Obama Won’t Sign Executive Order Banning Gay Discrimination by Employers with Federal Contracts

[Better Believe It]

Obama Won’t Order Ban on Gay Bias by Employers
By JACKIE CALMES
April 11, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Obama disappointed and vexed gay supporters on Wednesday with his decision, conveyed to activists by a senior adviser, not to sign an executive order banning discrimination by employers with federal contracts.

The executive order, which activists said had support from the Labor and Justice Departments, would have applied to gay, bisexual and transgender people working for or seeking employment from federal contractors. Current law does not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and legislation to do so, which Mr. Obama endorses, lacks sufficient votes in Congress.

“While it is not our usual practice to discuss executive orders that may or may not be under consideration, we do not expect that an executive order on L.G.B.T. nondiscrimination for federal contractors will be issued at this time,” said an administration official who would speak about the controversy only if provided anonymity. “We support legislation that has been introduced and we will continue to work with Congressional sponsors to build support for it.”

That stance departs from the White House’s prominent “we can’t wait” campaign: Since last fall, Mr. Obama has signed executive orders on a variety of issues, arguing that “we can’t wait” for legislation that Republicans in Congress refuse to let pass.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/politics/obama-wont-order-ban-on-gay-bias-by-employers.html?_r=4&ref=us




Polls Show Huge Public Support for Gay and Transgender Workplace Protections
By Jeff Krehely | June 2, 2011

Read the article at:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/protection_poll.html

[el_bryanto]

1. He doesn't want to go out on this particular limb in an election year

I'm not sure I blame him. But then again, he could have issued this order last year.

Bryant

[Better Believe It]

3. Especially with such broad public support for such action!

[Fumesucker]

2. You say that like it's a bad thing...

[EOTE]

4. Can anyone explain to me why?

Seriously, can anyone provide me a semi-decent reason that Obama won't sign this? I'm asking in all sincerity, please someone clue me in.

[msanthrope]

6. I can give you the reason why--It would kill ENDA, and Barney Frank still has a shot

at passage. You want an Article 1 Section 8 matter solved by an EO? If you issue an EO, you will never get ENDA out of judiciary. And ENDA is the big cheese.

[rusty fender]

7. Then why doesn't the Admin. just say so?

It sounds like you are providing them a reason, about which they know nothing!

[uponit7771]

8. Because they don't expect bashers to care about facts

[msanthrope]

15. um...Carney's press release posted in the prior thread on this matter discusses this.

Why we needed another thread on this matter is beyond me.

[EOTE]

25. Do you happen to have a link? NT

[bluestate10]

76. Because republicans will go apeshit distorting the EO.

And sink any real legislative effort to get a bill passed. Criticism of President Obama on this issue is ass backwards.

[FreeState]

82. ANd allowing LBGT persons to be discriminated against is a better choice? n/t

[Better Believe It]

14. I think that's more of an excuse for inaction, not a valid reason. The ENDA is dead for now.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has absolutely no chance of being passed by this Congress.

That's the reality.

And if the Republicans retain control of the House or Senate, a probability, you will not see the anti-discrimination law passed until Democrats regain control of both chambers of Congress in 2014 or 2016.

And even with Democratic control of the House and Senate there is no guarantee the passage in 2014 or 2016!

That's because "blue dogs" and other conservative Democrats could join with Republicans to block such legislation.

So what if anything can be done now to prohibit discrimination against gay people by employers with federal contracts other than just hoping for a change in Congress at some time in the future?

Only one thing.

And Executive Order by President Obama.

[msanthrope]

18. I'm not counting out Barney Frank just yet. When he says he can't get ENDA passed,

then its time to consider what an EO can do.

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. You can count Frank out because he is retiring from Congress.

and will not seek re-election this year.
Plus, Congress will be in recess most of the time between now and the elections.
( see schedule:http://hobnobblog.com/congress-by-the-numbers/congressional-schedules/)

That recess schedule actually is an argument in favor of EO.

[msanthrope]

24. I have more faith in Barney Frank then that.

I'm sorry you don't.

