along given the fact gay groups are angry at him, including the Service Member Legal Defense Fund?

Do you just think they are making it up to spite Obama? What is your explanation for the administration official who was sending up comments about 2010? How do you explain other Congressmembers who made similar statements in the Washington blade amongst other sources?

Part of the problem here is that when many of you are given evidence (that at the very least corraborate that I am not one who tends to make up things out of no where or without serious sources), what you are looking for are smoking guns and video tapes of the event in which Obama says "Yep, I am punting." That's not a realistic expectation of politicians.

My problem with that is that President Obama is a politician. Some times I question whether you see him as such. Do you? If you do not. IF this is about "I trust him" then that's the problem. I don't trust any elected official. I look for what they say and do and  try to discern as best I can with limited time and information what they mean.

This is not just a product of that one article, but statements by his Press Secretary in which again there was a sense that he was trying to punt on the issue. You can say "well they never said that directly" but I would respond back again- that's an unrealistic standard. Even a court of law would not require such a high standard by which to judge what's happening. But, the hyperbole here does.

Meanwhile, for your evidence of yoru position-w hat do you provide? This is what I felt he meant in the primary. This is how Obama works. I think this is his personality. Those are not arguments based on any criteria upon which we can judge policy outcomes.

What you will get are artcles like the ones that I rememer where it was part of a bigger story or quotes throough administration sources discussing 2010 as the date they plan to address the issue that they later back away from. That is not hyperbole.

by bruh3 2009-06-26 08:32PM | 0 recs
your problem is not the obama is a ...

politician.  your problem is that you refuse to give him credit for being a politician.

by focusing on your victimhood, you completely overlook the courage that this politician has taken by maintaining that he will fulfill his promise to the lgbt community.  instead, you condemn him for being barack (something everybody else knew -- only you seem surprised by this), for being methodical, for listening to all sides.

and you attack barack because you know that you don't have the votes in congress -- and don't seem willing to deal with that.  nope, instead you have focused on blackmail.  no (g)A(y)TM.

i find it reprehensible that you have severely diminished the moral nature of the fight through your exploitation of immoral means.  and it is extraordinarily counterproductive that the lgbt community ravages their own among elected democrats.  but it's good to know who you are.

i did, however, get a good laugh out of your contention that "I am not one who tends to make up things."  the collective experience with you here suggests this is exactly what you are.

i've pointed that out repeatedly.  and i'm not the only one...

by bored now 2009-06-27 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: your problem is not the obama is a ...

No, you've been diminishing the moral nature of the fight this entire thread by reducing it to a matter of basically, Just wait your turn.  I can't even begin to tell you how offensive I find your comments and tone.  You're callous and condescending.

And blackmail?  Are you serious?  I'm a donor to the Democratic party, but why would I continue to give money to an administration that I view as hostile toward me and my community?  That's not blackmail, it's self-respect.  And from a political point of view, it's just common sense.  It's not pragmatic to give politicians money and votes when they don't uphold their promises.  It's sweet that you feel you can look into Obama's heart, but the rest of us (the ones who are actually affected) are a little bit more jaded.  Or realistic.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm affected and I don't feel they're hostile.

It was pathetic.  But gays do their thing their own way, I guess.  And we're definitely not monolithic: I've had arguments with gay Obama apologists too.  However, you're a fool if you don't realize that the memorandum signed by the President was a direct response to the outcry online and behind the scenes.  It was a pittance, to be sure, but perhaps this act successfully pacified a substantial amount of the community.  For now.  I don't know, though; we'll see.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm affected and I don't feel they're hostile.

Nice silly straw man you made in arts and crafts today, junior.  The commenter never claimed to speak for the entire gay community.  Read his post more carefully.  His staements are all in the first person (you do know what this is, yes?).  

by orestes 2009-06-27 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: your problem is not the obama is a ...

well, sorta.  i can see why you would say that i am diminishing the moral nature of the fight.  i completely reject the underlying assumption that life is fair, there is equality in our society and power is evenly distributed -- as long as you are not gay.

only then could you rationally, objectively make the claim that i am suggesting that you wait your turn.

honey, if i expected you to wait your turn, you'd be waiting a hell of a long time.

as for my tone, your observations are as valid as anyone else's.  i may be condescending (that's up to you) but there is certainly no intent to be callous.

and, yes, i said blackmail.  i know, i know, i'm straight, so my perceptions don't matter.  i'd imagine my perceptions of the joy i witnessed -- and the joy i felt in seeing the chicago gay community completely uninhibited yesterday -- don't matter, either.  or do they only matter if i agree with you?

here's why i'm using the term blackmail:

1. the president has made repeated public commitments to repealing dadt.

