DADT still in effect = Barack Obama is a FAILED PRESIDENT!!

[Michigander4Dean]

Why the fuck did we expect anything else? This is not "change we can believe in"!

HELLO MR. PRESIDENT - PUT A STOP TO THIS NONSENSE NOW OR YOU CAN EXPECT A FLOOD OF SUPPORT FOR THE GREEN PARTY IN 2010 AND 2012!!!!!!!!!

[NYC_SKP]

1. lol

:rofl:

[Chipper Chat]

2. I still have confidence he'll get to it.

He may just want the military brass on board with it - or at least get their input.
Just a few days ago he reiterated his full support for civil unions and, uh, "equal rights."
DADT is disgraceful and Obama knows it.

[LooseWilly]

17. You do realize that "civil unions" aren't equal any more than "black schools"?

Right?

Brown vs. Board of Education? Separate But Equal? Non starter?....

[omega minimo]

18. Apples and oranges

[LooseWilly]

20. Mmm... is that a reference to fruit?

I disagree. I think that it's a very relevant comparison. Maybe it's just me though. Judge for yourself...

[omega minimo]

21. It's relevant but not a direct comparison.

[LooseWilly]

24. Uhh, ok... so I'll leave you to meditate on the relevance.

If you're looking for an allegory... well, I'm not a fan of that genre.

[vaberella]

46. Well there are very different situations.

I find they are oppressed people but the abuse for centuries that Blacks faced...no, no, not the same with LGBT prejudice. They haven't been put in muzzles, they weren't property, they weren't bought and sold. They are made up of different races of different people and were not targeted based solely on skin colour---only rumor but that could be said for women in reference to the Witch trials.

And there are various other major differences. However, there is no denying they are oppressed peoples.

[Cant trust em]

70. I urge you to not play the "which people are more oppressed" game

I think this is more a case of political capital to solve the current mountain of problems.

[omega minimo]

50. Meditate on slavery

:evilfrown: "Allegory" my ass

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

54. Just leave it be

She's a dadaist.

[HamdenRice]

43. And there are more "black schools" today than there were in 1954

Residential and school segregation while no longer mandated have intensified, which shows that when you are reforming the system, you have to try hard to get it right.

[vaberella]

47. This is one of the big problems. In some ways Blacks are still second class citizens.

From schools, to jobs, to housing segregation. Blacks are still not paid equal to whites in many positions.

[omega minimo]

49. and they were less than that during Katrina NOLA

:thumbsdown:

[AndyA]

80. That's right.

Separate but equal. Obama is against marriage for gays, he said so.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't tolerate black schools for his children, though. What's the difference? :shrug:

[boppers]

3. I think you missed one.

Here ya go:
!

[tridim]

4. !!!1111

[Kaleva]

5. Flood of support for the Green Party?

What will happen is that people will convince themselves that the alternative (Palin?) is too great a risk for this nation and they will vote for the Democrat nominee.

[LooseWilly]

19. Are you sure? When it was Gore vs. W... and Gore showed little interest in progressives...

... where did they go again?

If a voting bloc of the party is getting no bones tossed its way ... do they really stand to lose that much from undermining that party? After all, if it's done often enough... maybe the fact that that bloc is willing to do it will finally become recognized by the party that keeps losing because it "sells out"/"takes for granted" one of its core constituencies.

I've voted for Cthulu for president before. I'm willing to do it again. What you've got to ask yourself is how many other assholes out there might be as crazy as I am... (Remember 2000 when you assume that people will convince themselves to vote Democrat rather than let the Greater Evil win.)

[cali]

28. stop repeating the lie that Gore showed little interest in Progressives

and the lie that bush won in 2000. Not to mention the lie that Obama isn't responsive at all to the Progressive wing of the dem party. your revisionsit history sucks.

[LooseWilly]

30. I am merely stating a perspective.

Gore's stepping away from Clinton (presumably for fear of being associated with the blowjob perjury impeachment) reduced his credibility with us "left" leaners. His wife's efforts to censor "offensive" music 10 years earlier didn't help matters for him either, with my ilk.

I'm not saying that Bush won in 2000, merely that Gore lost. And I'm saying that the confluence of all of these perceptions contributed to the Nader vote that is popularly blamed for Gore's loss (or at least which contributed to the vote stealing by W). I'm also saying that, if Obama doesn't pay some attention to, and "throw some bones to" those on the progressive side of his coalition... he may find himself losing enough support from the "left" to feel some heat... or even lose... in 2012. You can say what you want about the Progressive wing of the Democratic party... but if Obama doesn't show us some "love", he'd better hope that he's bringing a whole lot of new centrists into the fold... or there may be some of us who decide to vote for Cthulu... and stop settling for the lesser evil... and it may be more votes than he can spare.

