DADT: CIC FAIL!!!

[Withywindle]

If you read the internet, you know what FAIL means.

Obama is the CIC of the military. That is part of what the responsibility of the Presidency means. He was legitimately elected in a landslide nearly two years ago, and, while his approval rates are not high at the moment, that's mostly due to the fact that too many people have no frakkin' jobs.

Right now, talking about DADT, he really DOES have the power, as commander-in-chief of the military. Truman used that CIC power when he FORCEFULLY integrated BLACK AND WHITE MEN TOGETHER into ALL the armed forces, against the will of Southern bigots. Hell, Southern white boy bigots were still bemoaning it decades later into Vietnam. Didn't matter. The military didn't coddle their bigotry. (Officially, at least. Unofficially, it still hung on long enough for Chef on South Park--Isaac Hayes, God rest his soul--to talk about the 'Darkies In the Front' strategy, and get knowing laughs from the whole theater)

I had high hopes for Obama. I am officially done. I know it took me a long time. Sorry. I wanted to believe.

I am writing him a letter to this effect right now. In a word-processing program. I will print it out and send it by snail mail.

[DonCoquixote]

1. True but

Allow me to ask the question. It is not rhetorical, as I believe that not only there is an answer, but a good answer that we should use. Still here is the question, if he does a Truman, how does he avoid giving the GOP ammo they need in November?

[EFerrari]

2. As most Americans support equality, why would it matter?

That's the part I don't get.

Maybe four Republicans will go to the polls that wouldn't have voted. But he'd be energizing Democrats who DO support the repeal, too. And supporters outnumber the @ssholes.

[Caliman73]

20. Agree.

If he had the courage to take this step in the spirit of true equality, it would at least signal to the progressives that he was making better choices with his power and political capital. He often says that his decisions are "popular, but the right thing to do" this is one of those situations.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

3. Do the Republicans even care anymore?

Sure, the Teabaggers do. Those idiots are constantly praying to Me to "smite the filthy Sodomites" or whatever (Idiots totally misinterpreted the whole point of Genesis 19, but that's a whole other subject)

But do the (relatively) "sane" Republicans really want to make this an issue anymore? After Ken Mehlman, and Larry Craig, and Mark Foley, and Ted Haggard, and just today, Bishop Eddie Long. And believe Me, there's a lot more than that.

Er, not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. The gay part, that is. Not the hypocrite part. You know, specks, beams, eyes and all that.

[mrcheerful]

6. You left out that he still has 3 other ways to end DADT and one of them is to actually do nothing as

the courts have already stated DADT violates civil right laws. This was only the first battle, remember the original intent of the law was to prevent military witch hunts for gays something that the military then proceeded to do, which is why the DADT law was taken to court, the military illegally searched a Majors E Mails looking for evidence he was engaging in homosexual action's. Remember the law stated that as long as the soldier kept it to himself he/she was gay the military could neither ask or seek evidence to prove that person as gay. The military broke the law.

Or did you miss McCain saying over and over that the military didn't go on witch hunts for gay service members after the vote. Guess with all the politicking McCains been doing he forgot to read a news paper. Besides Obama's clearly stated he is against DADT, he can only ask congress to address the issue he can't hold a gun to the congresses head and say pass it. This is not 1948 and Truman lived in a whole different USA then we have today, where anything a D does gets jumped on as illegal or some other crap.

[Withywindle]

11. Who gives a fuck about November?

Obama won IN A LANDSLIDE just two years ago.


Shrub never had claim to a landslide, yet that never stopped him from forcing his radical rightist agenda through.

I went canvassing for Obama in Wisconsin and Indiana just two years ago. All the people we talked to were really hoping for someone who would STAND UP WITH A BACKBONE just for the center-left position--which is not terribly radical.

Harry Truman was the VP who took over when FDR died in office--and still managed to achieve honor, even with the worst involved in winning the war at all costs!

Just a few years later, having known firsthand how well African-Americans served in the military in WWII (a hundred years too late, but we'll take it) he understood how important Executive Order 9981 was: http://www.majorcox.com/columns/truman.htm

It was VERY important. Truman believed it was right--and he was right. What possible excuse is there for Obama to not at least propose a LGBT equivalent, if he really believed it's right?