[ruggerson]

39. I find your arguments utterly specious

[markpkessinger]

40. I'm not into faith-based politics ...

In any case, it isn't a matter of having faith in Barney Frank (whom I admire greatly, btw). But Barney Frank, even at the height of his powers, was never a miracle worker. And as a lame-duck, outgoing gay Massachusetts Democrat, he's hardly at the height of his powers.

[dixiegrrrrl]

58. I did not say I have no faith in Barney.

I was merely pointing out that he will have no vote on the issue when he leaves Congress this year.

[joshcryer]

77. Explain how an EO would keep you from getting ENDA out of judiciary?

[msanthrope]

19. Fuck Ron Paul. Hope you enjoyed your stay. nt

[BlueDemKev]

9. Sorry to hear that, but I'm still voting for him!

Remember, Obama has done more for gays during his presidency than any Republican ever would! (remember the repeal of DADT?)

[MineralMan]

10. If ENDA is still in play, President Obama

may be trying not to short circuit that. I'm not sure.

[markpkessinger]

29. DADT was significant BUT...

... it only ever affected a very small minority of LGBT citizens. An EO would affect far more, and would likely influence many others in private industry to follow suit.

[MineralMan]

31. ENDA would affect even more, though.

There's a possibility that this EO would make the pending ENDA bill completely impossible to pass. Like DADT, it may well be that Obama has some plans to get it through Congress, just as happened with the DADT repeal. I don't know that, of course, but it would be an explanation. Obama's supporting ENDA strongly, and there may be something going on that I don't know that keeps him from doing this EO.

Bottom line is that LGBT civil rights need to become universal. Getting there has always been the issue. That's why it's so important to get control of Congress back and the majorities increased in the Senate.

GOTV!

[markpkessinger]

43. DADT was repealed in December 2010, when Democrats still controlled the House...

... it's a different ballgame now.

[EC]

11. Signing statement would only apply

while he's President...Legislation will make it law forever or at least until the Supremes overturn it. So I can see why he's waiting...8 months vs. forever...I don't know I think he's being reasonable and practical...

On edit: Who's pushing this meme of being outraged at Obama for not signing and why? And why are so many Dem's/Progressives falling for it?

[Better Believe It]

16. It's not a signing statement. It's an Executive Order that remains in force beyond his term.

It would have to be replaced or repealed by another Presidential Executive Order.

So "who's pushing" this Executive Order idea and expressing criticism of President Obama for not supporting such an order?

If you read the article you'll find out the answer to your question.

GLBT organizations and supporters of equal rights.

Are you surprised by that?

[SunsetDreams]

13. No surprise here with the PENDING LEGISLATION...

It's not like there was a vote on that PENDING Legislation already in which it failed, so an EO would be feasible and necessary. Keeping that in mind, I totally understand the need for the Administration to add "at this time" to their statement about not doing an EO.

[Better Believe It]

17. That's not the administrations position on other bills.

"That stance departs from the White House’s prominent “we can’t wait” campaign: Since last fall, Mr. Obama has signed executive orders on a variety of issues, arguing that “we can’t wait” for legislation that Republicans in Congress refuse to let pass."

[msanthrope]

20. Name the pending bills you claim were superseded by EOs? Barney Frank's bill is still

pending.

[Better Believe It]

27. You propose that President Obama sit on his thumbs and do nothing, waiting on a bill that won't pass

Oh you think this "pending bill" will be passed by a Republican run house!!!!???

Get serious.

Frank's bill will be pending until it's voted down, if it's ever is voted on, in this Congress.

It won't pass.

You know that.

We all know that in the real world.

Isn't that right?

And yet you propose no action be taken by President Obama now and in the coming weeks to stop job discrimination by employers against LGBT people.

That's the bottom line of your "action" proposal!

You propose that President Obama sit on his thumbs and do nothing while waiting on a bill that will not be passed by this Congress!

[msanthrope]

28. I want him to listen to Barney Frank. When Barney Frank says he can't ENDA passed

then its time to explore other options.

I trust Barney Frank and President Obama on these issues.