[Kaleva]

63. More Dems voted for Bush then Nader got in total votes

At least that is what I found when looking at the exit polling data fro Florida. Another example would be West Virgina where Dems outnumber Republicans by a 2-1 margin, where Nader wasn't a factor at all and is a state Clinton won in '92 and '96 I believe.

Try as I might, I could not find a single ad put out by the Bush/Cheney team or the Republicans that tried to paint Vice President Gore as being too moderate, too much of a centrist or middle of the roader. They tried and succeeded to label him as being too liberal and this was also done to Kerry in 2004.

[Cant trust em]

6. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! nt

[LooseWilly]

22. Be sure to have future polls work out how much of the GLBT vote Obama can do without

... in the next election. Then consider whether the "tacking to the center" or the "fierce advocate of equal rights" angle is the better political move.

You make your judgement. I'll make mine. Personally, the Democratic Party is a means to an end... while it seems like, for others, policy decisions are a means to an end: Democratic Party Power. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you recognize the difference.

[Cant trust em]

68. In the long term, I agree with you

But I don't think that saying that a 5 month presidency is a failure because of the lack of follow through on one issue lends credence to your argument. Call me back in two years before we start jumping up and down on DADT. Keep the pressure on until then, but maintain perspective.

[Visine]

7. Basic Human Rights For ALL. Obama needs to get that message.

And NO! I Will NOT shut-up and get to the back of the bus. I will not.

[scrappydo]

9. Give it a rest already!!!!

With all the problems this country faces, and all of the irons President Obama has in the fire, I am so tired of you whiners....and your "threats." You have no idea what is going on behind the scenes yet you whine like a 2-year-old. The day will come when you will have to eat crow - I will even send you some salt to sprinkle on it. Maybe that is why I like HuffPo in the evening - there is actually some intelligence over there. Posters can carry on a debate without the nonsensical shit people like you post.

[Visine]

10. Give Civil Rights For All a "rest already"? I am going to "eat crow"? I am "whining"?

The Democratic Party has a very LONG way to go toward understanding the concept of basic human rights for ALL.

And no...I will not shut up and I will not go to the back of the bus.

[Fearless]

12. No one's asking you to do anything but think.

THINK.

What happens to my civil rights when a democrat loses in 2012? If they don't maintain a majority in 2010? What chance is there that DADT will change then?

NONE.

The biggest fallacy outside of politics is that things can be changed instantly. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. There must be a series of pressures. We have to defeat those who oppose us not hand them victory in the next election. You talk about the back of the bus. Rosa Parks. She didn't instantly change segregation in the south. Actually she was a civil rights activist for years before that day. She had worked for civil rights for years before and years after. There were others too. Change isn't simple or easy. If it was; it would be finished already.

The fact is that Barack Obama is no enemy of GLBTQ people. But he has not shown himself to be an ally yet either. Why? Because we aren't making GLBTQ rights an issue. You can point to any parade or pride event or organization you want, but if we are 2 in 20 that is 30 million Americans. Where are those voices? What about the 50-54% of Americans who support equal rights for gay and lesbian people? Where are those voices?

If we want to overturn DADT and DOMA and pass an all inclusive ERA we MUST ALL FIND OUR VOICES.

It's true that we might be able to do it by subverting the current political status quo, voting for a different party perhaps. But, I am not willing to wait the extra time that will be needed to defeat both our enemies and our friends to do so. I am not willing to sacrifice my freedoms and my equality and sit idly by waiting for the entire nation to see everything anew in a brilliant moment of inspiration, for the political system to change, for this nation to find GLBTQ rights important enough to defeat not only the interests against GLBTQ rights but also the interests for the Democratic and Republican Party's continued existence. What we need is action and all the help that we can get.

[Visine]

13. Rick Warren. Donnie McGlurkin. How long do you expect us to "wait"?

You just don't want any of us pesky people to rock the boat.

Get to the back of the bus, shut up and wait.

And I FOUND MY VOICE, thank you very much. I FOUND MY VOICE when Barack Obama chose to throw my family under the bus during his campaign. In order to pander to the bigot vote, he chose Donny and in order to send a STRONGER message he CHOSE Rick Warren to be his voice on inauguration day.

YOU may be struggling to find YOUR voice but I am not.

Do NOT tell me to shut up and wait...ever again.

[Fearless]

14. Oh the Warren debate again... The eccentricities of politics be damned...

I guess we shouldn't sit down with hostile leaders without preconditions either. ...Oh wait, that was a rethug meme. Funny how went it comes down to us sitting with people we don't favor how quickly the pot calls the kettle black.

If you want to discuss Warren and so on I will direct you to my prior posts around that time period in which I detailed the eccentricities of politics and the disarming of political opponents in detail. Otherwise, I'll move on...


What you are is a kin to the batty old person screaming at the bus stop street sign. You don't focus your dismay in a constructive manner, rather in a foolish and, in this case, destructive way. Well go on and pout like a child while we go out and actually get things done.

My voice works fine, but thankfully my brain works well too.

Likewise, I never told you to shut up. Go back and reread, this time for content.

[Visine]

15. "Well go on and pout like a child while we go out and actually get things done."

Define "WE" and define what you have done to secure basic human rights for ALL people


Your tired sagging old defense of Obama's bigotry re: Rick Warren doesn't work with me. Never has and never will.

Give the pom-poms and the kool-aid a rest and try to focus on human rights issues.

Rah! Rah! Sis-boom-bah!

Don't forget to gush over the latest puppy pictures!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Cant trust em]

71. Isn't it Warren's bigotry? nt

[Fearless]

82. We are the people who realize that...

this battle will not be won by alienating our allies in the Democratic Party.

Incidentally, I'm not being an Obama cheer leader or drinking the "Kool-Aid". Go back and reread what I said. We have to pressure him. His stance presently is inexcusable. But to affect change we need to show him just how powerful a group we can be politically. 30 million GLBTQers? Well, where are they?

And what on earth do puppies have to do with this? Are you saying that I don't have the right to be happy? Granted puppies are not my favorite animal, but here's one for the road nonetheless...

[Visine]

126. That?

Is a seriously cute puppy.

And it made me smile.

Is that your pooch?

[Fearless]

83. And furthermore... by definition of bigot, Obama would be a bigot only by shunning Warren.

Funny how the pot keeps calling the kettle black.


"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry


It's not to say that Warren is right. He is wrong. But it's still being bigoted if one ignores the opinions of another regardless of which person is right. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The difference is when those opinions are used to suppress the opinions or beliefs of another. That is what is wrong. Morally speaking Warren can believe anything he personally wants, but he becomes a bigot only when he tries to act on them in such a way that harms our ability to follow our beliefs, in a way that detriments us.

[Starry Messenger]

91. Don't you mean "Christophobes"?

Thank you for using Rick Warren's line of thinking on DU. Now I've seen everything.

[Fearless]

101. Do you know Warren? Have you met him? Then how could you possible know how he thinks?

And I am honored if what I said, which was apparently misread, was all you needed to add to your collection before you could say you've seen everything. Truly... honored. :eyes:


EDIT TO ADD: And the word bigot comes from Old French in which it meant religious detractor or "Christophobe" I suppose... granted I am not using it in such a way.

[Starry Messenger]

107. He films his thoughts and puts them on his website.

That's where I found his film showing himself endorsing Yes on 8 to his flock. If you were truly involved in the conversations about Warren and his bigoted effect on the election out here you might have known that. I know what bigot means.

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentid=1502

edit to add link to video.

[Fearless]

110. Yes you're right... If I was truly invovled with the banality of the Warren debate...

I would have known that. Thankfully, it is a stupidity that I recognize and nipped at the bud very early on.

We don't make friends by making enemies.

[Starry Messenger]

112. He will never be a friend.

I live in the new CA theocracy he helped create. Thanks.

[Fearless]

127. He doesn't have to think himself a friend... his followers just have to think Obama not the enemy.

That was the point. The point was not to convert Warren but to show his supporters that Obama wasn't a bad guy. It didn't work on all of them I'm sure, but as we weren't fooled into believing that Obama was anti-gay, then I see no harm in trying to stray a few from the herd.

[Starry Messenger]

131. I heard that argument.

I thought it ridiculous then, and I still think it ridiculous now. :shrug:

[Fearless]

132. Erm... okay...

:shrug:

Seriously? On what grounds?

[QC]

106. Not shunning someone does not necessarily equal giving him a world stage.

Lame, lame, lame.

[Beacool]

64. Obama didn't have to ask Warren to give the invocation.

IMO, it was disrespectful to the gay people who supported him. Many took it as a slap in the face. Some of my gay friends are still ticked off at that one.

x(

[Fearless]

102. There is no doubting that.

He wasn't looking at us. Why? Because of two reasons. First, that we wouldn't by and large vote for McCain. (Obviously.) And second, because of that he didn't think we were a threat to defect in large numbers, and we didn't, so he went after a group of people who would greatly benefit him (or at least make his job easier) if he could pull them away from McCain. Clearly now that 1/3 of the rethugs are unhappy with their party, it's working.

