Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A new twist in Obama Admin's hypocrisy on DADT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:49 PM
Original message
A new twist in Obama Admin's hypocrisy on DADT
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 04:49 PM by markpkessinger
President Obama loves to wave the DADT repeal around as if it were some great feather in his cap (at the same time continuing to refuse the LGBT community full equality by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act). Yet, his Defense Department continues to pursue collection of thousands of dollars in legal fees from former soldiers dismissed under DADT.

(See http://gay.americablog.com/2011/01/obama-administration-demands-dan-choi.html)

And he wonders why the gay community doesn't trust him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. making it as if obama personally sent this paperwork to mr choi...
is rather sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Your words, not mine
I NEVER said the President is a "homophobe." As a gay man, I am quite aware of what homophobia is, and if that was what I intended to say I would have said so. I do NOT throw that word around casually, and I quite intentionally did not use it in this context. I am saying that the President has a credibility problem on his hands with respect to the LGBT community that is largely of his own making.

I admire many things about the President, and have serious reservations about him in a few areas. You seem to be of the "defend President Obama against any and all criticism" group. Well, I don't engage of hero worship of ANY politician. When I agree with them, I support them enthusiastically (and have done so with this President on a number of issues); when I think they (or their Administration) is acting at odds with their stated rhetoric, I will not hesitate to call them out. That is, in any democracy, a good and healthy thing, and serves a role in keeping politicians honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
33. He is. His stance on our equal right to marry is pure bigotry.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I'm not suggesting he personally sent the paperwork
But as the nation's chief executive, he bears accountability for the actions of the executive branch down the line (which, last time I checked, included the Dept. of Defense).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. No president will ever be good enough for you then
You can always find some agency somewhere doing something stupid or negligent.

I once wanted some records and one office referred to another and then another and then back to the first office.

I didn't blame Bush directly. This job is 8 years at most for anybody. A lot of things are going to go on just because they've become institutionalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. I am raising awareness of ONE issue -- I'm not calling for impeachment!
If calling out a presidential administration on a particular issue in which it (or a subset of it) is acting hypocritically means I'm saying he's "not good enough," then your understanding of political discourse is pretty juvenile. Valid criticism is good and healthy for this administration as well as any other, and calling a President out on a particular issue does not mean I'm invalidating his entire Presidency. This kind of friendly fire criticism is essentially to a healthy democracy. Or have we forgotten that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Why call them out on something so relatively bureaucratic?
Maybe they haven't caught up to it yet.

And it did involve payment for work not done.

And it is the normal cranking of the bureaucracy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Perhaps it is a bureaucratic fumble
But my faith in bureaucracy to necessarily follow through on things is somewhat limited. Meanwhile, this collection effort affects real people in real time. Pointing something out -- and pointing out its ramifications for the President with regard to his relationship with a particular constituency -- is a good and healthy thing for the President and for all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Maybe the Presidency in general
But then why? The federal government must of necessity have a lot of bureaucracy.

And if they are personally responsible for the fumbles, they should get credit for where it works.

Every social security disability case decided, the President gets credit that the person is getting paid (or not if found they don't qualify). Every green card issued. Every unearned payment retrieved. Every form filled out and properly processed. In the end they'd get far more credit than criticism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I'm not distorting anything
I am not distorting anything. The repeal of DADT is a good thing so far as it goes. But to turn around and try to charge service members who were discharged under a law the repeal of which the President himself said was the right thing to do is simply indefensible, as is his continued denial of full equality of LGBT members of our society (sorry, "civil unions" don't cut it). And the administration deserves to be called out on it.

I am very pleased that DADT was repealed, although when you look at it in terms of economy of justice (i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number), repeal of DOMA is of far more direct significance to most gay people, who never have and never will be likely to serve in the military.

I think your intimation that the LGBT community should be happy with whatever table scraps of civil rights this President deigns to throw our way says a whole lot about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. How can Obama, or any president, repeal anything?
Scrap DOMA, yes, but that isn't Obama's fault, congress writes the law even military law.

Go yell at the 535 knuckleheads who are actually responsible.

I'm not entirely sure if the repeal of a law, particularly a military law, mitigates previous convictions/sanctions/actions or whatever it is.

I don't even know if those charged for being homosexual can re-enlist. Maybe they can and your complaint is moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. The President can't directly repeal it, but can certainly lobby for it
Presidents wield influence over the legislature all the time in pushing for this or that action from Congress. When it comes to DOMA specifically, the President has been quite equivocal, stating his preference for "civil unions" instead of gay marriage. "Civil unions" are a euphemism for second-class citizenship, and do not carry the same legal rights as marriage does.

As for the repeal of a law mitigating previous sanctions, etc., then former slaves who had run away from their masters prior to the Emancipation proclamation could still have been prosecuted as runaways afterwards. In any case, this isn't about a legal sanction against a prior violation; it is the government trying to recoup expenses the government CHOSE to expend on expelling these soldiers. And if Obama truly believes DADT to have been unjust, then he should direct his Defense Dept. to cease and desist from this appalling effort as a matter of basic decency.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. You mean like a signing statement?
Presidents who refuse to enforce laws can be impeached.

Granted, impeachment may be off the table while democrats hold the majority but I make no such promises with the GOP holding the gavel.

just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I'm not talking about asking him to "refuse to enforce anything"
Where are you pulling that from? That was not remotely suggested or implied by what I wrote. But just as a President can work behind the scenes in pushing for DADT's repeal, he could (if he wanted to) do the same for DOMA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Is there ANY member of congress who doubts Obama would sign a DOMA repeal?
I think both parties are fairly convinced of it.

The biggest irony is the Log Cabin Republicans fought DADT in the courts AND WON while the DoJ fought the decisions. I can't help but think that because it was a republican group the GOP finally folded.