[SunsetDreams]

21. From your quote: "legislation that Republicans in Congress refuse to let pass"

Refuse to let pass.

That quote means something.

On a further note, EO's should be reserved for use when necessary not to circumvent PENDING legislation.

[FreeState]

83. Its been pending for 20 years n/t

[SunsetDreams]

86. Not the bill in it's entirety,

Gender identity and transgender was introduced for the first time in 2007, and was subsequently dropped because there was not enough votes to pass. It 2009 a transgender inclusive version of ENDA was reintroduced by Barney Frank. It was reintroduced again in 2011. President Obama supports the bills passage. That part of the bill has not been around for 20 years.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. It is interesting seeing the folks who try to excuse this....

Considering....

[markpkessinger]

30. Agreed. n/t

[vaberella]

34. I'm more surprised people don't see the parallel of this situation to the DADT situation.

People were screaming for Obama to pass an executive order. Which Obama even said would have hurt his push for DADT to be repealed. He wants full and permanent change. He doesn't want a temporary change that could be fucked by a Republican president. But most people here seem to be running on another stand point. Obama himself wants DOMA to be repealed and is still pushing for it. But you know as well as I do that ENDA and even DOMA holds no chance in this congress. An executive order doesn't help shit, but makes things worst in the end for situations like this...why? Because the fools who hate the LGBT will see Obama as some authoritarian and will work hard to destroy any chance of a proper repeal. Many Democrats and Republicans see executive orders as an abuse of power, not as something constitutional.

I personally want the shit ended for good...meaning a repeal of DOMA and a push for ENDA, quickly. But I also know the nuanced situation of the presidency and the need to work in a certain way to get things done. This is very typical to the DADT. While many people have suggested Obama tried to sabotage it...in effect he saved it and he worked tirelessly to get it done.

[markpkessinger]

36. And which magic wand gets it by the House? n/t

[vaberella]

44. Did I not mention that it won't get past this congress?

If Obama puts in an executive order. I can see Republicans using this as a major talking point during the debates. To the point they will find a niche to stay in office. "Obama is forcing 'the gay' on us through his authoritarian approach." You know as well as I do how bigoted these fools are. The house is already losing it's footing. Most of the people are already saying the war on women and anti-dream act punks are having them lose women and hispanics to Obama. What does that mean? That means for a democratic congress in 2012. I think Obama is looking to that point. Then he can push through ENDA, Dream, and end DOMA. Right now it's bloody impossible. There is even talk of more progressives taking over congress with the talk of Occupiers leading in seats and people like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate.

I think that's what Obama is looking at...because that's the sort of method he used for DADT. By jumping ahead and doing this the aforementioned phrase is going to be running rampant and will actually gain a lot of leverage. Because if nothing else, it seems one thing many independents and republicans and even some Dems can stand together is some bigoted view points. If a progressive congress in 2012 comes through or even a Democratic dominated House with even more progressives as I had already mentioned seems to be possible. Obama has a clear line to get shit done.

But as I said before. I noticed most people are not seeing the parallel with the steps toward a repeal of DADT here.

[sabrina 1]

60. I see the parallel and it is not a good one. DADT could have been passed in January of 2009.

It was one of the easiest pieces of legislation that was on the table at that time, having broad public support and a majority of Democrats in both houses. When that window of time passed, Gay Rights activists took matters into their own hands, aside from getting a judge's ruling in their favor, they asked for an EO to help enforce that ruling. Doing so would NOT have precluded Congress passing a law at some time in the future. But once they allowed the window to close, it became a political football, which was shameful.

It was later used, as predicted, to get the Bush Tax Cuts passed. That was the excuse we were given, that in order to end DADT, we had to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. And the same people now arguing against an EO for this, assumed we all forgot why DADT was held up.

[ruggerson]

46. Obama didn't even want it originally voted on during the lame duck session

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Lieberman (unfortunately) is the real hero, along with Harry Reid, in ensuring the passage of the DADT repeal. Obama was indeed helpful in the overall push to get the law repealed, but he gutted anti discrimination language, during bargaining talks, which means a new President, if so inclined, could simply issue an executive order banning gay people from serving again (a highly unlikely scenario, but given the Santorums of the world, not impossible.)

