Barney Frank: The White House Doesn't Want DADT Repealed This Year

[FreeState]

Beyond angry now. Mr. President when the history books are written do you really want discrimination as your legacy? Lives are being destroyed as you sit on your hands.

http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=108409

As Rep. Barney Frank told me Friday, “I’m disappointed with the administration talking about delaying legislation for a year. But I’m working with Patrick Murphy (the lead sponsor of the House repeal bill) on it and I’m hoping we can push ahead.”

Like many pro-repeal advocates, Frank has consistently pinpointed the National Defense Authorization Act as “the only vehicle” for overturning the ban legislatively. When I noted that the White House has failed to designate the defense authorization bill over a stand-alone bill as its preferred method for repealing the policy, Frank responded, “That’s because they don’t want it done this year, not because they want it done separately.”

If Frank is correct, that would help clarify two things: (1) why administration officials declined to comment on the introduction of Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s new repeal bill — because they actually prefer the defense authorization act over a stand-alone bill; (2) why they haven’t advocated for a repeal measure to be included in this year’s authorization act — because they would prefer the issue recede into the shadows until next year.

Of course, LGBT people have a dog in the hunt on immigration issues too. Not only are there thousands of undocumented LGBT people who could benefit from a path to legalization, but the potential inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act in comprehensive immigration reform would allow gay citizens and green card holders to sponsor their same-sex partners.

[closeupready]

1. Carefully orchestrating the movement on this for maximum political advantage?

Smells like it could be, to me.

[frebrd]

8. Avoiding it one year at a time......

until after his next election.

[mdmc]

2. We will fix that some other time

once we fix
nafta
the patriot act
and
the health insurance mandate..

[gratuitous]

3. Yeah, what if they'd passed the Civil Rights Act during an election year?

The Democrats would have gotten munched! So they passed the first part of it in . . . uh, 1964. And LBJ went against Goldwater that November, and . . . Okay, let's try this: Gay people are so accustomed to being denied a full share as citizens, what's one or five or 11 more years of discrimination?

[Betty Karlson]

19. VERY good points. N/T

[Bluebear]

4. And when we lose House seats, if not the entire House, goodbye ANY repeal

[FreeState]

5. I didnt vote and donate money for this kind of change - and Ill be damned if I do it again n/t

[reflection]

10. That's the part that worries me.

Do it NOW.

[Bluebear]

16. +1

[Smashcut]

6. Shocking!!!

[saracat]

7. Hmm. Sort of like the Public Option, FOCA and a host of other

"unimportant things"

[progressoid]

9. Not surprised.

It is an election year after all.

[n2doc]

11. Just like the righties play the anti-abortion crowd

Bait and switch. "Someday, if you elect enough of us, we'll lead you to the promised land....Just not today"

[piratefish08]

12. I'm not surprised that I'm not surprised...........

[jonnyblitz]

13. k & r. thanks for keeping us updated on this issue. it's

something that has affected my life in the past. :hi:

[O is 44]

14. Another congress critter blaming...

the executive branch for their legislative responsibilities. Barney I’m not buying it, although I like you a lot.

[Bluebear]

15. Yes, our Fierce Advocate looooves us. That's why he isn't putting a moratorium on the firings

[Unvanguard]

17. Seems pretty clear it won't pass the Senate without DoD support.

Presumably Obama wants to wait until the results of the review are in. Still, it's mystifying why he mentioned it in his State of the Union address, then--and the delay is somewhat worrisome in light of the midterm elections. Not sure what to make of this.

[Unvanguard]

18. Frank: I did not say WH opposes repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell' this year

But Frank told The Hill that he was talking about the Pentagon's stance, not the White House's position on the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"I said that about the Pentagon, the quote may have gotten garbled," he said in a phone interview.

...

Frank said that the White House has been "ambiguous" about its desire to see the policy repealed this year but did not say they are openly against it like he believes the Pentagon is.

"I wish the White House was more adamant," he said. "I'm still waiting for the White House to speak out.

"When people say that they want to implement a change, their answer should be that they want to pass the bill."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/86815-frank-i-did-not-say-wh-opposes-repealing-dont-ask-dont-rell-repeal-this-year