Mr. President, want to get Democrats to the polls in November?

[MinneapolisMatt]

Repeal DADT. It can be your October surprise.

[stray cat]

1. Do we have democrats who are going to let the GOP rule because of DADT?

and here I thought there were other issues that had people discouraged or unhappy

[Fumesucker]

3. It would certainly energize a section of the Democratic electorate that is currently not that way..

It's telling that you would rather chide others than advocate Obama doing something that would energize them.

[USArmyParatrooper]

4. Again, Obama can't just up and repeal DADT

Congressional Democrats are attaching it to the defense funding bill and it's up for vote this month.

But judging by your avatar I'm guessing you're still going to chastise Obama when it finally does get repealed?

[Fumesucker]

6. As CIC of the armed forces he can order DADT not to be enforced..

Not *exactly* the same thing but the effect is remarkably similar.

Sort of like how he claims he can order American citizens summarily executed anywhere outside of the USA with no review or oversight.

Judging by your avatar I'm guessing you're fine with that though.

[USArmyParatrooper]

10. Here's the problem with your post.

Yes, he can suspend discharges (which about the only valid argument you've made). But the problem is it's not an actual repeal, so what happens if the filibuster-everything Republican minority manages to block the actual repeal? What happens to career members of the military who felt safe enough come out and are now faced with discharge? Oh pesky word you guys love so much... pragmatism. You have to go about things the smart way.

You accidentally forgot to actually answer the question. If the Senate Democrats are able to successfully get the repeal through, and President Obama signs it (fulfilling his campaign promise) - will you give him a pat on the back? Was I not supposed to notice you didn't actually answer?

You didn't vote for Obama. You never were an Obama supporter. You never will vote for Obama. So anything from you about what "Obama needs to do" is just smoke and mirrors.

On American citizens executed outside the USA was that:

A: Relevant to the thread topic of DADT

B: A red herring designed to distract.

As to my opinion on that, it depends on the circumstance. Make another thread with that topic in mind and I'll give you a lengthy answer. In here it throws thread off topic.

[Fumesucker]

24. "If" is such a comforting word to hear when you're looking for equal rights..

And executing American citizens outside the USA was relevant to presidential powers, which was the point I was making..

[USArmyParatrooper]

27. "If" is reality,regardless of who is President.

And executing American citizens is still a red herring because it has nothing to do with DADT.

BTW, you accidentally forgot to answer the question again.

If the Senate Democrats are able to successfully get the repeal through, and President Obama signs it (fulfilling his campaign promise) - will you give him a pat on the back?

[USArmyParatrooper]

2. Shouldn't you be telling this to Congress?

The President doesn't have the authority to repeal it.

BTW, I've been saying all along it will be an October surprise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8807207

Unfortunately many of the DUers who never will and never did support Obama (despite what they say) are going to claim he did everything he could to try to stop it.

[elocs]

5. I don't think that is a prime motivator for most Democrats.

In off year elections it is important to get your base out to vote. Unfortunately, too many do not grasp the concept that the reality is in virtually every election that the winner will be either a Democrat or a Republican. If you do not help to elect a Democrat, then that aids the Republican candidate. Choices, and even not choosing, have consequences.

[Fumesucker]

7. That is also true for politicians, not just voters..

Choices have consequences, the Democratic politicians choose to be weak and feckless, that choice has consequences in how voters react to them.

[elocs]

9. If you do not vote for a Democrats, that helps to elect Republicans.

The time to change a Democratic candidate is in the primaries, not the general election. Everyone has to make compromises in what is perfectly acceptable for them in a candidate. Otherwise we could all mold our perfect candidate who lines up exactly with all of our beliefs and would never be elected.

[Fumesucker]

23. Once again you excuse the politicians from responsibility for their actions..

I'm really, really, really tired of hearing that worn out argument.

Actions have consequences, that is true for politicians as much as it is for voters, indeed since politicians have vastly more power than individual voters it can easily be argued that their actions have vastly increased consequences.