  1. the president has given all of us better ways to voice our opinions (both positive and negative), including his cyber townhall and the white house contact page
  2. the response of some gay activists (those who follow the gAyTM strategy) is to take supporting the party beyond the normal, "i support those candidates that support my causes"
  3. they have laid out an explicit quid pro quo (the second of the illegal quid pro quos that have been advocated for the cause)
  4. we've heard the magic words ("i don't care if republicans win.  at least then, you will take us seriously")

either the president does what you want WHEN YOU WANT IT or democrats will get defunded.  it's almost like you've been coordinating with rush limbaugh!

it's not like other democrats won't notice...

by bored now 2009-06-29 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: your problem is not the obama is a ...

There you have it:

honey, if i expected you to wait your turn, you'd be waiting a hell of a long time.

These are the words of a homophobe.  Everything else s/he says should be read in this context.

by orestes 2009-06-29 12:31PM | 0 recs
lol...

you've been looking for any excuse to call me that, haven't you?

you clearly want to believe that, and nothing i can say will stop you from doing so.  but it is all the proof i needed that you are delusional.  

"Everything else s/he says should be read in this context."  that is hilarious.  you seem to have a knee-jerk response for everything, and you have consistently been wrong in falling back on them.  but that's ok.  i can lead you to water, but i can't make you think...

by bored now 2009-06-29 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: lol...

It's not an excuse.  Those are your words.  If you were calling the shots gays and lesbians would wait a long time to be treated equally under the law.  You should find a home on a right wing blog.  I think you'd be much happier there.  

by orestes 2009-06-30 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: your problem is not the obama is a ...

In politics, withholding money or votes is not blackmail;  it's a way of registering displeasure.  

It's a very dangerous place to be, where you have such faith in someone you don't even know that you unquestioningly believe everything they say.  History provides many examples of this.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-30 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: your problem is not the obama is a ...

wait- it takes courage to say I'll address this issue?  Clearly, you have adopted the republican approach to politics.  You see, the courage comes in the doing, not in the promising to do.  With standards as low as yours we'd make no progress.  All you need to be pacified is a promise of some future action down the line.  Gays and lesbians are beyond that.  We have been told to just wait, don't make noise and we're tired of it.  Furthermore, this is the perfect climate in which to pass pro-gay legislation:  the republicans are on the ropes, the people are more concerned with their own lives and don't care about gay rights.  I bet you'd be the first to argue, if Obama broke his pledge, that he couldn't do it because it was too unpopular politically.  

by orestes 2009-06-27 08:27AM | 0 recs
yes, after clinton's experience, it takes courage

quite frankly, i suspect it's always harder to do the right thing.

you're problem is that you don't trust democrats.  or, for some reason, you've decided that barack is magical, and that he can just wave his wand (or is it, nod his head?) and everything will be ok.  i find both equally disturbing.

i'm not going to join you (or address) wallowing in your victimhood.  but, then, apparently i'm callous.  all i can say is that i expect the president to do what he promised, i expect him to do it within the timeframe that makes political sense (no need to comment on your naivete) and i will be deeply disappointed if he doesn't fulfill the promises i witness him making to the lgbt community...

by bored now 2009-06-29 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: your problem is not the obama is a ...

Well, at least you've acknowledged your disdain for gays and lesbians.  Hopefully your type of "benign" homophobia will be run out of the progressive movement.

by orestes 2009-06-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: your problem is not the obama is a ...

Seriously.  With "friends" like these, who the fuck needs enemies?

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: your problem is not the obama is a ...

well but they aren't here to be friends. They goal is to gum up any diary criticisming Obama at mydd by hijackign it. They don't just do that here, but in every diary of which criticism arises. My advice, and I keep making the mistake is to ignore them. They will simply make more and more bad faith arguments.

by bruh3 2009-06-27 10:11AM | 0 recs
another bruh strawman...

i have to give it to you, you certainly are an inventive fellow!

i consider myself pretty protective of the president, as i'd imagine are most democrats who supported the president.  but i hardly read every diary here, let alone try to "gum up" the works.

i read what i'm interested in.  i make no apologies for defending democrats -- whether president or not.  i don't sit behind my computer all day making up stuff so i can feel better about what or how i think.  i'm even willing to bet that i've been involved in gay rights (since 1981) longer than you've been alive -- and on my dime.  it used to be that the gay rights movement appreciated having straight friends.  who knew that it would devolve to where you got criticized because you're straight?

the irony of the expectation that a straight president would do something he promised while criticizing supporters because they were straight was not lost on me...

by bored now 2009-06-29 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: it is a difference in strategy...

The reason why people would want a temporary solution is that it would save the careers of servicepeople right now.  You may find their rights expendable (or at least deferrable), but I don't.  Furthermore, an executive order would put the policy in place for at least this administration and could provide a strong argument down the line for passage of legislation (we've allowed lesbians and gays to serve openly for x years and there have been no problems.  There's no justification to reverse course now).  

Please stop with the- excuse the President for having more important issues to address- line of argument.  It is offensive.  If you don't believe equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans is an important priority, just say so.  Don't offend us by trying to minimize its importance by bringing up other issues.  Remember this President told us he could do more than one thing at a time.  I believe him and I think it is the correct way to conduct a presidency.  Furthermore, I believe it is my duty as an active citizen to argue with the president (or any elected official) when they are doing the wrong thing.  That's a requirement to maintain an effective representative democracy.

Finally, please refrain from name calling.  It is not immature to want to be treated equally.  Your view appears to be, shut up and wait.  Well, we have been waiting over the history of this country and if a president who speaks of a free and equal America won't advance our cause, we will take it to the streets.  Get out of the way or you may be stepped on.

by orestes 2009-06-27 08:16AM | 0 recs
Not really

The reason why people would want a temporary solution is that it would save the careers of servicepeople right now.

Not if they're tried and convicted of sodomy under Article 125...it would make them criminals, which is worse.

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:07AM | 0 recs
Information for Lurkers

This poster has no idea what he's talking about. I asked someone to look at this argument from the other day to determine whether it is accurate. He was kind enough to provide this information:

" He's absolutely incorrect about the standard the military courts now apply post-Lawrence for the military's sodomy law.  Military context is not a be all end all in the applied test used by the military:

The providence inquiry failed to establish a sufficient factual predicate to objectively establish that appellant's conduct was outside the liberty interest identified in Lawrence and Marcum. The facts admitted by appellant describe a consensual encounter between two adults in the privacy of a barracks room. Nothing in the providence inquiry indicates that anyone other than appellant and MG were present.[2] This conduct is squarely within the liberty interest recognized in Lawrence and Marcum.

Second, the conduct as described by appellant did not "encompass any behavior or factors identified by the Supreme Court as outside the analysis in Lawrence." See Marcum, 60 M.J. at 206-207. The conduct did not involve a minor. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578. It did not involve public conduct or prostitution. Id. It did not involve "persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused." Id.

Finally, there are no "additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest." Marcum, 60 M.J. at 207. Appellant described conduct with a civilian, with no military connection other than that it occurred in a barracks room. Appellant did not admit any facts during the providence inquiry which demonstrated any military necessity to circumscribe his liberty interest in engaging in private, consensual behavior with another adult. Consequently, the providence inquiry was insufficient to support appellant's plea of guilty to this offense.

US v. Bullock, available at www.sodomylaws.org

by bruh3 2009-06-27 10:21AM | 0 recs
This is false

you left out important information...no surprise.
The military can still prosecute sodomy under "factors unique to a military environment"

In United States v. Stirewalt; http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/ 2004Term/03-0433.htm and United States v. Marcum;
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/ 2004Term/02-0944.htm, military courts ruled that Article 125 is STILL enforceable even under Lawrence.

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: This is false

I'm really not sure that this is as cut and dry as you'd like to present it as.  For one thing the military operates under the President, so he's in charge, and at the very least, utilizing some archaic anti-gay law could mean that you don't advance in the military.

But here's something that I am sure of: in the event that gay servicemen and women are allowed to serve openly, the immediate result will not necessarily rampant acts of sodomy.  The military is a job, not a circuit party.  Currently, are heterosexual males allowed to sodomize heterosexual females in the military?  