The real, tireless heroes of junking DADT are of course, SLDN and the gay community at large, who worked tirelessly for decades to kill it.

[vaberella]

50. I'm tired of this.

Actually I was reading up on this a lot. I don't know the articles you were reading. But I am sure I can name as many that says OBAMA was the one pushing the vote during the lame duck session. Lieberman was the one who managed to rally the couple of Republican votes and really got them to come across the aisle along with Harry Reid helping to cut deals here and there. But Obama pushed it along the lame duck session.

I will not deny who the real heroes were. Obama himself did not take any credit. But I think he deserves as puch credit as the others as Lieberman or Reid. If Obama really wanted to kill DADT from going forward. I'm sure he could have since so many have said he's killed other initiatives in Congress from going through. From what I have seen of his actions and words he has been very supportive of the LGBT community and the repeal of DADT and his support of it.

In any event I respectfully disagree with you ruggerson.

[ruggerson]

55. You're right to the extent that he indeed deserves credit

He did pushed for its passage and he orchestrated a timely co-opting of the military brass. And of course he signed the repeal.

What he also did was fight against judicial decisions that were legally dismantling DADT brick by brick. The last one, if you remember, occurred before the lame duck session by the way of a District Court judge declaring DADT unconstitutional. Instead of leaving that decision alone, letting it stand, he decided to fight it. The clicking tock of of that decision is what partially ypushed him to move from being against repeal during 2010. He previoiusly had agreed with Gates May letter to C ongress which had implored them NOT to vote on DADT repeal until the Pentagon study was complete.

To his credit, Obama climbed aboard the "lets repeal it in the lame duck session" train once it seemed like Reid could muster the votes.

[sabrina 1]

45. Yes, it is. When it's not your civil rights being put on hold, I guess it's not a big deal.

Otoh, no surprise as to who is willing to put other people's civil rights on hold.

Elliot Spitzer said it best yesterday, that we do not have anyone ready to take bold actions in this particular period of history. That all decisions like this are carefully calculated for political purposes. Taking a stand right now by issuing an EO, would not harm this president. But, as with DADT, holding it up to use later to tell us that they had to pass the Bush Tax Cuts or Congress would not have ended DADT. It is cynical at best.

But Spitzer is correct in his assessment that there are no heroes in today's America.

[markpkessinger]

57. Thank you, Sabrina -- couldn't have said it better! n/t

[MineralMan]

26. Isn't President Obama a strong supporter of ENDA?

That's still pending, I believe.

[vaberella]

32. Nope he still is.

It just won't pass with this congress. This situation is similar to the situation with DADT. He didn't sign the executive order to put a stop to DADT temporarily because he wanted the official law to be written. Putting in the executive order would have shut down a law passing. It would be the same here. But people just want the quick and fast and temporary. Obama wants the assured long term.

[sabrina 1]

48. He could have done both with DADT. But they held it up in order to use to explain

the backtracking on the Bush Tax Cuts. Both those issues were, unbelievably, taken off the table during the run-up to the election. Both issues were popular with the public. Many of us predicted that the Bush tax cuts would be extended and DADT used to 'explain' to us why it could not have been done before. Which was ridiculous.

I wonder what awful legislation is 'on the table' now that will be passed, using other people's civil rights once again, as an excuse as to why they are forced into some other decision.

Issuing an EO simply speeds up the civil rights too long delayed. It does not preclude Congress passing it after the election.

[vaberella]

51. It's irrelevant if they were popular with the public.

Keep in mind for Republicans the public doesn't matter. Their small minded consituents do, bigotry, and racism matter because they love it. Keeps them in office.

I personally see it as very possible because I find the Republican party to be disgustingly manipulative and mean spirited and to use any incentive in destroying any progressive agenda. They tried to do it with health care...and health care is more wide spread. Not to mention they almost had it and now again have a chance of destroying it with it going to the supreme court. I can see them using an executive order as an authoritarian/socialist gesture and running with it.