[elocs]

26. Sorry you don't understand the concept. You change candidates in the primaries,

not in the general election. Anyone who in any way helps to elect Republicans has it on their heads.

If you are really, really, really tired then take a rest.

[Fumesucker]

28. You're evading my point..

My point being that when politicians do things they have an effect on who will vote for them.

Politicians are responsible for what they do, even more than voters are since politicians have far more ability to effect policy, which is what causes people to vote for them, vote for someone else or just stay home out of disgust.

Why do you feel the need to tell others what to do with their life?

[iamjoy]

8. Repealing DADT - Hail Mary

It's more likely that desperately thrown pass will be intercepted and result in a score and victory for the other team. Sadly, hate often beats love. They've had over a year and a half to do something about repealing this rule and they've been doing silly little safe plays and sitting on the ball.

Still, I hope they do it in October. The prospect of Democrats losing Congress makes me sick to my stomach. But if it's going to happen, let's go down fighting. If DADT is repealed that's one more score for our team.

note: all strategy talk and lousy football analogies aside, DADT should be repealed because it's the right thing to do - morally and for our nation's security.

[UrbScotty]

11. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a CONGRESS of the United States..."

Article I, Sec. 1, Constitution of the United States

(Obama can't do it alone!)

[USArmyParatrooper]

17. Shhhh! Everything is about slamming Obama.

Also, it's already in the works.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8807207

[scheming daemons]

29. Way too many people on DU want a dictator, not a President

[ibegurpard]

12. I agree this needs to happen but you're deluded if you think

this is going to be what turns the tide

[BeFree]

13. Indict Bush for war crimes and torture

Real simple, easy to do and would tell all those independents Obama has the balls needed to restore America's honor.

[LeFleur1]

14. That I would Like to See

Also, to those who continue to believe that we should vote the Democratic ticket because Republicans would be worse:

If we do, what would change? That is exactly what the bought and paid for wusses that 'lead' the Democratic party are counting on. Sometimes it's just darn painful to change things for good. Sometimes the message has to be so strong and so clear that it cannot be mistaken.
Unless representatives, senators, the President and those who surround him begin stepping up, standing up, it really doesn't matter who wins the next election or the one after that or the one after that.
If we want change the people have to take a stand, too. They have to say, "NO". That's what happened in the painful sixties and seventies.

[BeFree]

16. Yeah

Obama seems to be saying: "Forget about it".

That position is a wimpy position and makes Dems look all the weaker on defending America.

[MadBadger]

20. 1. You people really think Obama is a dictator and can do what he pleases

2. Get Democrats, lose independents

[BeFree]

21. You think Bush is innocent? n/t

[smalll]

25. Oh right. Winning strategy right there. Just what America's thirsting for right now --

Not a recovery, not jobs, not even a satisfying end to a war or two. What they're REALLY longing for is to see their former President frog-marched off to the Hague! :eyes:

[asdjrocky]

15. He shouldn't do it for votes.

He should do it because it's the right thing to do and he should do it right fucking now.

[ShamelessHussy]

18. We need Dems, Independents, and moderate repubs

Go after the banksters, and use their I'll gotten gains, and bonuses to fund a massive jobs program.

That would get a LOT of Americans fired up, and to the polls for sure.

It really is a no brainer but the corporations have captured our major political institutions, and media, for that to happen, I suppose.

:cry:

[USArmyParatrooper]

19. All I'm hoping for is to keep both houses. To me that would be a victory

Right now all the Repubs are doing is everything they can to block everything and shut down Congress. I loath the day they can actually control the agenda and go on countless witch hunts - spending our tax dollars on grabbing more and more power.

[ShamelessHussy]

22. Dems apparently require super majorities, so we would have to do better than that

Only way to get that would be to promise real change, and going after the banksters would certainly be a populous, and beneficial, concrete action that is east to understand and sell.

Unfortunately, our reps, for the most part, have been captured by the fat cats, so that will never happen, and the kabuki theater will continue, indefinitely, with aim being to keep us regular folks distracted and at each others throats while the elite carries on as before.

and so it goes...