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: This is false

It's not, but he wants to pretend it is. he did the same witht he DOMA brief issue. Pretending that there was a bright line rule of law that required Obama to not only file the brief, but also file it the way he did. It's what he does. he takes bits of laws or ideas, and applies them in absurd ways to protect Obama's interest as the poster sees it rather than address the issue.

by bruh3 2009-06-27 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: This is false

Glad I wasn't here for that.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: This is false

S/he continues to mischaracterize the law.  S/he refuses to be drawn into a substantive discussion of her view because it is an untenable one.

by orestes 2009-06-27 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Not really

You should take a class in logic.  There is no correlation between overturning DADT and prosecution for sodomy.  First of all, they address two separate issues:  DADT, sexual orientation; sodomy, sexual behavior.  DADT requires only proof that a servicemember is gay; sodomy requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the servicemember engaged in sodomy.  Furthermore, as I have pointed out to you elsewhere, the military sodomy laws are subject to the Lawrence decision.  Finally, I have repeatedly asked you for support for your contention that repeal of DADT will result in sodomy prosecutions.  You have supplied none.  You are fabricating an argument to justify your unhealthy idolatry of Obama.  (You should perhaps see a professional about that.)  All you have is your bald speculation (should I say wish?) that gay servicepeople would be prosecuted for sodomy.  Show me some facts to back your contention.

by orestes 2009-06-27 10:28AM | 0 recs
HR for childishness

unhealthy idolatry of Obama? Can you be more fucking childish...I didn't even support him in the primaries.

Forget it, I'm done with LGBT discussion, fight for your own damn rights, I'm no longer interested.

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: HR for childishness

Lol.  Not sure how we'll manage without your stellar support.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:40AM | 0 recs
You weren't managing with it

Keep pushing people away, you'll manage less.

by DTOzone 2009-06-27 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You weren't managing with it

Based on your comments here, you were never interested in advancing or even advocating for equal rights.  You were interested in making excuses for the administration.

Here's what's most important here, though:  threatening to not stand up for equal rights becuase you don't view a few commenters in a single discussion as docile or cooperative with what you've decided is the best course of action for us is not only incredibly childish, it's also one of the most illiberal stances I can think of.

So, frankly, you can take your self-righteousness and shove it up your ass.  I'm really not distraught at all.  Upon further engagement I've realized you're just a poser and a dumbass.  Lucky for you, the Democratic party is a really huge tent.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-27 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: HR for childishness

Ah, yes, still no substantive response.  At least you're consistent.  Do us all a favor and find your niche- I an assure you it is not among progressives.  Happy hunting.

by orestes 2009-06-27 11:01AM | 0 recs
your rational is certainly noble...

BUT it appears that some servicemembers have outted themselves simply to push the president.  that isn't noble, and no one can argue that they didn't know what they were doing.  so i'd have to question whether they really wanted to stay in the military.

and, since you asked, i don't think equality is more important than fixing the economy, ending the wars, and the rest of the list i cited.  i guess i thought that was implicit in making the list.  sorry, i think you're already equal -- equal with the rest of us poor blokes suffering the daily inequality and lack of power that most americans have to suffer.  for most of us, life isn't fair.  society isn't fair.  few of us are truly "equal."

that you express moral outrage that others don't share your priorities really places you in the spectrum of naivete.  i'm shocked that you would think we would (wasn't that the whole purpose for criticizing me for being straight?).  it makes me wonder if you understand the point of moral outrage.  or rhetorical tautologies.

more to the point, it forces me to think that you are incapable of understanding other people's problems/issues.  no wonder the black churches are irrelevant to you, you probably think that african-americans suffer no discrimination in this country.

finally, if my view was that you should shut up and wait, i'd say so.  it's cute that you believe i would dance around an issue.  again, probably another indicator of your naivete.  but i've never been accused of being subtle or not saying what i think before.  it's rather startling.

take to the streets.  i dare you to organize.  I DARE YOU.  you seem to have missed the fact that this is one of my primary criticisms of gay expectations of this president.  in fact, i double dare you.  GET ORGANIZED.  BUILD A POLITICAL CONSENSUS.  i really, really hope that wasn't too subtle for you...

by bored now 2009-06-29 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: your rational is certainly noble...

Lol.  You're such a lost cause.

by Mario Dem 2009-06-30 02:00PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads