Barney Frank says Obama is not for DADT repeal this year, 'frustrated, disappointed' with President

[Bluebear]

It's not entirely clear why the White House wanted gay people, and the public at large, to think that the President was for the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" this year. Openly-gay Democratic Congressman Barney Frank informs us that the President is not, and it's a real problem.

“I’m frustrated. I’m disappointed with the administration..."

“ not being for will give people an excuse to not vote for it. Thing is – we’ve done hate crimes. We do ENDA. It’s a big agenda all at once. At this point – the President’s refusal to call for repeal this year is a problem."

http://www.americablog.com/2010/04/barney-frank-says-obama-is-not-for-dadt.html

[Skittles]

1. he's never been for it

but it makes for grand gestures in purty speeches, kinda like the public option

[DefenseLawyer]

2. I'm really starting to doubt Rahm's "Move to the right and get Ross Perot to run" strategy

Can I finish, Larry?

[ruggerson]

3. but it's an election year - can't do anything "controversial" in an election year

and last year we couldn't do it, because Obama can't be seen as doing anything "risky" right off the bat.

And next year, we might not have control of Congress....

[Bluebear]

4. And it's only been 1 and a half years!!!1

And he's only singing one song and giving a two minute prayer!

Blecch.

[EFerrari]

61. It's only a 4 year term!!11

[EFerrari]

59. Exactly. They never stop campaigning.nt

[theoldman]

5. You can only fight one battle at a time.

You choose the ones you think you can win. This wisdom applies to us or the president.

[Unvanguard]

10. We can win this one, and there's no reason to believe we can't fight it concurrently with others.

The Administration's caution on this is getting a bit ridiculous.

[Bluebear]

11. Yeah, that's why 75% of Americans favor gays serving openly. Any more apologia?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104873.html

[amborin]

19. just like the majority of Americans wanted a robust PO

[avaistheone1]

71. To hell with what the American people want

says this administration over and over again.

Changealicous.

[Unvanguard]

6. He clearly cut a deal with the military, but this is caution in the service of nothing.

The public supports it. Push it through.

[VMI Dem]

7. This President does not support gay rights.

Never has. Never will.

[DURHAM D]

24. Truer words were never spoken. nt

[closeupready]

89. Right.

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Saw a WISER poll posted at Pam's House Blend

It was showing just how racist and homophobic the Tea Partyiers actually are, which is pretty damn.

And yet 67% of people who strongly identified with the Tea Party said that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military.

That's not a typo. 67% of racist homophobic bigots in the Tea Party thinks gays can serve in the military.

What the fuck, Obama???

ETA: link

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/15813/teabagger-nutter-media-madness-start-reporting-and-stop-elevating-the-racists-and-homophobes

[Unvanguard]

9. For what it's worth, polls that stress the "openly" part tend to get less encouraging results.

But you're right, there's no doubt that there's broad public support for this change. It is time to move, not to wait.

[Bluebear]

12. 75% at this poll...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104873.html

Thank you for your solidarity and support on this issue, unv! :)

[KG]

13. i'm a fierce advocate!

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

15. ...suckers!

[closeupready]

90. rofl

:rofl:

[QC]

14. Face it, he's just not that into you. n/t

[Bluebear]

106. =)

[Smashcut]

16. Shocker

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. I thought that DADT repeal was going to be part of the Defense Authorization Bill

Is there any more information about THAT? :shrug: That's a fairly skimpy article. Are there other articles confirming Frank's assertions (not saying he's lying but there's not much here to go on).

Is there something somewhere saying that he would refuse to sign it if Congress passes it???? He obviously can't repeal DADT himself. There is a difference between him maybe saying that he's not going to be out focusing on it/actively pushing it but that doesn't mean that he will refuse to sign a repeal if and when CONGRESS sends it to him.

[riderinthestorm]

20. Obama could put a moratorium on GLBT firings in the military NOW pending repeal.

He chooses not to.

Valuable service staff like Lt. Dan Choi are the sacrifice. Why not just put an executive order on servicemember firings until this terrible law is repealed?

It's a virtual certainty with so many in the military finally willing to put
DADT aside.

Obama has lead a merry chase about DADT with his supporters: he'll repeal, he'll support the JCS, etc... but bottom line, he's not willing to go the distance for his LGBT supporters. They are expendable, just like the progressive wing of his party. We're there for the hard work, the foot work, but expendable when it really matters.

[Unvanguard]

23. That was more a proposal being floated around than a concrete plan.

The evidence for Frank's statement is that ever since the State of the Union address and the military hearings that followed soon afterward, there has been nothing from the administration about how Congress is to proceed: nothing about a repeal, nothing about a moratorium. They seem to be waiting until the end of the military's review to act (the military leadership's preference), which is after this year, meaning a substantial delay (at best) in a DADT repeal: long past this summer.

Obviously Obama cannot repeal DADT himself, and I don't doubt that if Congress passed a repeal, he would sign it. But he has a large role in setting the Congressional agenda, and it's unlikely that Congress will act without some encouragement from the President.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. He does NOT play a "large role" in setting the Congressional agenda.

What is Frank doing? What is Lieberman doing? What is Gillabrand doing? All three of them are supposedly pushing for a repeal of DADT in Congress? So, what are THEY doing? Waiting for the President to hold their hands like he ultimately had to do with HCR? Last I looked, it's members of Congress whom propose legislation and set the schedule. Does Obama need to get out there with a bullhorn and demand them to make DADT their #1 priority and if he does anything less mean, does that mean he doesn't care?

[Bluebear]

31. Yes, that's why he cancelled his Asia trip to push health insurance reform through

The President is leader of our party. You don't think he could call Reid and Pelosi and say he wants a bill on his desk about ending DADT?

[Unvanguard]

37. Of course he does. That's what being president means in modern times.

What the president cannot do is create votes that do not exist: he does not by any means control Congress. But Congress, when controlled by the same party that controls the White House, routinely looks to the president for guidance, especially when it comes to policy regarding an institution like the military that is firmly within the executive branch.

Congressmembers have been looking for presidential guidance on DADT for two months now. They've gotten nothing. They can try it themselves, of course, but without clear presidential backing they are on much less sure footing, and unlikely to succeed. The instinct of Congress is to avoid controversies, and thus without leadership it tends to not do much of anything.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

46. I thought that that's what we have majority/minority leaders & whips for?

Did I miss something? Everybody knows (or should know) Obama's position on DADT and knows that he will sign a repeal of it- should it get to his desk. I take from what many people here are saying that the problem is that he isn't (and probably won't be) pushing for repeal of DADT as aggressively as he did for HCR and since he isn't, he doesn't care and Congress is way too risk averse to push it through without some Presidential "prodding"- without which, I guess, repeal is doomed to failure? Did I get that right? :shrug:

[Unvanguard]

63. They work with the president. I have no problem blaming them too.

He doesn't have to push as hard as he did for HCR, but at the very barest minimum he needs to say "Let's do repeal this year if we can" (probably via the defense authorization bill).

[riderinthestorm]

39. They don't call the Presidency the "bully pulpit" for nothing.

And yes, HCR is exactly the prototype for how this Congress must be handled; with direct action and bullying to get shit done.

The Admin and Obama can leverage their support, their PR, $$$$, primary opponents and more to get what they want. It's apparent this Admin has been so reluctant to wield power in order to get things done....it's insanity.

[ruggerson]

44. You're completely wrong

Presidents propose legislation all the time. They get someone on the Hill to introduce it.

And Obama has not yet even endorsed the House or Senate bill to repeal DADT.

As Frank notes, as CIC, his work on this is crucial. They either send word down to Congress that they want this done or they signal that it's not that important. Apparently they're doing the latter.

[Tailormyst]

53. Ah yes, he just gets the credit when something passes right?

[Bluebear]

72. +

[QC]

73. He is the greatest political genius in the history of human civilization

when something goes well.

When things don't go well, he is utterly powerless, forced to sit in the White House, blankly staring out the window and sighing, hoping against hope that the Congress might send him some kind of legislation.

Believe it or not, I once had a DUer tell me--in perfect seriousness--that if the president were to pressure Congress to pass legislation he wanted, that would violate the separation of powers doctrine. Seriously. And yet this same person was all over the place praising the insurance bill as a testimony to the president's ability to get what he wants out of Congress.

Having one's cake and eating it too....

[Tailormyst]

83. It's certainly something.........

[Bluebear]

99. You said it.

[Brickbat]

18. Between that and the whole EFCA thing...meh.

[laughingliberal]

34. +1 nt

[Mari333]

21. I will join Barney in that revelatory realization

huge disappointment. but, this is the united states, where wall street runs the presidency, and no change will happen.gotta keep those republicans and lobbyists and Rick Warren's constituency happy.


spineless.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

22. Scheduled for early 2011.

I read that some months ago.

[Tailormyst]

25. Just in time for the 2012 elections

When we shall be told GBLT rights must wait until AFTER the election or else it would be OUR FAULT if they lose.

Been there, done that.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

27. Long list of things to do.

I think immigration is up next, and then climate change.

[Bluebear]

29. Yes, those will be so easy to "check off", we'll be right there next in line!

[ZeitgeistObserver]

35. Oh none of them are easy.

Look at how long healthcare took, and the uproar it caused. Your personal priority won't be easy either, but all he can do is keep slogging away.

[Bluebear]

38. Why won't "my personal priority" be easy? Polls are overwhelmingly favorable.

Nope. Not buying it anymore.

[QC]

40. You and your little pet issues!

:eyes:

[ZeitgeistObserver]

42. Everybody has a personal favorite,

but they're all important. So you'll have to take a number like everyone else.

[Bluebear]

48. 'So you'll have to take a number like everyone else.' - I don't know whose reincarnation you are

but I have lost interest.

[QC]

60. I think the dolphins are dancing tonight. n/t

[harkadog]

54. No they're not all important.

And fuck your number.

[Bluebear]

58. ...

:loveya:

[ZeitgeistObserver]

62. They're not all important to you,

but they're important to somebody.

[Unvanguard]

64. This is not a zero-sum game, and has never been.

DADT is doable, or at least at this point there's no reason to believe it isn't, and nothing suggests that it would be a particularly worrisome interference with the rest of the legislative plan. This isn't health care reform, it isn't the stimulus package, it's not a huge, complicated bill.

[Bluebear]

97. Thank you.

[Bluebear]

51. When they recycle themselves you would think they'd choose a new script.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

47. What fresh hell are you pushing here? What do teabaggers have to do with our President & Congress?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

55. I have a personal priority too. The economy.

Without that reviving, nothing happens. At least nothing good.

And everything Obama tries to do gets a massive push-back from tea-baggers, which affects the congressional vote.

So it's not just a waltz-through on any item, it's a fight every step of the way.

[Tailormyst]

43. Her "personal priority"?

Way to trivialize the civil rights of others.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

45. Don't pick nits.

I'm not into arguments over semantics.

[Tailormyst]

56. This isn't about semantics it is about equal rights, civil rights

[ZeitgeistObserver]

57. I know, and I agree it's important.

[Toasterlad]

76. Just Not As Important As Anything Else.

I've got YOUR number. Shouldn't you be protesting a funeral somewhere?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

86. It's ALL important.

It just takes time, because it involves politics. That's why the term is 4 years long; you can't do it all in 6 months.

I know you're upset about the timetable, but there is no call to insult ME over it. I'm not the one setting it.

[Toasterlad]

91. No, You're the One EXCUSING It.

Gay people have been told to go to the back of the line for over 40 years, while the Democratic party is busy with more important things. You are the same kind of person who said that black people would have to wait for their rights until the government got around to it, too.

Excusing bigotry is exactly the same as condoning bigotry. Making people wait for their civil rights is bigotry. It's just that simple.

[Bluebear]

94. ++++

[ZeitgeistObserver]

100. Oh knock it off. I have nothing to do with any of it.

Get a grip on yourself.

[Toasterlad]

101. I Have a Firm Grip On Myself, Thanks.

You have been excusing Obama's lack of attention to gay issues in every reply in this thread. THAT'S what you have to do with it.

Excusing bigotry is condoning bigotry.

[Bluebear]

105. +

[bullwinkle428]

65. Christ on a cracker! You live in Canada! Where GLBTers can

already serve openly in the military. Takes balls...

[ZeitgeistObserver]

66. Yes, and where health care is free.

Which is why I want your entire list to go through and become law. But they can't go through all at once obviously, so they have to be lined up and done one by one.

How or why he's choosing the line-up positions, I have no idea, I just read somewhere that DADT is scheduled for early 2011.

[Bluebear]

70. "I have no idea, I just read somewhere", then bloody hell STFU. Thank you.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

87. I added some info for you. You're welcome.

[Tailormyst]

74. Scheduled for 2011 right before the 2012 elections

Every GBLTer KNOWS that means that it will be shoved under the rug with the new excuse being that it is too close to an election. We'v e been playing this same game for quite some time now.

[uppityperson]

108. Civil Rights are "Your personal priority". Wild.

[Tailormyst]

30. Surprisingly equal rights always get pushed to the bottom of the list.

I wonder why that is?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

36. It's not the bottom, it's not even the middle.

Like I said, it's a very long list, and all of it depends on the economy cooperating.