And I think they'd have far more successes because LGBT is not something that affects the general population of the US but a small minority that many hate. You see it as a ridiculous excuse ...taking into account the Republican party currently and what was there before as well as the Blue Dogs who can be just as hateful---I see it as a possibility. They have people like Bachmann going on the house floor and blatantly saying that Black people caused the economic crisis--honestly, I do not underestimate these people...ever. Or even think the will of the public matters in Congress now a days or back then.

[sabrina 1]

59. I don't understand the point you are making. If something is okay with the public then why

would it matter what a few lunatics in the Republican Party say or think? They are not exactly very popular these days, according to the polls, they were less popular than Communism, the last time I looked.

And if what the public thinks doesn't matter, what does? If a President has the public on his side, he has little to fear from a Party that the people threw out in disgust in 2008, and in January 2009 he had a majority in both houses and could easily have ended DADT at that point. The public was not opposed, nor was the military, to allowing Gays to serve in the military. But it was held up and later used as an excuse for why they had to pass the Bush tax cuts.

I don't get this constant fear of what the least popular people in the country think on the part of Democrats. Even when we win, even when the public throws them out, we are still told 'oh, but what will Republicans say'. Let them talk, they are on the wrong side of history, as always. How about ignoring them and doing what is right for a change? All this does is give them credibility which they do not have.

[MineralMan]

56. Well, from the look of it, we're going to need to elect a

friendly Congress, then. That's my goal.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. An Obama-bashing article so nice, Better Believe It had to post it twice.

This is a dupe thread with exactly the same title, posted by Purveyor yesterday. But Better Believe It is not one to let an Obama-bashing article escape his byline.

And I say this as a gay man who is disappointed with this, but who can also see the jackshit we would get from a President Romney or would have from a President McCain.

[markpkessinger]

35. So we're back to "it's better than you'd get from a Republican" ...

Setting the bar awfully low, don't you think?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Actually that's "Way fucking better than from a Republican," Mark.

Even with this disappointment, Barack Obama's list of accomplishments for the gay community really should get him some credit from us.

[vaberella]

37. BB...Just remember the steps to DADT reform.

I see it as parallel. I talked about it in posts above. Some might not agree but I don't see much of a difference here.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. I agree with you on that.

I'm not too worried about "I want it now and I want it all" crowd. If we were in a country where we LGBT people were being officially executed for who we love or the like, getting some relief now would be in order.

We need to keep fighting the good fight and pushing him on this, though. I'm all about that. It's wrong to deny people these types of contracts because of factors that don't affect the quality of work being produced.

[SidDithers]

54. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[ruggerson]

42. HERE IS WHAT OBAMA HIMSELF SAID TWO YEARS AGO

...when asked about ways to circumvent legislation stalled in congress.

"There still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don't pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that's something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board,"

Those who are offering varied excuses, such as an EO would harm the passage of ENDA in Congress, have no rational basis for their argument.

The Executive Order in question covers only Federal Employees - a very different legal protection than what ENDA offers.

There is NO, ZERO, NADA chance that ENDA will ever be brought to a vote in a Republican House. Anyone who argues that an EO might harm pending legislation in Congress does not understand the history of this issue.

ENDA has been "pending" for over 20 years.

FIVE other Presidents have issued Executive Orders in regards to employment in the Federal government.

In 1965, Johnson signed an Executive Order banning federal contractors from discrimination based on race, religion and gender.

This EO would have added sexual orientation to the list.

Obama himself has signed 115 Executive Orders so far in his Presidency.

115.

"There still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don't pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that's something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board,"

Yeah, right.

[vaberella]

47. I disagree. He did the same with DADT and got a repeal.

There is a lot he could do...but not if it hurts the cause more in the long run.

[ruggerson]

49. ENDA has been stalled for twenty years

An Executive Order has NOTHING but upside. The polling is astronomically in favor of banning employment discrimination for gays and lesbians.

The only argument against this EO is a calculated, political one.

And what I've quoted are his OWN WORDS from 2010. He's apparently moved 180 degrees in the wrong direction on this.

[vaberella]

53. I agree with you. But I can see Republicans using it as a bad side.

Healthcare reform in general had nothing but upsides---look at it now. Republicans try to and succeed at polluting everything. ENDA is not even great for the LGBT but it also works positively for women in the workplace. Look at the politics now or even during the time of DADT. Ruggerson, you can't tell me that these people aren't dangerous and will use anything to destroy a President like Obama who does have a relatively progressive agenda---particularly towards the LGBT. And they will paint him as a tyrant and we get shit in future but possibly laws even more restrictive to the LGBT community despite their lobby. Why? Cause in general LGBT is far more fair game to them than maybe women.

Further more, I read the words and I don't think he has moved 180. I think he's taking in the reality of his situation. Because in many cases Obama has used executive order to help the LGBT community where he could and other groups. However I notice that when it comes to big things like DADT or Healthcare reform he's far far far far far more reluctant to put in executive orders; and I think it's mainly because of the political cost not to himself so much as to the end goal. 20 years stalled and definitely killed if a wrong move is made in the currently political environment of the house.

[joshcryer]

72. It's times like this I see why people find appeal with dictators.

I mean, hell, I'm deeply anti-authoritarian yet I think Obama should sign it, fuck it, right?

People want an all-powerful entity that can do all the good in the world, magically with the flick of a pen.

I don't know if him signing it for Federal employees would really impact the passage of ENDA for a near future Congress though. I really don't think it matters that much and he should just do it.

[sabrina 1]

61. DADT was held up in order to use it to get the Bush Tax Cuts passed. It was a cynical

move at best. It should have passed in January 2009. Many Americans serving in the military during that time had to serve denying who they were or risk losing their jobs and benefits, when it was not necessary, when even after January of 2009, a judge ruled DADT to be unconstitutional, this DOJ fought that ruling, again, in order to use it to get the Bush Tax Cuts passed.

There is no reason now to refuse to issue an EO, other than for political reasons. None People's civil rights should trump everything, and it's really sad to see anyone making excuses as to they do not, even for a day.

[treestar]

91. That doesn't prove he thinks THIS can be done administratively!

And notice you have not heard his side of the story on this first, but go ahead with your bashing.

And give him no credit for anything he HAS done.

[ruggerson]

92. I've been more than fair with Obama over the course of his first four years

But this decision is both stupid AND immoral, and maybe you should listen to the people who have been in the trenches on LGBT issues for decades, instead of defending virtually every decision the President makes even if it ties you up into a pretzel.

[SidDithers]

52. He wouldn't sign an EO about DADT either...

How'd that work out?

Sid

[sabrina 1]

64. How did it work out, it caused untold numbers of Gays in the military to suffer the loss of

benefits or to live in fear of being outed and many more to be denied the right to join the military for one more year.

He should have passed that bill in January of 2009 and it would have sailed through Congress. But why didn't they? We know why, maybe you don't, but we do.

And so when the LBGT community realized they were being denied their rights once again, they took matters into their own hands and got a judge's ruling that DADT was unconstitutional. And what did the Obama DOJ do next? They fought that ruling. Why? We know the answer to that also.

Then during that election year's summer, DADT and The Bush Tax Cuts were 'taken off the table'. During an election year. And we saw why that bill was held up until after the election. And they expected us to believe in November, after a judge's ruling in favor of LBGT rights to serve in the military, a refusal by the President to sign an EO to support that ruling, that they had to pass the Bush Tax Cuts in order to get DADT rescinded. And they thought we fell for it.

[treestar]

88. Sid this post is exceptionally disingenuous even for BBI

An EO is not a royal decree. Too many posters on supposedly sophisticated DU treat it as if it were.

[KG]

62. so much 'fierce advocating', I can't hardly stand it.

[Better Believe It]

63. Obama supported administrative action against anti-gay discrimination before he was against it.

WH Press Secretary bellyflops when questioned about thumbs down on ENDA exec order
By: Pam Spaulding
April 12, 2012

There’s no chance that Congress will pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act any time soon, so yesterday’s negative news — delivered to Beltway LGBT establishment figures summoned to a special meeting at the White House to receive the smackdown — was offensive. Hope they at least got a box of Obama M&Ms for their trouble.