[dionysus]

60. no one here told you to shut up. you're throwing a tantrum.

[LooseWilly]

25. You're taking it for granted that something tangible will be forthcoming.

Your hope and faith do you credit... but my cynicism sees little progression toward the platitudinous end points you project.

Maybe your faith will pay off, but I'm jaded. I shared your faith during the primaries. I assumed that the "false steps" of Obama's with McGlurkin and Warren were just Obama getting a feel for a topic that he didn't know well. I had faith. I had Hope.

And then he was sworn in. And... nothing. After those missteps, I'd assumed he'd try to make it up to the GLBT community. It's a part of his base, right?... why wouldn't he? And still... nothing.

I'm now ready to concede that I was wrong in the primaries to dismiss the doubts of the GLBT community. So... if you are right Fearless... and Obama throws a bone to the community... then maybe the GLBT soldiers fired and now looking for work... and maybe even I... will be able to overlook slights and vote for Obama. He'd better freakin well hurry and show some initiative though... or twist some arms in Congress... or he may find a chunk of his base eroding.

I know I've personally grown up in the "political wilderness" of being a "liberal" for the last 20 years... I'm sure I can handle that wilderness again, if the Democratic Party isn't going to offer anything substantive to liberals in exchange for their support... either.

[CTLawGuy]

38. Well the GLBT community was backing Hillary

who SUPPORTED DOMA when it was passed. and I don't remember feeling the GLBT community's wrath against Bill Clinton who signed both DOMA and DADT.

[Beacool]

69. Historical perspective.

The 90s are not 2009. Remember that Clinton went to bat from the get go to get the Pentagon to repeal their gay ban and got whacked with a large stick, even by some fellow Democrats. DADT and DOMA were compromises. At the time some Congress critters wanted to pass a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The Clintons have always supported gay rights, ever since Arkansas. A state where gay rights were not particularly popular. Want to know how they feel about gays? Here's what a couple of people who worked with Hillary have to say:

Fred Hochberg

The Clinton acolytes who know her well point to another reason to vote for her: her pure comfort level with gay people. Fred Hochberg, the head of the Small Business Administration under President Clinton and now the dean of the business school at the New School in New York, has known Hillary since the 1992 campaign, when he raised funds for her husband. He sits on her campaign’s LGBT steering committee, cannily launched on the eve of this year’s Stonewall anniversary, and he talks admiringly not only of the “hard work” she’s done behind the scenes, such as organizing meetings of the Senate leadership on LGBT issues, but also of her “enormously relaxed” vibe at the HRC-Logo forum -- and with Hochberg and his partner, Tom Healy.

“She’s one of the very few people in life, let alone public life, who will unfailingly always ask, virtually the first question, ‘How’s Tom? What’s he doing?’ ” Hochberg tells me. “She was at an event for the New School, and as I said goodbye she said, ‘Make sure to give Tom a hug for me.’ That kind of expression feels personal, genuine. Not a lot of people do that period, let alone a sitting senator or first lady. It’s unique among faculty members. I’m dean of the school, and they don’t ask me about my partner!”

Neel Lattimore

Neel Lattimore, who served as press secretary to Clinton for five years when she was first lady, has similarly warm and fuzzy anecdotes to share. When he was promoted to the highly visible job, Lattimore took Clinton aside and told her he was gay, just so she would know in case any of the Clintons’ numerous political foes wanted to make an issue of it. The conversation in the Map Room turned into a heart-to-heart. “I said, ‘I want to be a good role model for my nieces and nephews -- there’s not a lot of role models out there for gay men,’ ” he remembers. “I thought that was a perfectly logical thing to say. But she was like, ‘Who are you running around with?’ I said, ‘Excuse me?’ And she said, ‘If you don’t find some people that you consider to be role models in the next several weeks, come back to me and I’ll introduce you to some.’

“That’s when it was clear that she had friends who were gay,” he says. “If I was struggling to find people that I could look up to, she was like, ‘I’ll give you a list, I’ll set up some meetings. You can feel good about this.’ ”

Several years later, no longer in her employ, Lattimore held a fund-raiser for her New York Senate campaign at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel, attended largely by gay friends of his. It was a campy affair -- “We’re showing pictures of her with bad hair on the screens, and she’s just laughing!” -- but the tone turned downright mushy when Lattimore introduced his mentor to the crowd. “I told the story about the role models, and I said, ‘Mrs. Clinton, I want to introduce you to my role models.’ ” He pointed to the 500 guests in the room. “And I heard her very quietly in the back go, ‘Oh, Neel.’ ”

http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid49015.asp

Neel's is my favorite anecdote. It still brings tears to my eyes.

