So Rachel posed this question on her show re: DADT

[ruggerson]

Joe Biden was on last week and she asked him why hadn't the President taken the route of suspending discharges until DADT was officially repealed?

He answered that it was because they (the WH) had struck a deal with Congress to secure the votes to repeal. He said it took a lot of arm bending and phone calling, but they did get a deal. And part of that deal was the promise that Obama would not use his powers as CIC to stop the discharges.

On her show tonight, just a week after the interview, she wondered who got snookered here? Obviously, if there was indeed a deal, then the President just got bamboozled.

She made the point that, in that case, Obama is now free to use his powers and suspend the discharges.

At this point, with 80% of the country wanting this atrocity to end and with a Federal Judge just having declared it unconstitutional, what better time than now for the President to act?

[jannyk]

1. Time to put up or shut up. k&r

[flpoljunkie]

58. I thought Biden was referring to a deal struck with Gates and Joint Chiefs, rather than Congress

Perhaps I misconstrued, but this was my impression from listening to Maddow's interview with Biden.

[babylonsister]

2. Recommend. It's time-no, way past time. nt

[xchrom]

3. It's going to bitter to see some peoples responses to this thread.

They should have been agreeing before RM brought it up.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Pirate Smile]

5. Does Obama still need those votes - probably in December when the study comes out -to overturn DADT?

That was my only thought for why not to do it right away.

I think Reid did on DADT what he did on HCR when he told the WH he was going to go for the Public Option with the Opt Out and the WH didn't think he had the votes. Reid wanted to do it anyway. The WH hoped he was right but worried he was wrong. Reid ended up being wrong. I think Reid did that same thing again.

Does the WH burn the votes they are supposed to have for after the study comes out or do they put up with being called traitors to the cause, etc. and wait until the time when the vote should actually pass?

[bluestateguy]

6. I agree that he needs to do something

He cannot just throw his hands up in the air and give up.

[defendandprotect]

7. Would think we've had enough of Obama "deals" with pharma, health care industry....

and now accepting this ridiculous "deal" ????

Besides, didn't McCain tell us quite clearly, there were no discharges based on homosexuality!!???

[vaberella]

46. This was in the works since te time he was sworn in.

Not post. I think he still got reassurances throughout the last two years or so that Repubs would still past this and then turned on their word. He wanted this a win and hoped they'd stick to it. They didn't. You mock him for doing it, but if it had proved successful everyone would be praising him. However people like McCain is now a zombie far right clown and he mentioned the election enough to show case why he's reluctant to vote for this. And other Repubs who said they supported the bill for the army and Dream Act but hate gays. So---I think he figured he'd get some clowns on two out of three. Instead we got nothing.

[dkf]

8. Do Presidents really have the power to disregard laws they don't feel like enforcing?

Not that I'm advocating for discharges but with all the lack of enforcement of laws under the Bush administration leading to one disaster after another I'm wondering if the real power of the Presidency isn't in enforcing what you want to and not enforcing what you don't. Exactly what are the obligations of the President to uphold The law?

[ruggerson]

9. Even Gates has acknowledged the discharges can be halted

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed "under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense... in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation"

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

[dkf]

19. So Obama has discretion solely due to being in Afghanistan?

And after that it ends?

[ruggerson]

20. that's only one rationale

independent of the other two.

The statute itself gives the CIC (through the DOD) broad leeway as to how investigations are conducted, the processes by which discharges are carried out, etc.

Regardless of whether we are at war or not, a sitting President, for example, could order the Secy of Defense to halt all investigations immediately. WIthout any investigations, there can be no discharges. The way the law is written, it is very elastic. As I said, Gates has acknowledged that they have the leeway to essentially suspend the enforcement of the law until it is repealed.

[dkf]

23. I'm not sure that leeway on process grants the authority to stop it though.

For me that seems a bit too far. For example If someone gave me a task of determining a process to detect fraud, I wouldn't take that as a license to stop looking into it completely. I'm rather curious that these legal scholars interpreted it as such. I'm also wondering if I have grounds to complain that George Bush was derelict in his enforcement. If it turns out he had discretion to do so then I guess I better shut up.

[msanthrope]

60. I don't agree with the second part of your analysis.

Gates does have leeway on inquiry or, the "Don't Ask" part. In the Spring he made new guidelines meant to curb investigations. He raised the standard of proof required and a few other changes.

The "don't tell" part still remains rigid. The services MUST act when the member is 'outed'. This is because DADT contains a specific finding of harm. There's not a choice involved.

Note that the vast majority of recent cases are all people who have been outed by external circumstances or declared themselves.

My reading of the statute doesn't dfind a suspension clause, though, and stop-loss is a non-starter.

[rug]

10. Ony unconstitutional ones.

[DirkGently]

15. They can lean one way or the other, like a prosecutor. He seems hesitant to push the issue.

[Starry Messenger]

11. k & r

[DirkGently]

12. More than half of *Republicans* approve of repealing DADT, she said. No-brainer, anyone?

[scheming daemons]

13. You'll be surprised to find out that I agree with you.

After this vote, Obama needs to act unilaterally where possible.

[ruggerson]

18. Well then I must be wrong

:) Kidding -

Even if you look at this from a purely political angle - can you imagine the boost Obama would get if he said he was ordering the Sec'y of Defense to halt discharges until the law is repealed. He could make a very powerful, succinct statement as Commander in Chief saying the time had come to put a stop to a grave wrong.

He would energize the base, the media would laud him as a strong decisive leader and the Repukes would be stuck frantically defending a law that only the crazed fringes support.

It's win/win.

[vaberella]

32. He most likely will.

Well I hope so...because the information or confirmation of what I suspected was true, and the Repubs turned on him...well he'll hold his ground. Remember that's what he did with the appointees. But on this board, no one will care. They'll say, "too little, too late..."

[liberalpragmatist]

43. I could see them doing it after the Pentagon releases their report

But I don't know if they will. They should, though. (Really, they should have done it already.)

[vaberella]

51. Well if the Pentagon report is in the positive, then there's no need to do that.

The bill will be repealed. However, I think he'll stop it before hand. The republicans slapped him in the face. He's going to have to go a bit dictator where he can on some things.

[scheming daemons]

40. Maybe he will... and he can also say this

"A federal court has already ruled DADT unconstitutional. On January 20th, 2009, I swore to uphold the constitution. Therefore, I will abide by the federal court's ruling."

[vaberella]

42. I think this was the extra something I might like to see.

Something I would never expect and he added as a bonus.

[vaberella]

28. After this vote I figure he will. Obama implied all this before the vote.

As to the reasons why he didn't push the signs. Now they turned on him--the deal is off.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uzybone]

16. KnR

The deal making time was ever in regards to this issue. But now the GOP has said fuck the troops with one voice, its time to suspend DADT until Congress gets the morals to overturn this injustice.

[jillan]

17. I think she needs to invite Biden back on her show for a follow up.

[ProSense]

21. Nothing is going to happen until

Congress takes up the bill again.

[LonePirate]

22. And the DADT repeal will have magically disappeared from the bill so it can pass

Who can't see that one coming a mile away?

[ProSense]

24. When it does, then make your point.

It's still in the bill. It's three votes short. An executive order will complicate the matter and is not the permanent solution.

Congress needs to act, they don't need an escape hatch to abandon the vote.

[Clio the Leo]

25. WH has been clear for over a year now that Exec. Order is a bandaid....

... that they feel would discourage a more permanent fix.

[ruggerson]

26. well circumstances have changed

Presidents roll with the punches. Obama could come out of this with an enormous political homerun.

[vaberella]

30. I wonder how. Again he still doesn't vote on the bill.

I don't see a political homerun...unless this passed. I'm totally disheartened by what just happened today and I'm done with Repubs. Thanks Ruggerson.

[Clio the Leo]

33. I know it's late and all Vabs .... but...

..... the President doesn't vote on bills.

[vaberella]

35. I know.

I'm saying what people on this board would say. I know very well he has no control on the bills. When he did the Repubs turned on him. I hope he eats them alive publicly, politically, and in the policies he can control. They think they can turn on the WH---well they have another thing coming.

[vaberella]

29. I know. But on this board---they spent the whole time bashing the man and calling him a homophobe.

nt

[readmoreoften]

52. Oh cry me a fucking river. I'm more concerned about the lesbians being raped and blackmailed

by officers than I am about poor misunderstood Obama.

Who does DADT harm most? Lesbians of color, many of whom are sexually abused by superior officers in exchange for silence. Don't give me the poor Obama routine because I'm too busy giving a fuck about the real people suffering from his failures.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. "They"?

It gets old and tired. It really does. The disrespect. "They". Them. Those people. You people. That gay thing. Old and tired.
The man used Donnie McClurkin as a surrogate. Donnie calls gay people vampires and child killers. Any of 'them' say anything nearly that bad about Obama? His friend called us murderers, and he defended that. So let me know when there is an apology for that before you ask for kid gloves for the friend of the hate preacher. My God.

[vaberella]

27. Well Obama implied as much since months ago.

If he went forward with stopping the discharges he wouldn't get the yes voted he needed for repeal. Now it's come out---that's something else. However, he implied as much, but most here didn't think he cared.

[stevenleser]

31. If Biden said that, the President is on the hook. He has to suspend discharges.

I think he should have done so long ago anyway.

[vaberella]

34. Not if he was waiting on this bill.

Remember this was part of the whole deal SL. He (the Pres) was upholding his end of the bargain and he did. The Repubs turned on him and now he should eat them alive.