Yes, the RW culture warriers will oppose it, no shit. But do you really believe the bigots now are more powerful than white black-haters were in the '50s when Truman took his stand (and won)?

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. If Obama really believes that he ought to be a "fierce advocate" for the GLBT community, as he said when he wanted our votes two years ago, then why can't he at least push for the weak milk that Truman did for black men in the '50s? Pushing for the rights of black war veterans in the '50s, as Truman did, is not more difficult than pushing for basic work/military service/federally-legal partnership rights for LGBT couples would be now. It was very courageous for Truman to do what he did in the early 50s. That's why I respect him as a President. I want Obama to stand up and be a leader for the underdogs. I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?

[Ozymanithrax]

4. DADT is a law passed by Congress...

Obama could, at most, order the military not to obey the law. The law must be repealed by Congress, and the Senate tried today and could not override the Republican filibuster.

[Withywindle]

8. He does have the power to issue an order putting a temporary stop on the dismissals under the law.

He hasn't done so.

He also has the power to issue a STRONGLY worded, eloquent speech about why it's a bad policy and should be phased out. (And also mention, as CIC, he really does have ultimate authority about what goes on in the military.)

He hasn't done so.

[Cornus]

9. He hasn't done so.

That alone is the main reason so many of us have lost the faith that we once had in Obama.

[Withywindle]

13. Yup.

He hasn't even made a speech to say "make it so."

And he could. Easily. He wouldn't even lose political capital. He does lose it for every day he stays silent, though.

[vaberella]

15. He's explained why if you watch Rachel Maddow. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Though I'm not content with the outcome...

The Senate is doing this the right way.

People were really pissed when Bush violated laws passed by Congress rather than seek the repeal of the law, and I was one of them. I prefer the President follow the law rather than ignore it. And an executive order or a signing statement doesn't revoke a law.

Executive Order 9981 officially desegregated the military on paper, but almost nothing happened until the Korean war when losses were so high the army had no choice but to desegregate in order to get people into units.

The Navy had severe race riots in the late 60's, because that desegregated military still was not equal and not truly desegregated.

It is likely that the effect of an Executive Order to end enforcement of the law would do little. Just as the military drug its feet for four years after desegregation was ordered, they can and will drag their feet over DADT. And it would remain the law of the land until Congress revokes the law. And a great speech is like pissing your pants in a dark suit. It makes you feel good, but nobody notices.

Republicans aren't idiots, though we like think so. They read the polls and know that a majority of Americans support repealing DADT and support Gay marriage. Their choice to filibuster was purely for partisan politics, to get the religious right back into the ballot booth one more time. Perhaps we should put the onus on those most at fault. If we elected more and better Democrats, they could pass these bills.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. It's actually debatable if Obama has the legal standing to do an executive order here.

Truman could because segregation of the military was not law. It was just something that, unfortunately, was tolerated.

So there was no voting at any point by the United States Congress segregating the United States Armed Forces.

He had the ability to force the military to desegregate because of that.

Now there are some scholars who believe Pres. Obama has the ability to stop DADT through executive order. However, there are others who believe he does not have that authority because it was a law voted on and passed by the United States Congress.

Because of this, only they have the authority to vote it down again.

There is debate whether or not Obama can temporarily enforce a stoppage - but even that isn't as clear.

Frankly, the WH took the best path with this because once congress strikes it down - it ceases to exist anymore.

Any other action, whether it's through an executive order or other avenue, muddles the issue as a whole.

[Withywindle]

7. Yes, but if Obama issued a strong public statement saying,

something to the effect of, "DADT is a weak public statement from 15 years ago, and that is not what I want for my armed forces now. I can't control congress but these are my wishes."

He just needs to step up and make a strong statement. And he hasn't!

[Ozymanithrax]

14. Republicans have chosen to obstruct everything Obama wants...

A strong public statement will have zero effect on legislation, since Republican policy is to obstruct whatever Obama wants. Even bills that Republicans once supported, when they come form this congress and this President, are now obstructed. They filibustered a defense spending bill.

A speech will make no difference in legislation.

[vaberella]

16. He has, you've just ignored it and obviously it's fallen on deaf ears. n/t

[Withywindle]

18. He has, and it's failed.

How did GWB force his agenda on America even when the majority of Americans didn't want it?

I'm not saying I want Obama to be a dictator like the Shrub was. I just want him to stand up and put some serious pressure on people in his party to MAKE IT SO. That is what his canvassers wanted, after all. It wasn't just his pretty smile and the fact that he wasn't Bush that made us get out in the streets.

For me, it was because I was a laid-off worker, a bi-national bi-ethnic person, a queer person, and a pro-choice woman. I wasn't hoping for "just a little bit better" I was hoping for real change. Hell, two years later, I'd settle for "just a little bit better" but as a (now) working-poor queer persion, I'm not asking for a miracle, I just want real evidence that the guy I worked for will make even the slightest stance for my queer, minimum-wage ass. haven't seen much yet.

[BzaDem]

19. You are playing right into the Republicans' hands by blaming the wrong party.

Their goal is to convince you that it's all the Democrats fault for not having 60 votes in the Senate. They want you to forget that Obama actually stood up against DADT in exactly the way you described, many times.

Your post is perfect evidence that they are succeeding. (Unfortunately, it also is evidence that you are easily manipulated.)

GWB did not force his agenda. He simply passed bills that didn't require 60 votes (budget bills like tax cuts). All his bills that required 60 votes actually failed (Social Security, Immigration, ANWR).

But pay no attention to that! BLAME THE DEMOCRATS! It's all their fault. That's the ticket. If they can manipulate more people like you, they will have achieved control of government without even lifting a finger.

[vaberella]

22. !

You are exactly right. I have noting more to add.

[Withywindle]

23. I want the President I worked for to make a strong stand.

I am disappointed that he hasn't, thus far.

[BzaDem]

24. The problem is that Republicans manipulated you into thinking he hasn't, when, in fact, he has.

As you appear to admit in post 18, only to change your mind again.

Minds like that are especially easy for the Republicans to manipulate.

[Withywindle]

27. Show me a place where Obama has really put his presidential capital on the line for GLBT equality

after his election, when he didn't need the queer vote anymore.

[BzaDem]

30. By getting the House to vote for it. Getting the Senate Armed Services committee to vote for it.

Getting Gates and Mullen to support the repeal to sway Byrd/Collins in committee and members of the House. Discussing it in speeches, including the SOTU.

Oh but that doesn't matter to you, because the speech wasn't long enough. Or the arm twisting wasn't strong enough. Or whatever meaningless excuse du jour you come up with. Obama has done everything he possibly could to get repeal through Congress, he almost has, and when Republicans hold together and block the repeal, you do EXACTLY what the Republicans want. You blame Obama.

Obama-bashers like you are impossible to please. Obama should and will continue to try getting the policy repealed, but he shouldn't waste time trying to convince you and justify his actions. If you are "done" with Obama and are planning on not voting for him in 2012, and a Republican wins, you will quickly realize your self-inflicted political pain was not worth it. Sometimes experience is the best method of teaching.

All the anti-DADT organizing is blaming the correct party. The HRC is blaming the correct party. Soldiers discharged under this policy are blaming the correct party. Most people on this board are blaming the correct party. Your "outrage" isn't fooling anyone.

[Withywindle]

33. I am NOT an Obama-basher.

Sorry. I never have been. Search my posts, you'll know that.

I"m just bummed right now. There is a great movement for equality rising, and it's happened with very little help from him.

[BzaDem]

34. "and it's happened with very little help from him"

The outside movement might be rising without him, as it is, by definition, outside.

The inside movement for actually GETTING IT DONE is being moved by him. Just because it fails one vote doesn't mean he wasn't instrumental in getting it through the huge hurdles we have in this country to enact any policy change. His justice department is doing the absolute minimum required under the law to defend this policy in court, even at times prompting statements from the judge wondering why the government's case was so poor.

Republicans are attempting to kill every non-reconciliation bill Democrats try to enact so as to deny them a victory. They have decided to do so. That is not the fault of Obama.

[Withywindle]

36. I'm not talking about Republicans.

Most of Shrub's most damaging policies were pushed through with a smaller minority in Congress than we have now. But in Shrub's day, being seen as being "against the President" was some kind of kiss of death, politically. (I'm not talking about talking heads on TV, nor about people on political message boards, left or right.)

Democrats at the time wanted to be "in support of the President." Now, it seems, Democrats IN POWER don't want to be "in support of the President." This bothers me, because I'm one of the powerless people who wants to be able to push the Democratic President and Democratic President just a little bit further to the left. But they're not listening to us or respecting us. They still live in fear of the right. and this is where Obama has disappointed me - I want him to move the political discourse in this country just a little bit further towards justice, and he can only do that by being willing to eloquently and strongly refute the right-wing gay-hating bigots. And he has not bothered to do so, although he certainly could have, many times over.

[vaberella]

21. First you said he didn't. Now you agree he has.

Which is it?! He's stood up but he doesn't control Congress which is your real problem but you're throwing it on Obama. Obama doesn't have the Dems in lock step. The repubs normally stood behind alot of Bush BS. I don't see why you can't divert the blame where it's due to the fools who fucked us up and fucked up this bill the republicans. And we start working to turn the tide of a lot of Republican elections and have these fools lose seats while we try to maintain our own.

[Withywindle]

25. Congress will frequently fall in line, once the Pres has expressed a strong stance on an issue.

No, Obama doesn't control Congress, and that is good. He shouldn't. But when Bush was in office, he managed to make Congress roll over for his issues even when they shouldn't have. (And when his party's majority was smaller.)

[BzaDem]

26. Examples, where Congress didn't want to do something and the President forced it to? n/t

[Withywindle]

29. Why did most of the Senate, including a lot of good liberal dems,

vote for the Iraq resolution back in fall '02?

Because someone had managed to convince them that that was what "the American people" wanted, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[vaberella]

9/11 and they were running on fear and lies and Repubs controlled Congress.n/t

[Withywindle]

35. I know, I remember

and yet my Senator Dick Durbin still managed to vote against it anyway, even though he was up for re-election that year (and won in a landslide, cause IL is like that.) I have no doubt that if Obama was in the Senate at the time he would have done so too.

So where did that courage go? Voting against the grain at the time is not an automatic political death sentence. People respect taking a stand.

[BzaDem]

32. Or because it was actually going to pass anyway?

I'm looking for an example where Bush forced Congress to do something it WASN'T GOING TO DO ALREADY.

[vaberella]

31. No, that's not the case. YOu know that very well.

This congress won't even let Obama get his nominees appointed. So there are people hired and he can't get them passed through because Republicans are dirty dealers. Obama is dealing with historical makers who are set to destroy him. You heard very well they will make anything and everything or try to make it his Waterloo. So don't sit there and use historical precedence as something. Keep in mind history plays no role when Obama broke history by being the first Black president. So everything previous is null and void. These fools HATE him. Get that in your head and then you'll realize what the problem is. Congress is the problem here...in particular extreme right wing douchebags who are pwned by their extreme right wing racist, bigoted, freaks.

When Bush was in office the first time it was all Repubs and Repubs tend to fall in line. Dems don't. Secondly, second time around Bush lied to Congress. Did you forget that?! Did you forget he lied to them. Nancy was told something completely different from the truth and he okayed it throug the CIA. Let's be real here. Obama is not the White Man in presidency. These people want him out.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. +1

[EFerrari]

17. When was the last time an EO was challenged, let alone, successfully?

[BzaDem]

28. Obama's policy on stem cell research. Pretty recent too. n/t

[EFerrari]

37. Challenged and under appeal so the success is not determined.

And no discernible damage to the president.

[LonePirate]

38. Another day, another betrayal of the left by the CiC. The DADT repeal is merely the latest item.