[mitchtv]

49. don't worry after the 2010 elections

it will be a dead issue

[Bluebear]

50. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8137733

[CreekDog]

79. I don't like the delay but that doesn't mean he opposes it

And let's face it, when Clinton did it right off the bat, we weren't a whole lot better off for him having tried right away.

That said, if it gets delayed further, I'm going to assume Obama doesn't want it (Rahm are you reading this? I'd like to be motivated to donate, help and vote you know...)

[Tailormyst]

84. My mother always said " actions speak louder then words"

His actions from the beginning have spoken loud and clear.

[CreekDog]

85. No they haven't

because they have to you doesn't mean they have.

[Tailormyst]

92. Okay, TO ME, his actions have spoken loudly and clearly.

I think to many others in the GBLT community they have as well.

[Bluebear]

93. Indeed.

[CreekDog]

96. and to many observers outside too

I'm not there yet. :hi:

[Tailormyst]

98. I think I like you

Even though you aren't there yet, you don't scold others for how they feel. That is a trait often lacking online :)

[CreekDog]

102. You caught me on a good day

:rofl:


:hi:

[Robeson]

26. Like all politicians, he's looking at the next election cycle...

...that really is, what it's all about.

[Mojeoux]

32. He should do this NOW and save Marijuana for 2012 n/t

We can't let him forget that people who are gay and people who love people who are gay put him in office.

This is not just the righteous thing to do it's the most politically powerful thing to do too.

[Bluebear]

33. I'll certainly be looking at him next election cycle.

[mitchtv]

52. I won"t

too old for more lies

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. Bullshit. It's Congress' job to pass laws

[Smashcut]

68. So then I assume he'll be taking no credit for HCR passing.

[Bluebear]

69. Blah, blah, blah.

[Tailormyst]

75. You won't mind if I call you on it every time you try to credit the president with some bill passing

Because he just makes speeches and has ZERO to do with what gets passed.

[Bluebear]

82. Also, this poster knows more about how Congress works than does Barney Frank.

:silly:

[Forkboy]

107. I would expect nothing more from the poster who thinks prison rape is ok.

[Toasterlad]

77. Barack Obama Doesn't Care About Gay People.

[LeftyMom]

78. That's probably an overly charitable interpretation of his behavior.

You don't kick people repeatedly in the metaphorical junk out of apathy.

[QC]

80. You certainly don't kick off your campaign by very publicly shitting on people

in grand style out of apathy.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

81. He has been saying --

one thing ("fierce advocate") and acting another (Donnie McClurkin/Rick Warren) since the very fucking beginning. :eyes:

He is a hypocrite and coward on this issue, and it makes me sick to my stomach.

There is so much he could be doing, but that would require leadership in the service of something other than the interests of Pharma/Coal/WellPoint/etc -- something he just can't quite muster.

Not enough political benefit in it for him and Rahmbo.

[HillWilliam]

103. +1 and raise you

every time he makes a flowery speech before the HRC lobster-and-cocktails crowd, it isn't a week before DOJ defends DOMA or something equally offensive using the most offensive of terms. Not even a week each time. I lost interest after the third insult. "Fierce Advocate" my fruit-flavored arse.

It's one thing to exhibit a complete lack of action (to wit: when it was discovered and disclosed after the first big, flowery speech that not so much as the promised exploratory committee had been formed at the WH). Benign neglect is one thing; we're used to that.

It's entirely another to enforce offensive, bigoted laws selectively. I'm sure he has some sway with the DOJ. After all, he hired the boss who serves at his pleasure. Picking and choosing which laws to enforce and enforcing those vigorously is entirely too close to Bush III for me.

"Bipartisanship" does not mean accepting money, time, effort, and votes from your own party then doing things the Republican way.

[walldude]

88. K&R... Considering that we went into Iraq without a Declaration

of War from Congress, it seems to me that the precedent is set for the Commander In Chief to "do what's necessary" without getting "permission" from Congress. So being the Commander in Chief of the military, it would stand to reason that all Obama has to do is pick up the fucking telephone, call the Secretary of Defense and say "ok gays can now openly serve" and make it an order. Since it's the military his subordinate would have no choice but to follow orders.

[branders seine]

95. get in line Barney.

The end is W-A-Y the hell back there somewhere.

[Zhade]

104. Obama's views on GLBT folk are bigoted, so no surprise here.

As a member of a minority group himself, he should know better. Sadly, it seems he does not.

[deaniac21]

109. Mr. Frank is in a long line.