Memo to President Obama: You Have 48 Days Left to End DADT "This Year" as Your Promised. Do It.

[David Zephyr]

"I will end don’t ask-don’t tell." -- President Barack Obama.

Mr. President, you've had two years now to keep your word. The fact is, thus far you haven't.

Mr. President, it was your White House that created the delayed time-line to drag the issue out beyond the November 2010 election. Your rationale? So that a Pentagon Study could be made to determine how ending DADT would be implemented. And so to give you time to work with Congress.

Regardless, you still told the nation that you would end this cruel, dehumanizing policy "this year".

Well, this year is almost over. I can't even say nothing has changed, because it actually has: your Justice Department has worked against the federal court victory ending DADT ban. Your very Justice Department went to the Supreme Court in order to oppose a federal judge in order to keep DADT in force. Some argue that it was a 'strategic move' by your Administration, but others see it as just political cowardice.

As a gay American, who has known first hand how this rotten policy has been used to destroy the careers and lives of really good people, I have given you all the benefit of doubt possible. You campaigned on this issue. You talk the talk, but you have not even begun to walk the walk.

As a President, you had the rare opportunity that so few Presidents have had, holding a gigantic majority in the House of Representatives and the largest partisan majority in the Senate in eons. You've had the resources that other Presidents only dreamed of.

So what's up? You can't shrink away from this any longer. You can't kick this can down the road anymore. The mid-term election excuse is over, your Pentagon study is in, which you never needed it in the first place. What are you going to do? You, not anyone else. You.

You have the power of the Executive Office and the Executive Order.

There are millions of us in the LBGT community watching you now. We are focused now and listening to your every word including your politically calculated nuances.

Here is is: You now only have 48 days left to keep the solemn promise to end DADT "this year" and to allow our gay and lesbian troops serve openly, to carry a photo of their loved one with them as they put their lives at stake every single day, to have a photo of their beloved next to the hospital bed where they are recovering from loss of limbs, loss of mental health and more, to be open about who they are. 48 days left for you to show you have the leadership skills you sold us on.

On the 49th day, if DADT is still an enforced policy here in the U.S. and overseas within our Armed Forces, then you lose me completely. And you will lose millions more.

This isn't hard. It means you must keep your word.

[rhett o rick]

1. We need a commission. nm

[MattBaggins]

125. Whoaaaa there buddy this is serious bidness

We will need a subcommittee to study what the effects a DADT Commission would have on the price of beans in China.

Can't just jump all willy-nilly into things dontcha know

[davidinalameda]

2. don't hold your breath

he's not going to get a repeal passed in Congress so the only way that the repeal is going to happen is through the courts so unless his DOJ is going to drop its appeal of the ruling stating that DADT is unconstitutional and that's unlikely to happen

[Capitalocracy]

114. Gee, why don't they just do that?

After all, it's unconstitutional. :shrug:

[tblue]

3. I heard even Ed Rendell say Obama has to aim for the center now.

Ed freaking Rendell! Oh well. Now Obama's got all the excuse he needs. It was always just a bridge too far. Always remember, it's not his fault. Nothing is his fault or his responsibility. He is helpless to fix this. He wants to, deep in his heart, but he is hogtied. We must pity him AND praise him as often as possible or we will be responsible for the things he isn't responsible for. It's all our fault.

[laughingliberal]

102. Yesterday Rendell said the CFC didn't go far enough on SS and Medicare. I didn't agree with him...

on that, either. Some of these guys think it's 1994 and Clinton's still in the White House.

[Politicub]

105. Ending DADT is a centrist position now

If polls are to believed.

Poll: 78 percent favor repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell'
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/99689-poll-78-percent-favor-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell

Pentagon poll: Most U.S. troops are OK with gays in military
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/10/pentagon-poll-most-us-troops-are-ok-with-gays-in-military-/1

[Oceansaway]

4. K&R...n/t

[H2O Man]

5. Recommended.

Even MSNBC's Chris Matthews said to hurry up and end DADT. Chris is a moderate democrat. The failure to take even a moderate stance on this issue is a betrayal.

[sellitman]

124. Chris may be posing as a Moderate Democrat but I don't buy it for one second.

He has very conservative roots and has changed his tune as MSNBC has tilted left.

IMHO

[ruggerson]

6. I still think the repeal will squeak through in the Defense Auth Bill

Obama will deserve some credit for it, as he has lobbied the military brass on this. He didn't want to do it without them getting fully aboard.

The people directly responsible for repeal (should it occur) are the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, out staunch allies in Congress and those grassroots activists who have been fighting tirelessly for decades for us to reach this part of the journey.

The President, frankly, does not seem to want to be too identified with our issues, thus the rather reluctant and often confused strategy and the paucity of lobbying the Congress. If it gets done, it will be because 80% of the country supports repeal and the train was moving too fast for anyone to stop it.

But the fact is that almost any President from the other party would never sign this bill.

Obama, to his credit, and the credit of the Democratic Party, will.

Recommended.

[David Zephyr]

82. We will soon find out.

I think you know that I agree with you about this lame duck session being his last opportunity to deliver. Still, my optimism is growing dim. He'll only do it if he has to.

[ClarkUSA]

7. Why not pressure Congress? Pres. Obama is doing his part to pressure Congress and the military...

... but the voting public needs to make their voices heard, too.

[derby378]

9. Two words: executive order

Bush used them all the time. Now it's Obama's turn.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Why didn't Clinton "use" one to correct his fuck-up, then?

[H2O Man]

13. Clinton discusses this

very issue, in Taylor Branch's book, "The Clinton Tapes." At the time, it would not have held up. Today, it would.

[de novo]

53. What does it matter today?

[pnwmom]

123. One word: bull.

An executive order could be overturned by any future President, instantly putting all gays in the armed services at risk. An executive order is not a good way to achieve this goal.

[AlabamaLibrul]

131. Two to six years to get something more permanent done versus constantly fighting against repeal in

the courts.

Hmmmm

[pnwmom]

135. Only two if Obama isn't reelected. And one of the first things

a Rethug president would do would be to counteract that executive order. Gay people deserve more than an executive order that could be undone by the stroke of a President's pen.

[ruggerson]

12. Presidents are supposed to lobby Congress for legislation they believe in

Obama has done it on dozens of other bills.

And by lobbying, I don't mean issuing White House statements. I mean twisting arms and making phone calls.

That being the said, grassroots gay activists and the SLDN are the reason we have a bill to begin with.

The LGBT community and its leaders have been lobbying Congress non-stop for this for years.

[ClarkUSA]

15. I am sure if it were not for this President, DADT repeal would not be happening.

[dsc]

18. So if it doesn't happen does he get the blame

or does he only get credit?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

96. He certainly gets credit for laying the groundwork, which is more than any other president has done.

President Obama has done alot to move the repeal of DADT forward by making the military get on board. Democratic Senators know full well what the WH wants them to do as well.

Anyone who understands how legislation is passed will understand that if DADT repeal fails, then those in Congress who voted against it will be responsible.

Of course, there are those who will demonize and blame President Obama no matter what he does. :puke:

[ruggerson]

23. If you're interested, you can go to the SLDN website

and read up on the history of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

It's a great website - you will learn a lot there.

http://www.sldn.org/

[ThomCat]

83. You're already giving him credit for overturning DADT because he

"wants to?" Because no other president could have done better? Are you really kidding?

He gets credit for something he flailed to lend his support to when it came up for a vote?
He gets credit for something when he is arguing the OTHER SIDE in federal court?
He gets credit for something when he refused to use an executive order to support it when that was within his power?

Why? Why should he get credit for something when he has done absolutely NOTHING positive to get it passed when it truly counted?

No other President would have been able to repeal DADT? Really? No other Democratic President, if elected, could have done better? What Crystal Ball are you getting that Amazing bit of oracular wisdom from? Not only is that mystical insight an irrelevant defense, it's almost certainly not true.

[terrya]

91. Exactly

Exactly. We can call our Congress people until our dialing fingers are numb, but it isn't as influential as using the power and clout of the White House.

Hell, Lyndon Johnson used the Presidency to lobby Congress to help pass some of the most important legislation in the history of the United States. It's not like it's an unknown concept.

[Tesha]

16. (Duplicate removed by author)

[ClarkUSA]

19. Nan Hunter, winner of GLBT National Bar's highest honor, agrees w/the WH approach.

[Tesha]

40. To utterly fail? (NT)

[dbmk]

104. Yes, stick to your guns

Don't be impressed by the fact that someone who is fighting the fight and knows the game a lot better than you approves of the approach of White House.

You have decided they are wrong, and you should not let anyone tell you different. Go you!

[Tesha]

129. So explain to me: How does the nineteen-dimensional chess play out so that...

DADT gets repealed? 'Cause I just don't see it.

The Court handed out the one victory that this issue
will see for *AT LEAST* the next two years, and Obama
threw it away.

Tesha

[dbmk]

139. I don't know. Didn't claim I did.

But when you have people figting for GLBT rights, having honored for it, say its the right way to go about it - may, just maybe, they are not evil for choosing that route. But that they might be doing it because they think its the right, and longterm best, way to get rid of DADT.

Might not be the best way. But theres a lot of _intent_ that the WH is being credited for that makes no sense politically.

[Tesha]

17. All Obama had to do was instruct *HIS* Justice Department to not appeal the recent decision.

He didn't do that.

Tesha

[ClarkUSA]

24. See reply #19. I replied to you prior to your edit.

[struggle4progress]

33. More thinking through the Don't Ask Don't Tell appeal question

October 25, 2010

Penn Law Professor Tobias Wolfe has published a lucid analysis that identifies some of the misperceptions feeding the demand that the administration not appeal the District Court ruling in the Log Cabin Republicans case. I agree with Tobias' point of view ... Following are excerpts from Tobias' article ...

Even if the Obama administration were to embrace the LCR ruling and decline to take an appeal -- and even if members of Congress did not step in and continue pressing the appeal, which they could try to do -- the DADT statute would still be on the books. Only a repeal by Congress can change that. The only thing stopping the DADT statute from being enforced would be the court's worldwide injunction.

And if a hostile administration were to come into power in 2013 or 2017, that hostile administration could come to the court and ask it to lift or modify the injunction...

This does not resolve the debate over what the Obama administration should have done in this case. Some people might take the view that allowing the injunction to stand right now would make it easier to enact a legislative repeal of DADT, even if the injunction itself is not a permanent solution. I think that the opposite is true -- that allowing the worldwide injunction to stand would make legislative repeal politically impossible in the present moment ...

http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/10/more-thinking-through-the-appeal-question.html?cid=6a00e553bc36a388340133f5686e84970b

[Radical Activist]

118. True.

We keep making the same mistake on issue after issue. Pressuring Congress is everyone's job. If one more Senator had been pressured enough then DADT would already be repealed.

Obama said he would give Congress the chance to repeal it during the lame duck session. If they don't, then I will expect him to fulfill his promise to do it by executive order.

[SidDithers]

8. Unrec...nt

Sid

[Tesha]

20. Unrec all you want; it won't change how people (including me) are coming to feel about Obama. (NT)

[Gold Metal Flake]

31. Rec...nt

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Rec'd in support of equality for all human beings

BNW

[WillyT]

58. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Smashcut]

106. Rec

[golddigger]

122. Rec. n/t

[kentuck]

11. It is up to Barack Obama...

Not anyone else. Just as you say. K&R

[BzaDem]

14. Executive orders are only valid to the extent that they are consistent with existing law.

Just like Bush couldn't write an executive order ending Medicare, Obama can't issue an executive order ending DADT. They are thrown out by courts in a minute if they directly violate existing law.

The most he could do is use stop loss, which allows him to individually suspend discharges during a time when reserve forces are called up. I think he might do this next year. But this is far from getting rid of the law -- it is only temporary, he has to stop using it after reserve forces are no longer called up, it doesn't allow anyone already discharged to re-enlist, etc.

[struggle4progress]

21. DADT was signed into law by Clinton after the conservatives beat him back on his attempt to end

the outright military ban on gay service. Clinton has since said the intent of the law, as he understood it, has not been reflected in its subsequent application

If we want the law repealed, we need to identify the opposition in the Senate and lean hard there before 3 January 2011: the grassroots appears not to have chosen this natural route, preferring instead to demonize Obama on the issue, following the lead of certain wedge-driving Republicans. Failure to do the hard legislative lobbying work probably means that the issue is dead, since batshit crazy Republicans will control the next House

Looking at the courts, it seems unlikely that they will overturn it: there are a number of cases from the 90s upholding it; in the past several years, we have different results in at least two different federal circuits, which no one can regard as a satisfactory state of affairs, and which would lead almost certainly to further litigation by conservatives if the Executive ceased enforcement of the law based on the ruling in one circuit. So whether or not the Executive had requested a stay, the suit in motion now was headed for SCOTUS, where we should not expect a favorable result

Simply setting aside the law by Executive Order is questionable and likely to be litigated, and would almost certainly mobilize the conservatives further, which the Democrats will not do, though some of the grassroots has been mindlessly screaming for it. If you read the law, it gives the Executive power to set regulations for its enforcement: this is not the preferable route, because it requires at least as much work from the Executive as outright repeal, and since it cannot prevent the next conservative Administration from rewriting the regulations again to reinstate the ban, but it may become the only option in the near future. If the Administration does that, of course, it thereby removes all pressure for Congress to act

This whole matter has been an idiotic comedy-of-errors: people, who should have taken the lead on bean-counting in congress and trying to figure out how to pressure movable Senators and Representatives, instead focused on attacking Obama until we lost the House, a possibility known to everyone since Inauguration Day 2009

Maybe we can all be smarter in 2013

[BzaDem]

26. It actually isn't questionable: it would be unambiguously illegal, and courts would stay the order

immediately. Just like Bush can't end Medicare by executive order, Obama can't end a law enacted by Congress with an executive order.

The most he could do is temporarily suspend discharges with stop loss (which he can only do until we stop calling up reserve forces). The law allows him to do that, but no more. That would not allow formerly discharged troops to be re-instated, and would not allow anyone to serve openly (since Obama or the next President would be REQUIRED to discharge under the law once we stop calling up reserve forces).

[ruggerson]

27. Presidents can and do lobby for legislation they want passed

It's not unreasonable to expect Obama to do so for the repeal legislation.

[BzaDem]

28. Why in the world do you think he didn't? He got it through the House, and he got it through the

Senate Armed Services committee (which was in some ways a bigger hurdle than the House). He did this by meticulously getting the support of the chairman of the joint chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, which was required to get it through the SASC.

Just because Republicans are uniting to block the passage of any laws doesn't mean Obama didn't lobby or isn't lobbying.

[dsc]

32. It has been repeatedly reported that he hasn't done any lobbying

as to his having gotten in through the House, that is absurd. Nancy Pelosi deserves that credit, not him.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Where? Provide quotes.

As if you would know what happens behind the scenes.

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

37. Here you go:

Biden made one phone call. Obama made none.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/30/Obamas_DADT_Dilemma/

[ClarkUSA]

42. Do you think that everything that happens in the WH is reported?

[ruggerson]

48. Can you provide us with reporting to the contrary?

[ClarkUSA]

51. Why should I? It's clear that the possibility of DADT repeal is only b/c of Pres. Obama.

[dsc]

66. translation

I have no evidence whatsoever but will continue to claim you are lying even if you produce a bus load of nuns witnessing the fact you are saying is true.

[ClarkUSA]

67. Yawn.

:boring:

[terrya]

93. And there's the attitude of repealing DADT in the first place around here right there.

The whole thing is just a big, fat yawn to some people around here.

[theHandpuppet]

86. Bingo!!

:hi:

[Smashcut]

107. OH GMAFB

Just a small, personal fucking break.

We're tired of this shit.

[walldude]

110. You asked for "quotes, the author provided them

and then you claim it's not good enough because not everything in the White House is reported. So we have to take your word for it.... :rofl: :rofl: rofl:

[dsc]

38. in the Advocate a publication I am sure you never read

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/11/Log_Cabin_White_House_MIA_on_DADT/

The leader of the Log Cabin Republicans said Wednesday that the White House is “MIA” — or Missing in Action — on Capitol Hill after he had met with nine Senate Republican offices about the effort to pass “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal during the lame-duck session.

“I’ve been on the Hill yesterday, today, and the end of last week — no one has reached out to Republicans. White House legislative affairs is AWOL,” said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. “One office said, ‘It’s quieter than crickets chirping.’ They’d love to get a call.”

Legislative affairs is the arm of the White House responsible for liaising with Congress members on Capitol Hill and lobbying them on the administration’s legislative priorities.

The White House did not respond to inquiries from The Advocate for this article.

Cooper, who has over a decade of lobbying experience including working in the Department of State in President George W. Bush’s administration, explained that the Senate offices he had spoken with hadn’t heard from the White House at all, not even to discuss passage of the larger defense funding bill to which “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal is attached. He declined to name specific offices with the exception of noting that he had met with staffers for GOP senator Susan Collins. He said all of the offices were of senators who had voted against advancing the National Defense Authorization Act to the Senate floor for debate in September, but they had also all indicated an openness to switching their vote once the Pentagon’s working group study of repeal is released in early December.

[ClarkUSA]

46. One article does not prove anything. Pres. Obama is responsible for DADT repeal being on the agenda

For example, I don't recall Bubba doing anything of the sort nor even advocating for it, much less Congress having a vote on it.

[dsc]

47. no gays like me are why it is on the agenda

and frankly I am sick of straights like you trying to take credit for it.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Without Pres. Obama, DADT repeal would not be on the Congressional and military agenda.

I am sick of people like you denigrating President Obama's efforts to repeal DADT and anyone who supports him doing so.

[Tx4obama]

61. Bravo! Keep up the good work. n/t

[davidinalameda]

81. without Obama

the ruling declaring DADT unconstitutional would be in effect!

it was the fucking LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS who sued the Obama administration to get it overturned and they won the case but the Obama DOJ appealed the decision and because they appealed it, it's still in effect

why can't anyone get that through their fucking skull

[Smashcut]

108. Please lay out these "efforts" in detail.

The little shout-out in the SOTU address?

Or was it kicking the can down the road after the midterms using his little "study" as an excuse?

Or was it having his congressional liaison scuttle it more than once?

Or was it his DOJ appealing its overturn?

What were his efforts? WTF isn't he on Meet the Press saying, "The time is NOW Congress. Get this done before the end of the year."?

[Tx4obama]

126. Hard to be on MTP when you're out of the country, he just got back to USA this evening. n/t

[Tx4obama]

60. The White House DID issue a statement

The White House issued a statement on Monday evening. Why is everyone ignoring that FACT.
The Advocate needs to read their own articles !!!


White House Opposes DADT Deal

Source: Advocate

A top White House official issued a statement Monday evening saying the administration does not approve of any attempt to remove “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal from the Defense funding bill to which it is currently attached.

“The White House opposes any effort to strip 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (repeal) from the National Defense Authorization Act,” said Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director.

The Advocate reported Sunday that Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was exploring the possibility of offering a stripped-down version of the Defense funding bill that scraps the repeal measure, and a spokesperson for Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the committee, confirmed the discussions to The Wall Street Journal.

A spokesperson for Sen. Levin said Monday afternoon that he has been discussing with Sen. McCain the path forward on the National Defense Authorization Act, but she did not confirm whether the two were considering a version of the legislation that dropped the repeal provision.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/08/White_House_Opposes_DADT_Deal/

[dsc]

65. issuing a statement

isn't the same as calling a Senator. You issue a statement to CYA, you call a Senator to affact policy changes.

[BzaDem]

69. So wait a minute. You claim Obama hasn't lobbied publicly. So when you are easily refuted

(through speeches, letters, the SOTU), you move the goalposts to say he hasn't lobbied privately (even though by definition, private lobbying isn't often made public)?

[dsc]

75. actually my claim and that of the article I supplied

was that he didn't call or lobby GOP Senators or staff. I stand behind that claim. He hasn't, nor has his paid lobbyists, lobbied for votes on DADT. He just hasn't done it. It isn't my claim, it is the Advocate's claim backed up by solid reporting. Even Democratic staffers are saying he is MIA on this. If he cared about this issue as much as he did about say health care, he would have done it.

Oh and here is my unedited, clearly written post

It has been repeatedly reported that he hasn't done any lobbying
as to his having gotten in through the House, that is absurd. Nancy Pelosi deserves that credit, not him.

[BzaDem]

78. "Nancy Pelosi deserves that credit, not him."

Nancy Pelosi got it through AFTER Obama's secretary of Defense and chair of the joint chiefs of staff came out in favor of the repeal law. If she had tried to get it though before that, she wouldn't have come close.

Who do you think got the Secretary of Defense and the chair of the Joint Chiefs to change their views in public? Someone other than Obama?

[ruggerson]

36. But the facts don't line up with your assertion

I can find numerous references that agree with the reporting below. Obama was disengaged during the Senate vote and ones that preceded it.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/30/Obamas_DADT_Dilemma/

"White House aides confirmed that Vice President Joseph Biden did make one call to GOP senator Susan Collins on the day of the critical vote, but the White House legislative affairs team did not have a visible presence on the Hill, according to multiple accounts from people who lobby on the issue and Capitol Hill staffers.

One Democratic Senate aide told The Advocate that neither President Barack Obama nor his top aides had any skin in the game prior to the vote.

“We were really looking for the president or the very senior members of the administration to be calling people regularly to push this, but the White House is not stepping up to the plate in any meaningful way on this,” said the aide."

[struggle4progress]

29. Obama's State of the Union address: Repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell' gets applause--from some

January 27, 2010 | 9:03 pm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell-gets-chilly-response-as-well-as-appla.html

He's made himself clear on this repeatedly. How quickly folk forget

[ruggerson]

39. We're not talking about speeches

We're talking about the down and dirty lobbying work of actually getting it done.

Remember LBJ and the Civil RIghts Act?

Lobbying, cajoling, arm twisting.

[dsc]

30. several points

In regards to your points about executive orders the current measure isn't a repeal coupled with a policy permitting gays to serve. It is a repeal only when the military chiefs sign off. The rules permitting gays to serve would be entirely written by the executive and thus every bit as vulnerable to rewrite as any executive order would be. If the concern really were that we wanted a permanent ability for gays to serve, then that would have been part of the law. It isn't so apparently that isn't the real concern.

Secondly, the timing of this study, which may well serve to sink the repeal effort, was totally Obama's decision and a truely horrid decision. He had two years, and no less than 59 Democratic votes during those two years, to get this done. If it doesn't get done he deserves a humungous amount of the blame. We have had report after report of the fact that his legislative lobbists have literally done nothing to lobby for repeal. It is clear that DADT is, to be charitable, a less than pressing matter for him. The Senate has taken his cue.

[struggle4progress]

49. Y'know, dsc, at several times in my life I have decamped to DC to walk the halls of Congress

for a week or so and to feel out the staff in House and Senate offices on various versions of bills I picked up from the printer in the basement. I did this, as a volunteer, in cooperation with various local and national organizations working on issues that I considered important. It's dull stuff: you make your appointments, you chase people down, you feel folk out, and eventually you debrief with the pros on your side -- So-and-so's with us, no surprise, so-and-so's on the fence, surprise, here's a sleepy bill that was written by honcho staff and so may have legs &c&c

When we can't see the bill our side wants, in a Congress we nominally control, I think it's our own fuggin fault. This stuff doesn't burst forth full-grown from the forehead of Zeus: it's constructed step-by-step. If we want something from Congress, angry noise about the President won't get it: what gets it is walking the halls of Russell and walking the halls of Rayburn and ... and then getting info back to the districts in a timely manner and producing some constituent pressure

[ruggerson]

50. the only reason DADT repeal has gotten as far as it has

is because of LGBT activists and their allies doing exactly what you have just described.

[struggle4progress]

56. If that's actually going on, then the eventual outlook should be good

The PR fight was won some time ago; it's merely an organizational fight now

[ruggerson]

62. I think the eventual outcome IS good

I would not be surprised if the repeal passes the Senate during lame duck.

I think the point of the OP is that a lot of us had hoped that Obama would be far more engaged in the fight than he has been.

[dsc]

68. you are far more optimistic than I am

at best, we still need 2 votes (best case senario is that lincoln changed her mind and that Manchin votes for). Unless Snowe has already decided to go the indy route she won't dare vote for repeal. Collins might, so we need one more. Brown and Snowe are both up in 12 and both face tea pary primaries if they do. So now who. Voinovich said no. Go ahead, tell me who vote number 2 is.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoePhilly]

25. Vote GOP ... they'll over turn DADT, and DOMA, and advocate for ...

gays to be teachers, and for gays to be foster parents, and for gays to be able to adopt, or even keep their own biological kids.

The GOP is way out in front on gay rights issues. The media just doesn't cover it.

[TriMera]

41. Get a new argument. That one is really old. n/t

[JoePhilly]

54. It is not an argument, it is the truth. nt

[muffin1]

70. That's one of their favorites, though!

And I love thier logic, too. If DADT is repealed, Obama gets ALL of the credit. If it doesn't, Obama gets NONE of the blame. :D

[BzaDem]

71. Who cares about how old it is? We have known about Newton's laws of gravity for hundreds of years.

Does that mean they aren't true, because they are "old?"

[Catherina]

43. You forgot to mention Palin and zillion dimensional chess. n/t

[JoePhilly]

57. If I intended to mention those, I would not forget ...

You, however, ignore the truth.

If you are gay, the GOP hates you, hates you big time, and would, given the chance, make your existence illegal.

This has nothing to do with chess, or Palin.

And your reference to chess and Palin, two things I did not mention, diverts focus from the real issues preventing the over turn of DADT.

It should end, it should have ended long ago. And, over the last 10 years, this straight man has been very vocal in his support of ending it.

Now ... consider that when I come here to DU, as one who fights outside DU for gay rights, I come to what should be a community of Democrats from whom I draw strength, and I find myself in a debate which runs in the other direction.