:-)

[jesus_of_suburbia]

85. Thanks, Beacool! I hate it when people compare today with 15 years ago.

Different times.

[Beacool]

89. Don't you just love Neel's story?

It so illustrates the Hillary that I know and admire. She's a good person, and a pox on those who think otherwise!!!

:hi:

[jesus_of_suburbia]

97. I do love Neel's story!

And I also know what a good person Hillary is (those who think otherwise are bitter souls).

:pals:

[Beacool]

100. Hear, hear!!!

:hug:

[CTLawGuy]

119. yeah right

one guy is not moving fast enough for you on gay rights, and you question whether he is a "fierce advocate," another guy signed both pieces of legislation you are mad at the FIRST guy for not getting RID of, and you call him a hero to the gay rights movement.

Makes sense to me :eyes:

And what did the Clintons do for gay rights in Arkansas?

[CTLawGuy]

122. another thing, now you think compromise is just hunky dory

that's pretty hilarious.

or is just ok only for white presidents?

[Fearless]

86. I can't help but be happy with the progress made in the last 10 years.

I've seen my own state (MA) accept equal marriage. I've seen Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, and Connecticut do the same. I won't deny having seen adoption laws in Arizona and Florida or Prop 8 or constitutional amendments banning marriage equality. But I do see the powers that be in the movement and I am satisfied that we are moving forward at as quick a pace as we can.

We could move faster, but we need more support to do that. It will come in time. It's cruel that you've lived, from what you've alluded to, most of your life in a world that doesn't accept you. I don't have that experience. Experience makes us who we are and forms our opinions and everyone's point of view is needed in this fight.

In regards to the Democratic Party I see it as foolish to shun many of our ardent straight supporters who will not vote for a third party because GLBTQ rights, while important, are not key issues to them. It is a tenuous rope we walk with our straight allies. But it's one that we must continue to maneuver if we want to gain equality.

IMHO of course.

[dsc]

33. Compare his behavior on gay rights issues with his behavior on abortion

Abortion rights are actually less popular than gay rights yet every single solitary thing he could do by himself on abortion rights he has already done. In comparison today he argued in favor of DADT at the Supreme Court and used an argument that will set back gay related jurisprudence to boot. I am not asking for the impossible but I do think some amount of actual effort would be nice.

[Fearless]

76. The difference is the perceived impact...

As a politician he sees things like a politician. Pro-choicers have been a far more powerful ally to the Democratic Party in the past three decades than GLBTQers, just simply by their SIZE. They are a big group. We have yet to prove how impactful we can be. In short, they are ahead of us and we need to catch up. Not by throwing the Democratic Party out of the window with the rethugs but by working within and changing the minds of those who already support us to help them realize that our support is worth their effort.

[LostinVA]

36. I've been told to wait for decades -- fuck that anymore, and dhame on YOU

And anyone else in this thread going against what Dr. King taught.

[Fearless]

75. No one said anything about waiting... in fact I said that if we try to

upset the establishment instead of working within it, it will take LONGER to achieve equality.

[HamdenRice]

44. What a great post! Too bad I can't rec a post that's not an OP! Thanks nt

[liquid diamond]

124. How about republicans? I suggest you show some gratitude.

Did Bush ever promised to challenge DADT?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

55. Well, then go stay at HuffPo

Wanting civil rights is not "nonsensical shit."

Which of your civil rights are you willing to give up?

[QC]

57. Oh well, I guess that when they are viewed from the lofty heights of heterosexual privilege,

our "pet issues" must look pretty small.

[Strong Atheist]

96. Now is the time:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Strong%20Atheist/13

[Skittles]

130. you are absolutely disgusting

to characterize people who are concerned about human rights as "whiners" - :puke:

[Strong Atheist]

95. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[JamesA1102]

8. How dare he not fix all the problems of the alst 30 years in

less than 5 months. The guy is a joke.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Fearless]

11. Look...

There will be no support for the green party in 2010 or 2012. How about instead of bailing on a real opportunity that we turn up the heat on him and on this topic. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water people. It's this rash thinking that's got us stuck in two wars and with bailouts whose money went who knows where.

[LooseWilly]

26. I can't help thinking of a post I saw recently, expounding the wisdom of GRIP.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians. The gist, as I understood it, was to just vote out any incumbent politician that "wasn't doing it for you".

Well, that puts the responsibility on the Obama administration, doesn't it? And my Congressional Rep. And my Senators (one of whom already has my bullseye fixed on her back).

So here's my point. I'll voice my opinions. They may or may not listen. And, if they don't behave to my satisfaction... I'll vote against them. If that means that Democrats lose power... (wow, I wish my vote was that powerful... think of the lobbyist monies!!)... well then, maybe the new politicians will get the hint. If there are no "bones" thrown my way... I'm perfectly willing to toss the baby out with the bath water onto the highway at rush hour... to the best of my ability. In a 2 party system, that's the only way a voice gets heard...

[Clio the Leo]

53. So you're gonna go from someone who's said he's going to end DADT...

.... and help elect someone who we KNOW wont end it and might even make things HARDER for GLBTs?

I completely appreciate your frustration with the timing of it all, but I just dont understand the logic.

[Fearless]

87. Agreed.

[cali]

16. No, sorry, there almost surely won't be a flood of support for the

Green Party in 2010 or 2012.

[pnorman]

40. I voted Green in 2000, and have been keeping a close eye on that "political tendency" ever since

And I totally reject the claim that it was financed largely by the RNC. In many ways, it closely resembled the grass root aspect of the O'Bama movement. The point of such movements is to register the strongest possible protest vote, without doing lasting damage. Such things are notoriously difficult to accomplish with precision, although Lieberman & Gore actually DID "win".

But "voting Third Party over "DADT"??? I'll confidently predict that the RNC would be behind the greater part of that!

pnorman

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. The West Bank is still occupied!! Barack Obama has A FAILED FOREIGN POLICY!!

But seriously changing things frequently runs into obstacles and inertia and takes time.

It would be better to advance the issues one cares about by building grassroots support for more progressive positions than trying to throw the election to Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee or Newt Gingrich and to see the American government controlled by people who think exactly like the crazies on Fox News.

[LooseWilly]

27. The problem is that it can be nearly impossible for grassroots supported opinions

... to get any traction on a national stage. If the grassroots supports something reasonable, but the Democratic Party machine wants no part of it, and the Republican Party machine also wants no part of it... then the grassroots is essentially left... sucking grass.

If the Republican Revolution of the 90s should've taught us anything... it is that the American Public can only be roused by an Us vs Them dichotomy. (Maybe, if you control the dichotomy for long enough... or better yet, actually fund the educational system... the Public will be capable of more subtle and nuanced thought...) That said... the Democratic Party should consider going crazy, like the Republicans did... but in reversing the Republican legacies. (Hell, I don't even realize the full extent of these legacies from when I was a child... the Public won't notice or miss the majority of them.) The sheer "action" of it will be enough to "whip up popular support".

Hell, if the Democrats tried that, and had to compromise on 2/3 of the positions they proposed... they'd still seem "revolutionary" enough to have increased support of all those who felt that W and the Republicans had blown governing in a big way.

Nevertheless... they'd get better results that way than employing the strategies they're using now, from what I've seen. Why not give it a try with a "test issue" that the Democrats don't really care about... like DADT? Just jam something through, and see what happens... while being "Democratic Party cautious" on every other issue.

Think of it as the "scientific method"...

[BlooInBloo]

31. Gotta love DUers.

[Cha]

81. And those who bring

the message of failure? Nah.

[DCBob]

32. This comment = Michigander4Dean is CLUELESS!

Have a nice day.

[LostinVA]

37. And also wanting to cause trouble

Which worked.

[DCBob]

45. Has the "Gander" replied to any message??

Looks like a hit and run.

[LostinVA]

34. Not repealing DADT IS a failure of President Obama -- a supermajority of Americans are for repeal

But, saying that isn't as much fun as starting a pot-stirring OP.

[SKKY]

39. The DOW is still below 9000. Barack Obama is a failed President!!!!

:eyes: I understand this is an important issue to many people, but it's not the #1 issue, probably not even #5 or #6. Give him time, and I'm sure he'll get to it. If he doesn't, then you can call him a failed President.

[HamdenRice]

41. ROFLMAO!!11-"A FLOOD OF SUPPORT FOR THE GREEN PARTY IN 2010 AND 2012"

Yeah, and pigs will fly out of Donald Rumsfeld's Dependz!!1

:rofl:

Go Nader!