[stevenleser]

36. I hear you, I just never liked the deal.

We've got to get to the point where our Presidents realize that it is pointless to negotiate with the Repukes. Everyone of them thinks they can and they all get screwed.

[vaberella]

39. This was since he got into office SL.

This isn't like after all the filibustering that's been going on. He figured he had the Repubs working WITH him, I figured he thought they'd turn on this too...but then he figured it was human rights and it was positions many Repubs advocated on like the Dream Act or DADT for McCain and now these two Senators who would have pushed this over the margin slammed it down with a lame duck excuse.

You know as well as I do, which is forgotten on the board Obama doesn't do these deals half assed and he stands by his word. However, he also knows when you spit on his word. He doesn't play. I think this has been in the works since he was sworn in, and he's not one to brandish the deals out. Then they bit him on the hand. I understand the deal and I respect it---it just didn't work and now he takes it by the horns if you will.

[Clio the Leo]

37. And of course it's entirely possible the vote today was a political stunt...

.... aimed at firing up the base by making the GOP look like the bad guy. The second half of that being the President ordering a suspension of the discharges.

We shall see.........

[ruggerson]

38. it would make it more dramatic wouldn't it?

Honestly, rarely has an issue been teed up so perfectly for a President to turn the entire thing on its head.

[vaberella]

41. LOL.

My first laugh after all this. A huge dramatic turn around. I agree with you. I hope he takes this and goes one step forward some how----do something I didn't think he'd do.

[Clio the Leo]

44. Yeah but I seriously doubt HE could "save" the matter w/a stroke of the pen...

.... and a nice speech to go with it. .... At least not before the election. Rachel again cited a poll showing support for DADT repeal to be high nation wide, but we have to remember, members of Congress aren't elected nationally.

There in lies the problem. Darned Arkansas.

[Skittles]

45. it's pretty simple

if he got snookered, he'll use his real power and do the right thing. If he got what he wanted, he won't do anything.

[vaberella]

47. You sincerely believe Obama got what he wanted?

You really think that?!

[Skittles]

48. he didn't get what he didn't want

better?

[vaberella]

50. You're seriously going to sit there and tell me Obama didn't want to repeal DADT?! n/t

[Skittles]

53. enough to really, really fight for it?

HELL NO

[vaberella]

54. That's what I was waiting for.

I don't know what defines as fighting for it, when he's come out on a regular basis to say he is set to repeal both DADT and DOMA.

[Skittles]

55. he talks and talks and talks and talks

when it comes down to really, really fighting for WHAT WE WANT, he caves in "compromise" with hateful bigots, the same people whose TRASHING OF AMERICA led people to eat up his HOPE AND CHANGE schtick.

[vaberella]

56. He did the compromise early on.

The compromise was to get the law repealed. To get the law repealed do you understand that. The Repubs threatened, and I remember him saying this way back when around June of 2009 that if he put in the EO, he would never get the votes to repeal DADT in the time-line he wanted. These people were fucking with him. He tried a maneuver and even gave them bonuses on this. He tried to win in this and unfortunately it didn't work.

I don't know what more fighting you want. He talked about it and that's as much fighting as he can do. He can't vote on the bill to pass it. You know that very well. He can't just issue and EO and hope this all goes away. You know that as well as I do. He ends up leaving Presidency or losing it and we go back to square one. So when he's getting a threat like that from Repubs that they won't help the matter and a few in his own party hurting him. And he tries to do something to ensure that he gets things done---unfortunately hindsight says it's a bad idea. NO matter what, we can say Obama would have lost this round with the Repubs on this.

NO matter what. However, rather than really diverting the blame where it's due with the Repubs. You're blaming Obama when he's done what you've asked. You're saying he didn't do enough. You're implying that he wanted it to fail. You implied that very well indeed. So when you suggest such things you're doing exactly what the Repubs want.

What I've come to realize is that this President doesn't have much back up. He doesn't have it in the office. We have Dems against him. He has enough Dems that he loses important bills. Do you honestly think that if the entire Congress was progressive or even Republican progressives who were not afraid of these teabaggers we wouldn't have repealed DADT with Obama. You'd have said Obama did a good job and advocated enough and we got the Congress to back him up. That's what the reality is...you'd' have said that.

However due to the fact that he doesn't have the backing and the man is the CIC and is willing to handle the crap thrown his way we blame him for a congressional failure. We have a defective congress and that's the bulk of the matter. WE have a Congress made up of almost half either racist, bigots, or people who just hate Obama on an ideological level. You know very well Obama is still limping as a Pres right because the Repubs won't vote in his officers. And yet you still say it's his fault. There's a division of power for a reason here and with the extreme right and the scared Repubs we have in office they will destroy everything. This is also put on the same plane with people like Lincoln who is buying into these extreme right wring strategies.

Unfortunately we the perplex, the progressives are not in a high number. Further more, many of us dems don't vote for progressive Dems. Look at the voting in New York for God Sakes...Palladino a racist and fear monger and sexist ass hole is the republican nominee. And so we have these people probably going into office to ruin it. And you're saying that this President is the weakest link. He doesn't vote in the Congress---we do. We make that decision and he doesn't have a Congress strong enough to back him up. He can't do it alone and even if the Public and He supports a measure---like the public option we'll have Congress not give us the votes---like Lincoln.

I think there's a serious problem in where the blame is placed and don't get me wrong. On some issues I take issue with Obama. Like the oil spill. I felt that he should have stuck to his guns on no off shore drilling---even though I have to admit I wasn't aware how politically damaging that could be. Because seriously people from Louisiana and most of these states want off sure drilling and love it---even after this oil spill. They don't care they're damaging the wildlife. I don't blame him for the spill---but I do hate that he turned on off shore drilling (even though I get it).

However in this case...I have to say he did the right decision. In order to get things done sometimes you have to dine with the devil and sometimes you win and other times you lose. Unfortunately he lost it but he did advocate for change and that's undeniable. And I'm just a bit annoyed that you'd suggest that he doesn't care about it and didn't fight for it, when that's hardly the case. He may not have done it the way you wanted...but he did do it and the Repubs are really to blame in all this because either way we cut this the Repubs would have fucked him and us over. He just thought we might have a better chance this way.

Ultimately I do respect your opinion a great deal Skittles of the many people who hold Obama to the fire, you're one of the few I do listen too. You, ruggerson and that's about it. I had a few others, but they showed very clearly that for them it wasn't the issues but really the mere fact it wasn't Clinton who was in power. However on this issue, I have to disagree with you. I realize I do support the President, but I have reason. I find that the real problem isn't him but lies entirely with Congress---the poor ability of Democrats to state their views clearly and concisely. Obama may talk but he does get the point across and people understand. However, Dems don't do that enough. Very few do. I think Sanders, Levin, and Frank are the best eloquent speakers, Pelosi as well. Reid is a yoga coach, Durbin although passionate is a poor speaker. Feingold is great---but at times fails to support decent bills---while his bill was shown as ineffective when it was watered down but he wanted it passed. We're dealing with problems in the Democratic party that needs formation and unity. And really Congress is defective---but I lay 85% of that in the Senate and not the House. Pelosi had her chicks in order.

[Skittles]

57. I didn't support Clinton solely because she had supported that POS war

were it not for that, I would have supported her

[dsc]

62. since by implication you have said I don't care about the issues but just that it isn't Clinton in

power, let me be blunt here, Clinton wasn't my first choice (that was Biden), she wasn't my second (that was Richardson), she wasn't my third (that was Edwards), she was my fourth choice (ie second to last). Yes, between Obama and Hillary I preferred Hillary. I had three big reasons. One was education, and boy was I right on that one. Obama has been Bush's third term on education except for funding and in one huge positive a pro gay slant from Duncan who otherwise is awful. Two, Obama early on reached out to anti gay forces to help solidify his black vote. That is what McClurkin was about and on top of it he lied after he did it. Third, was I felt he learned precisely the wrong lessons from the 1980's and 1990's. The fact is I was way more anti Obama than I ever was pro Hillary. I will admit, I grew to admire her during the campaign given the sexism of even the supposedly liberal members of the press who covered her. She fought and fought and fought some more and frankly the White House could use a figher like that right now. But bottom line you are just wrong about the motives of the particular poster.

[vaberella]

49. Sorry just realized I didn't rec this as it deserves. AGain great post Ruggerson.

I just saw the show and it was great. I understood Obama's position while many on DU were against it. And it's unfortunate that even Republicans threw out their own ideals. Collin's says she's on board and then she tosses it out. She's bitch. I'm a female, but I seriously don't care about this. I mean, I realize I shouldn't say sexist things, but in all honesty she knew better and she went against her own principals. And that just raises my own anger levels. It's just too much. I hope tomorrow or during the week Obama goes nuts, and does some crazy maneuvers.

[chowder66]

59. Can the military put a hold on discharges without congress?

If so, should we pressure them?

[terrya]

61. It should be but it won't happen.

We'll all have to wait for the Pentagon study in December, which may or may not actually be released in December, which may or may not say that gay and lesbian people can serve openly in the military, then we'll have to wait for the Senate in the lame duck session to vote for repeal, which they may or may not do. And if all of this happens, then we have to wait 60 more days until this is locked into place, and maybe, just maybe, the discharges will finally end. Or maybe not.

[bullwinkle428]

64. K&R. Time for the excuses to hit the fucking road.