I fight the right wing for wanting to prevent gay Americans from severing in the military, or teaching, or adopting ... and then I come here ... and find that I (along with Obama) have still done too little. Or am told we don't care at all.

I suppose I could just fight the right wing on those issues that effect me most directly.

[Catherina]

64. So many fierce advocates and so little progress. Sorry Joe

as long as you cover for the untruths of this administration and try to belittle people with posts like number 25, you're not only ignoring the truth, you're asking other people to do the same so you can mantain your own comfort zone.

The manipulation in your posts isn't going to work.

[JoePhilly]

76. Belittle people??????

With all due respect, I want to scream F-U.

What I posted is TRUE. If I wanted to stay in a "comfort zone" ... I would NEVER advocate for gay rights. I would not even post in this tread. It wold be much more "comfortable", to IGNORE it.

But I will continue to do so. Because it is the right thing to do. DADT, DOMA, all similar laws should be gone.

But ... for some on DU ... they will attack ... not those who fight against them, but against those who are trying (so far unsuccessfully) to fight for them.

So my honest question for you ... should I give up? I don't expect to vote for a GOP candidate in my remaining life time.

But can I vote for Obama?? Yes or no? So come on ... "manipulate me" ... do you want me on your side or not. I've been on your side for over a decade, but say the word, and I will "consider" spending the time I spend on this outside DU on some other democratic issue.

Or ... tell me which GOP member is going to address your concerns so I can consider supporting them.

[Catherina]

77. See post 25. n/t

[Catherina]

44. Recommended but please don't hold your breath n/t

[BlueIris]

45. Why would you bother to hope for him to do something

he promised to do? He has done virtually nothing he said he would. I'm starting to think he's a pathological liar. And he does not give a rat's ass whether GLBT service members are persecuted and fired.

[Tx4obama]

63. Wrong. Obama has done tons of things he said he'd do. And many things for the LGBT community

President Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any other president in U.S. history

Obama's LGBT Accomplishments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x485790

For a list of 244 Obama Accomplishments and a list of Obama's campaign promises kept see the link below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9553200

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Smashcut]

109. You know what you can do with your bullshit lists.

[Jamastiene]

59. K&R

[muffin1]

72. K&R

:applause:

[bigwillq]

73. K and R (nt)

[Ignis]

74. K&R. It's time. It's past time. Action counts more than words.

:kick:

[jberryhill]

80. Yes there are 48 days. You can count!

[BlueJac]

84. We must look forward....n/t

[panzerfaust]

85. Promise? Well, you have to deal with the world as you find it

Just like I've always said.

(Where the Hell did this other guy go?)

[theHandpuppet]

87. K&R

Thanks for your post.

[muffin1]

88. Sunday morning 'kick'

for a beautiful post.

:kick:

[David Zephyr]

143. You are welcome. It's "Promise Keeping Time" now.

It's now 46 days, muffin1.

[The Uncola]

90. Just another broken Obama empty promise.

Nothing more, nothing less. Everybody does something well. This is his specialty.

[xchrom]

94. recommend

[Creative]

95. I don't believe that there is much Obama can do now...

"US supreme court upholds 'don't ask, don't tell' ban on openly gay troops"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/12/supreme-court-dont-ask-dont-tell

[avaistheone1]

97. k&r

[ProgressIn2008]

98. Amen. This is about civil rights. nt

[grahamhgreen]

99. He will not do it. We need a primary challenger.

[dbmk]

103. So the republicans can get the presidency back?

You know that will be the result, right?

[grahamhgreen]

111. If he continues to enact Republican policies, he will lose to the real Republican anyway.

[Skittles]

128. CORRECT

[jannyk]

100. Kick & Rec!

[laughingliberal]

101. K & R nt

[UrbScotty]

112. Memo to David Zephyr: Obama is NOT a dictator. This is a Constitutional Republic.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." - Article I of the Constitution of the United States

[David Zephyr]

141. No one is looking for a dictator, a President that can get things done would do.

No one is looking for a dictator, a President that can get things done would do.

Bush got his way, legally, with the help of Democrats who controlled the Senate.

Dictator? Hell, no one is asking for that.

A President that can't lead or keep his promise when he had a nearly bullet proof Congress is either a failure or a liar.

This President may still keep his promise. I'm hoping he will.

He now has 46 days to prove he can or will.

[Capitalocracy]

113. Well, considering the fact that Gitmo is still open

after the same promise... I just wouldn't hold my breath

[bobburgster]

115. Can someone please tell me how the hell....

they expect Obama to end it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

117. Why the promise, then?

Seems odd promising something that is so obviously outside your powers.

[bobburgster]

140. Not sure why, other then the heat of the campaign..

i do believe he wants it repealed. I do believe he had no idea the republicans would behave the way they did, immediately after he was elected. I do believe he lost a lot of opportunities because of the lengthy HC debates. I do believe they did not utilize the abundant amount of material they had to keep the public on their side.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

116. I don't appreciate it when the "sarcasm" tag isn't used.

:grr:

[laylah]

119. DO IT!

I want to believe, I want to be on his side, I want to...I want to :cry:

jenn

[GSLevel9]

120. it would be the number #1 accomplishment of his presidency. nt

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Shining Jack]

127. 47 Days...almost 46 left now.

[David Zephyr]

144. Great graphic.

I like yours better than mine, Shining Jack.

[Kaleva]

130. It's too late to unrec this but i would if I could.

This is what you claim he said:

""I will end don’t ask-don’t tell." -- President Barack Obama."

This is what President Obama actually said:

“This year — this year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” Obama said. “It’s the right thing to do.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell-gets-chilly-response-as-well-as-appla.html

[FreeState]

132. This is what President Obama actually said "I will end don’t ask-don’t tell" - link and video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/10/obama-says-he-will-end-do_n_316524.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise.

He acknowledged to a cheering crowd that some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.

"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.

The law was passed by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Bill Clinton, who also promised to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military but was blunted by opposition in the military and Congress. Obama said he's working with Pentagon and congressional leaders on ending the policy.

Heres the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpt63iJFUEY

[Kaleva]

133. "but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise."

If that's the source then where does one get the notion that President Obama has 48 days left to keep his promise?

[FreeState]

134. Watch the video - he says THIS YEAR, sounds like a timeline to me n/t

[Kaleva]

136. The video is from Oct. of last year.

Listening to it now to see if he says anything about ending DADT by the end of 2010.

[Kaleva]

137. At 15:40 into the video, President Obama says:

""I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell" " but I never heard him mention a time line or a specific date by which he'll accomplish that..

[David Zephyr]

145. Thanks, FreeState, but apparently there are those want to excuse failure.

We can provide links all day long to President Obama's promises on this issue, but some apparently are ready, willing and able to excuse him for not keeping his promise. I'm taking the President at his word. He's on the hook for this one. And there's no wiggling off it.

Let's hope he keeps his promise.

He made the promise.

He sold the LGBT on this promise.

He has 46 days left to do it.

Let's hope he does.

[jonathan_seer]

138. Increasingly DADT repeal posts look like Log Cabin subterfuge

To interfere with the appeals process (telling the DOJ to lay off appealing) WOULD be interpreted as an Impeachable offense by our incoming House.

He would be telling the DOJ to act against what the republican majority thinks is the Law of the land - that's all they'd need. On top of it, he'd be interfering in a legal process that is supposed to operate hands off.

How much this is enforced depends on the partisan politics of DC. Anyone who thinks it makes no difference who controls the house in regards to this issue and impeachment is a political dunce.

And that would be a fantasy come true for Log Cabin types.

The absolute reliance on feelings and NOT facts is a classic repugnican tactic straight out of their playbook.

He didn't promise to "act alone" he promised to "end it on his watch" which lasts 4 fucking years.

In the previous 2 years, he pushed harder than Bush or Clinton did to end it.

True he was lax probably because the Dems were in control, and now that's gone DADT has suffered a set back, but so did ALL the issues Liberals and Progressives support. When did DADT become the MOST important issue, especially when there are millions of unemployed, and millions set to be thrown out of their houses.

No one explain how he can end it himself, while ceaselessly demonizing for not ending it.

When did sacrificing the entire party and agenda for the right to serve in the Military become the expected minimum here.

Success whenever it comes will change absolutely nothing for the vast majority of gay people.

Oh yeah I'm gay, and I want all laws like this repealed, BUT I DON'T WANT TO destroy the Democratic party in the process of making my demands, because overall the agenda it has is far better than the agenda of "fear and loathing" offered by the Repugnicans.

The sheer overreach, the irrational nature of the demands so impossible is what makes me wonder if these anti-DADT posts are Log Cabin plants posting inflammatory shit to make everyone forget the difference between the real and the absurd.

[David Zephyr]

142. 46 Days.

[Bluebear]

146. kick