Underscore the offensiveness once you remember what the President actually told Kerry Eleveld back in the day (The Advocate, Dec. 22, 2010):

“Let me just say there are still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don’t pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that’s something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board.”

Whoopsie. I guess it depends on the meaning of “a lot of things we can do.” One of them is not picking up the executive pen and signing his John Hancock to stop discrimination where he can — when it comes to LGBTs.

Read the full article at:

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/04/12/wh-press-secretary-bellyflops-when-questioned-about-thumbs-down-on-enda-exec-order/

[Bluenorthwest]

65. among the defenders of this delay I see not one gay person....

and some with let us say, a history which colors their commentary on these issues. So sick of the chattering straights crying for more discrimination, a while longer, not right now, we still need to hate just a while longer, got to use you to raise money in our churches and politics.
Disgusting. Just get out of the way if you can not support equality now.

[joshcryer]

66. Post #33.

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

For what it's worth.

Obama should do it like he should have for DADT but he won't because it's campaign season and he'll likely get ENDA passed if he gets back the House.

[Better Believe It]

68. That's not a good excuse because pools show huge public support for workplace protection.

An Executive Order would help Obama's election campaign, not hurt it.

[joshcryer]

70. I made no excuse. I explained why. I disagree with it.

Apparently you do to. Cool. We're on the same page.

[Better Believe It]

71. OK Good. I misunderstood your post.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. I didn't defend the delay.

I only defended the President's overall record.

[joshcryer]

75. That is true. But we know what the code language is really about.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. "code language"? What?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[joshcryer]

79. Better off then.

Nevermind.

[sabrina 1]

69. You can say that again.

and some with let us say, a history which colors their commentary on these issues.

It's revealing, isn't it? Same thing with DADT and the same people demanding that those who were being asked to put their civil rights on hold then.

Just get out of the way if you can not support equality now.

'New Democrats' believe that Civil Rights for those who do not have them, are asking for 'ponies'. They made it clear around 2004 that 'single issue voters' (that would be Gays, Women and Minorities) were no longer going to influence 'The Party'. I was there, I remember it well. And the supporters of this 'new strategy', 'win at all costs' are alive and well. And I wonder about them, as I did then.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. "Same thing with DADT and the same people demanding..."

Last I noticed, DADT was dead and gone.

[sabrina 1]

80. It was used as a political football to get the Bush Tax Cuts passed. It was delayed, for almost

a year, to be used in that 'chess' game. Maybe you forgot the details, but most of us have not.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Here's what I know: DADT is dead and gone.

I don't know what you're babbling about. Barack Obama said he'd get rid of DADT, and it's gone.

[sabrina 1]

84. I didn't think you did know much about it.

Facts are facts, and no one who held up that bill for political purposes gets a pass, sorry.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. That is the most fucking dumb position on DADT I've heard yet.

Seriously, concocting some insane-sounding "held it up for political purposes" reason so President Obama doesn't get credit for killing DADT is just ludicrous, sabrina1. It seems certain you bear ill will towards the President to come up with stupid reasons to discount his actual achievements.

[fascisthunter]

67. civil rights is a big big risk to his political further I suppose

[treestar]

87. Maybe once again, he thinks an EO is not the way to go.

He is supportive of gay rights and has done several things that show that. Therefore, this should be looked into further.

The main problem with the internet is everyone thinks they can micromanage. Maybe the President has a different strategy. It worked with DADT. Some people don't understand that EOs are limited to carrying out existing law. Or how they are going to interpret existing law. How can he "refuse to sign" an EO? They come from his administration, not Congress. So he's not going to "refuse to sign" one - just not write it up in the first place.

[Better Believe It]

89. That's not what he thought in December 2010. Why the change in position? It's an election year!

[treestar]

90. Are you implying that the majority of voters do not support whatever it is you think the

President should now do by Executive Order?

In 2010, he claimed he could change this by Executive Order? Based on what statute? You simply don't understand politics on more than the shallowest level.