White House, Democrats pressure Congress to shelf DADT repeal

[Prism]

Ah yes, it is up to Congress to repeal DADT. The White House certainly has no say or responsibility on this matter. We must go to the legislature. Truly, President Obama would just love to pieces any legislation on his desk repealing this policy or halting discharges. Super honest! http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2009/07/hastings_retreats_on_dont_ask_1.html">Except . . .

Pressured by fellow Democrats, South Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings today dropped his attempt to end the ``don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy that sort of excludes homosexuals from the armed services.

Hastings reluctantly pulled his amendment to a defense spending bill while arguing that the policy is discriminatory and should be eliminated.

``Due to pressure from some of my congressional colleagues and from the White House, I have withdrawn my amendment,’’ he said. ``I would, however, like to note that it is most unfortunate that we are not addressing `don’t ask, don’t tell’ at this time.’’

Are we allowed to be angry yet? What share of anger can we assign to the President? 10%? 25%? Can I get a solid number before we play apologist bingo and someone really helpful explains why we have to wait, that it's not the administration's responsibility, that we should clap and believe, that complaining is just hate, that I secretly produced a love child with Hillary Clinton last year, etc. etc. etc.

Now is it becoming clear this administration has no intention of being a fierce advocate of anything at all?

[MarjorieG]

1. Not even distracting from health care, distracts from Murphy's & Gillibrands efforts. Military also

working on this. Is Hastings a companion effort to Gillibrand?

[Prism]

2. Gillibrand's efforts were shut down

The senator had to shunt off into mere "hearings" because the legislature, and apparently the administration, were not much interested in any kind of actual vote.

Or is this more chess? I hope it's not chess. Every time someone intimates chess or says the word, I have to take a drink. And being that it's Wednesday, that'll be no fun.

[karynnj]

20. Not true - she obviously thought hearings were the better way to go

She never even introduced any legislation - so there was nothing to vote on or co-sponsor. No one could stop a Senator from introducing legislation - and Thomas has many many bills with NO co-sponsors. (Sanders' single payer bill being one.)

It was her decision as to the best way to go forward.

[grantcart]

3. Maybe they pressured him because he is a crook and they want Gillebrand to lead it

Alcee Hastings has been impeached

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



First comment on the thread


In 1979, Alcee Hastings was appointed a federal judge for the Southern District of Florida by President Jimmy Carter. Two years later, Hastings was indicted on charges of conspiring to solicit a bribe from two defendants awaiting sentencing in his court. Hastings was unanimously acquitted of the charges in 1983. The Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, however, soon launched a separate investigation into the matter which lasted nearly four years. Ultimately, the council (which was led by former Watergate prosecutor John Doar and comprised of the active appeals court judges for that circuit and three U.S. District judges) found that Hastings not only had solicited a bribe, but also repeatedly lied during his trial. Following this report, the House Judiciary Committee approved seventeen articles of impeachment against Hastings. Sixteen dealt with the bribery case, while one centered around Hastings' improper revelation of sensitive government information obtained through a federal wiretap in 1985. In late 1988, the articles passed the House by a vote of 413-3

[Prism]

4. That seems like a stretch

And they've put Gillebrand off already. She attempted to put together a vote and was shut down. Hearings are the consolation prize.

[grantcart]

7. Depends on the profile of the hearings - some Senatorial hearings have become iconic

events.

it is rather obvious, not a stretch why they told this guy to get away from anything substantive

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate


He continues to be the center of ethics questions and controversies.

[Prism]

10. A 20 year old case

That's the best explanation you have?

Is Hastings allowed to do anything, or is it simply gay issues where it's best he not lift a finger?

[ruggerson]

12. Maybe it's time for the excuses to stop n/t

[Political Tiger]

5. I hear Obama threatened to kill his family......

It's a conspiracy I tell ya, a conspiracy!

[Prism]

6. Too many conspiracies

If we can get through one day where someone doesn't turn out to be what they've been intimating from the start and allowing dishonest impressions to stand, it would be a banner day in politics.

[Political Tiger]

16. I don't know what that means

but I'll say this, if Hastings strongly believes in this issue, I can't imagine what kind of "pressure" could have been put on him to force him to abandon his stated strong beliefs and convictions.

And who were these people that have so much influence over him that he can't name them?

Who are these "congressional colleagues" and people "from the White House" that were able to put so much pressure on him that he would disown his very own principles?

[Prism]

17. The point is simple

President Obama presented himself as a fierce advocate of our issues. President Obama said he would like DADT repealed, but that such an action rested solely with the legislature. The White House is now actively interfering in legislation and moves to progress this issue.

President Obama seems to have misrepresented himself.

Now, none of us should be strangers to people misrepresenting themselves in politics. It's par for the course. But it should not be explainable or excusable when those misrepresentations are hurtful, deeply dishonest, and damaging. Especially when those misrepresentations and false impressions lead to lives being destroyed and the allowance of perpetuated second class status.

People who misrepresent themselves so gallingly must be held to account. Not apologized for. Not let go. Not allowed to perpetuate the gross misimpressions they've spent so very long fostering and allowed to stand.

It's what decent people would do.

President Obama, and others, created an impression in regards to LGBT issues that have proven simply untrue in the due course of time.

It must be corrected, not papered over.

[grantcart]

8. last night he 'keyed' my car

[Prism]

9. Hey Grant

Remember this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7310113&mesg_id=7310247

#10 Everyone at DU who understands that we cannot lead with GLBT issues at the top of the public agenda in a national campaign because too many places still suffer from religious propoganda on the issue should be committed that the Obama/Biden administration should take early action on concrete steps on GLBT issues. They should be early, persistent and ongoing. It doesn't have to start on 1/21/09 but April is too late. Something must be started in Feb/Mar, whether it is Fed employees who have legal marriages, CU or in the military.

I think that attitude was far more helpful to LGBT issues than the constant dismissal and mocking of military people having their lives destroyed.

But hey, your mileage may vary.

[grantcart]

13. while I would like it faster a start on federal employees has begun.

My suspicion is that they consider DADT a major issue and have decided that fighting two major issues Health Care Reform and DADT at the same time is a poor strategy.

That may also account for Obama's insistence that Health Care be decided by August, he has other issues he wants to pressure congress on.

My objection is with your OP title, that the White House is pressuring Congress, when in fact they have interceeded with the most ehtically challenged Congressman in DC. Obviously he would be the worst possible point man on any repeat any controversial topic.

And re Senate hearings, simply because you have the hearings first does not mean that legislation will not follow.

If they are high profile hearings then they will make legislation inevitable.

[Prism]

15. After 01/20/09, all things became "understandable"

The federal employee benefits were less than nothing.

With massive political support, there is no cause for the repeal to be delayed as the administration and Congress speak out of both sides of their mouths. Their words say they want DADT repealed quickly. Their actions are delay, excuse, delay, excuse, delay.

Health care is the excuse du jour. A few months ago it was the economy. What will tomorrow bring? And what is the likelihood that those saying "Wait for health care" will pick up this new reason and run with it after promising, double cross their hearts, that they're just dying to support LGBT rights, but there's just this one thing . . .

[ruggerson]

11. not worth the bother

n/t

[ruggerson]

14. It's too controversial - only 70-80% of the country supports repeal

they're waiting for Gary Bauer to come around and then they'll proceed forthwith.

[tbyg52]

18. Thank you for this post. nt

[Starry Messenger]

19. kick.

Hastings takes a lot of crap from the Right Wing, he deserves our support. I wonder what happened here?