[jefferson_dem]

42. Your clown shoes and red nose are ready.

n/t

[trayfoot]

48. Civil Right ARE Civil Rights

whether you are speaking of "black" civil rights or "gay"m civil rights! So, YES, in my mind they are extremely comparable.

[zulchzulu]

51. I'll bet you $1000 that Obama signs a bill ending DADT by 2012

Yeah, it didn't happen yet. Does that make him a "failed president"? Will it make people throw their vote out the window and join the Greens?

WTF? Are you kidding?

If you don't think Obama will sign legislation ending DADT by 2012, I'm willing to wager some cash that he does. Wanna bet?

:hi:

[slackmaster]

52. I hope the OP is sarcasm, but just in case it isn't...

...Only Congress can repeal DADT.

[Politicub]

56. Justice delayed is justice denied. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned McHugh's appointment (BY OBAMA) to Sec. of Army

Does anybody think that appointing an avowed OPPONENT of DADT to that particular post might mean something? Does anybody think that that having him help Obama with the military brass might HELP get DADT repealed in the long-term?

I know that a lot of people want to get DADT repealed yesterday but those of us who were around back in 1993 know what a clusterf**k Bill Clinton's well-intentioned (but in retrospect, clumsy) attempts to repeal the ban became. That is how we got DADT in the first place and because of the 1994 GOP "sweep" and their 12 year iron grip on Congress and 8 year lock on the WH made it impossible for Clinton (or anybody else) to revisit DADT until now- but that doesn't mean that it is naturally supposed to be one of the first few issues that gets resolved. It *should* be IMHO but then again a LOT of things *should* be according to other people. We can all advocate for action on one issue or another but IMHO it's a bit unfair (and unrealistic) to expect that POTUS and Congress are going to pick OUR issue as the one that they will choose to focus their attention on at any given time. That doesn't mean, though, that we should just give up. It does mean that we need to call, e-mail, or whatever else we can do to help get POTUS and Congress to focus on our priorities.

While President Obama *may* technically be able to sign some kind of "executive order" ending prosecution/discharge of gay and lesbian service members, I am unsure as to whether: a.)It would hold up in a court of law and b.)Cause political problems/controversy/damage that make repealing DADT MORE difficult. As much as everybody (including myself) hate how things get done in politics and however tempting it may be to accuse politicians of being "cowardly" by not simply ramming something controversial (however just and well-intentioned it may be) through, it seems impossible to completely strip political calculations out of governing and legislative strategy. Giving the Republicans opening after opening to get back into power is a DEFINITE way to ensure that DADT never gets revisited, much less repealed.

It seems like Obama is taking a decidedly more cautious and strategic approach towards getting DADT repealed, which I believe will ultimately prove to be successful in the (near) long-term, but to suggest that he isn't *doing* anything towards getting DADT repealed seems a bit extreme IMHO. Contrary to initial reports, the Pentagon HAS had some discussions with the Obama administration about DADT and Obama is working on getting somebody (McHugh) in place in the Army that supports repealing DADT. Plus, he has already said that he will sign a repeal of it. That sounds like a pretty good start to me already being 4-5 months out of the gate and while being primarily consumed by severe economic and national security issues.

As far as his DOJ defending DADT: :shrug: If his DOJ is obligated by the constitution/law to defend laws enacted by Congress, well, then that's what he needs to do. It sucks to be sure and I wouldn't want to have to argue for something that I don't believe in personally but the law is still the law until such time it is no longer the law. I don't think many (any?) of us voted for Obama so that he could become a Democratic "version" of Bush in terms of picking and choosing which laws he has to follow, enforce, etc.

[HamdenRice]

65. Great analysis! I have one quibble: the DOJ should not have defended on the grounds that they did

This gets kind of complicated with a lot of legal language that doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

The DOJ was basically trying to make the case "go away". In particular, they didn't want to establish the precedent of the courts' involvement in military personnel affairs.

The easiest way to make any challenge of any government policy go away on constitutional grounds is to argue the "rational relationship" test. That test basically says courts have no business second guessing a congressional or executive policy if it is "rationally related" to a "legitimate governmental interest." In laymans' terms, any policy that is not crazy, even if it is substantively wrong, can't be inquired into by courts.

The problem with the DOJ using the rational relationship test, and the Court's accepting it, is that it downgraded the issue at stake for the plaintiff.

The DOJ should have applied the "semi-strict scrutiny" test and said that the plaintiff had a "constitutional right" at stake and that therefore the administration needed to meet a higher standard (show that more was at stake for the government) than the rational relationship test.

I haven't read the opinion, but what worries me about the way it has been summarized is that it suggests that if marriage equality comes before SCOTUS, it will lose, because the Court will apply "rational relationship" instead of "semi-strict scrutiny."

[ieoeja]

66. Repeal of DADT would revert this policy to control of Sec'y of Defense Gates.

The second I learned Obama decided to hold Gates over from the previous administration until the military occupation ends in Iraq, my first thought was that means no movement on DADT until the military occupation ends in Iraq.

Actually, Congress could and should go ahead and repeal the legislation that currently prevents Obama/Gates from doing anything. Get that pre-requisite out of the way so Gates' replacement can move on this when he is in place.

Of course, even when Gates is replaced the new guy will want political coverage (these Sec'ys are politicians). So more delays while DoD does their umpteenth study that reaches the exact same conclusion as all their previous studies that Gays should be allowed to serve openly.

[Cha]

77. Because, it's easier to piss and moan

with lots of !!!!!!11111111.

[dionysus]

59. !!11!!11!!1!!!!!

[noamnety]

61. I'm guessing this is sarcastic flamebait.

If I'm interpreting that right, it's a pretty scummy way of trivializing and mocking people's anger about not having equal rights.

[Cha]

84. It's just Shit for Flamebait.

[omega minimo]

93. smells

like what I've been warning about.

[QC]

105. Yes, and all the usual suspects jumped right on it, didn't they? n/t

[Renew Deal]

62. I didn't think you were still here.

:shrug:

[WI_DEM]

67. how come the man who initiated DADT was re-elected in 1996?

[Fearless]

88. Because it was a compromise between equality and a worse condition...

We didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hmm... Sounds familiar. Go figure.

:+

[Forkboy]

72. While he sucks on this issue, calling him a failed president is just useless hyperbole.

[Michigander4Dean]

94. What's useless about speaking out?

[TheWraith]

73. Delusional temper tantrum FAIL. nt

[PBS Poll-435]

74. Was this PUI?

It was 11:46 PM, after all...

[scheming daemons]

78. IBTL

[omega minimo]

99. IBTTS

[AtomicKitten]

104. Nah, DU is obviously fine with this jacked-up rhetoric. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

115. What lock? What tombstone? It's been made clear that DU powers are fine with this.

[SidneyCarton]

79. The 2012 Republican Presidential Campaign Committee would like to thank you in advance...

For your generous contribution.

[Phx_Dem]

90. lol. Nice try.

[alcibiades_mystery]

92. So your version of change is government action by executive fiat?

Wowsers.

[MadBadger]

98. For more dramatic effect, you need at least three exclamation points next time.

[JuniperLea]

103. Right... and drama is going to fix this...

Seems to me all this drama is bound to alienate a lot of supporters... just saying. And how much of the population do you suppose is gay, anyway?

:eyes:

This is getting ridiculous.

[Butch350]

108. No one is gonna vote in a darn GREEN party.

Don't worry, who ever or what ever party you vote in - it won't make a difference - nothing will change
the corporate barons and msm have you all by the balls and tacos. Your gonna dance to the same music your dancing to now,
that music danced for the past eight years, and your gonna dance to their music for the upcoming future 8 years after Obama.

JUST WATCH illusions dissapate.

[omega minimo]

109. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN WARNING ABOUT AND YOU'RE BUYING IT

[Fearless]

111. Fun huh.

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

113. Considering folks are then shadowboxing

and think it's with a real "left" that is outrageous and "loony".............. somebody's havin' fun messin' with Democrats. :thumbsdown:

[laylah]

114. You seem to be very good

at "drive bys"...wtF is your problem? Are you sure you are in the right place? :shrug: Just askin'.

[omega minimo]

117. Yes

the place where real "left" voices used to be. :hi:

[JNelson6563]

116. I see a thread of people who love to refight these battles

The OP is some of the cheapest stinkiest bait I've seen yet and I marvel at how many gobble up such sewage.

How far DU has fallen.

Julie

[omega minimo]

118. Master bait

:thumbsdown: even threw in the Nader canard.

It's the crazy imitation of "lefties" that's the real pisser, when people buy it and reinforce their attitudes based on sparring with BS artists.

WE pay the price.

[JNelson6563]

120. All that's missing is refernce to Magna Carta.

No political hyperbole is complete without it. *sigh*

[MadBadger]

121. This is a legitimate issue to criticize the President on, and you fuck it up

[liquid diamond]

123. Almost 6 months in office and Obama hasn't repealed a policy

that has been in effect since the Clinton years. Fuck him! I'm voting republican in 2012!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[firedupdem]

129. What flood? You and the little people in your head? n/t