I think of it politically as the civil rights equivalent to "only Nixon could go to China." Only the Log Cabin REPUBLICANS could get DADT repealed.

Let's take our friends where we can find them, I guess, but I'm iffy on this notion Obama is to blame as I have no doubts about whether he would sign a DOMA repeal or support any member of congress that submits such a bill.

Heck, why not yell at Barney Frank?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. President Obama has stopped short of endorsing marriage for gay people
President Obama has stopped short of endorsing marriage for gay people, and has instead indicated his preference for "civil unions." He's entitled to his view, certainly, but "separate but equal" didn't wash in education, and it won't wash in terms of civil rights for the LBGT community. Were the President to actually apprehend this and act accordingly, it would go a long way in strengthening his relationship with that constituency.

I'm not convinced he would sign such a repeal because he has become too fearful of losing support among independents (and apparently doesn't care about a loss of support among his own party).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. Calling out the administration on an issue is not "bashing"
And I never said the repeal of DADT was bad. In your own misplaced defensiveness, you are setting up a straw man here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. I like turtles!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Good grief, what the heck is that?
Staying out of Waterfront Park! :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. It's the zombie turtle kid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. so he gets no credit for it?
none at all, right? After all that going on and on about how he did not really want to repeal it, you're going to dig up this so you don't have to give him credit?

Those involve money for time not worked, regardless of the cause. Do you want the taxpayers to just let the people who got it keep a windfall?

And no one will have this problem in the future.

Why is nothing ever enough? Why do you go digging for a reason to be dissatisfied. You don't even celebrate the victory for a second before looking for something to moan about. It's rather sad, really.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. As I said above, yes he gets credit for it, so far as it goes
But does that mean any and all further discussion and/or criticism should ever thereafter be off limits?

"Take what you get and be happy about it!" seems to be your line. Something I would expect more from the GOP than a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. No my line is more along the lines of
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 08:07 PM by treestar
Be happy about what you get rather than just dismissing it, realize some things are bureaucratic and the government does them automatically, and don't try to find the government doing something wrong just for the sake of being victimized. Aren't you the one holding Obama accountable for every single act of the executive branch? It's huge, it's bureaucratic, and there are all sorts of messes, some of which may be due to acts of other during the Bush or Clinton or Bush I administrations. In fact, this would have been cranking on since the Clinton administration no?

And this sounds like it even may be fair enough! It's just that Choi is apparently being deprived of something, in his eyes, and he is famous in the DADT debate. Well the same rules should still apply to him as to anyone else. And they may call for him to return that money. If there is something unfair or wrong about it, he may have recourse within the bureaucracy.

this is the equivalent of someone getting a notice from the IRS, disputing it and then blaming whoever is POTUS for bad faith action towards them.

I should've called out Bush for every FOIA request I made that took forever to answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. One Note Symphony?
I regularly post on a variety of topics. Sometimes my posts are supportive of this President and sometimes they are critical. I call things like I see them, and assume others do as well, and realize that we will sometimes disagree. But the defensiveness of folks towards any and all criticism of President Obama is really telling. I've been on the planet long enough to see that while unfair criticism (to which this President has been subjected to an extraordinary amount) is certainly destructive, equally destructive and unhealthy is the desire to suppress valid critique. Not all criticism is bad, nor is it all intended to harm the President or his ability to govern. When it comes to issues of civil rights and civil liberties, I happen to believe those issues are very significant and worth calling out any administration whose actions are at odds with its rhetoric. One hopes that if enough others speak out in similar fashion about a particular viewpoint, the President and his team might actually hear it, and learn from it, and ultimately become better and stronger as a result.

It seems as if many here have become so reflexively defensive concerning President Obama that they feel the need to shield him from any and all criticism, how ever validly formed. My take on President Obama is that he's tougher than he looks, and can handle, and even benefit from, valid criticism. And perhaps what folks are really shielding is their own misplaced hero-worship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
24. President Obama 'loves to wave the DADT....' B.S.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 08:07 PM by spanone
The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2011
Statement by the President on the Killing of David Kato

I am deeply saddened to learn of the murder of David Kato. In Uganda, David showed tremendous courage in speaking out against hate. He was a powerful advocate for fairness and freedom. The United States mourns his murder, and we recommit ourselves to Davids work.

At home and around the world, LGBT persons continue to be subjected to unconscionable bullying, discrimination, and hate. In the weeks preceding David Katos murder in Uganda, five members of the LGBT community in Honduras were also murdered. It is essential that the Governments of Uganda and Honduras investigate these killings and hold the perpetrators accountable.

LGBT rights are not special rights; they are human rights. My Administration will continue to strongly support human rights and assistance work on behalf of LGBT persons abroad. We do this because we recognize the threat faced by leaders like David Kato, and we share their commitment to advancing freedom, fairness, and equality for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Great. Glad to see it.
I am not saying the President is a "homophobe" or that he "hates gay people" or that he does not, in principle, support equality for the LGBT community. But his reticence to support equality when it comes to marriage is at odds with his stated belief, and there is nothing at all unhealthy or wrong about folks calling him out on the contradiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
32. Kick for truth. He did the bare minimum after fighting to not repeal it at all.
He gets very little credit for that, and rightly so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. A bit of semantics
He actively worked to delay repeal, as part of his larger strategy. Technically, it still hasn't been stopped, it is merely no longer required of the DoD by law. But the UCMJ hasn't actually been changed yet.

Many of us were a bit concerned about the secondary issues, mostly because they weren't mentioned during the process. There still aren't fundamental protections for service members who are currently still in service. There are people that have potentially been lying for years, and could become liable for those lies. As the OP points out, the service is still pursuing costs associated with their discharges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 21st 2024, 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC