Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Friday Genius Ten “Oh God No” Edition Previous entry: More on general right wing viciousness and selfishness

Why is Obama being so pig-headed on DADT?

LGBT

Rachel Maddow did this extremely convincing report last night on how the Obama administration is setting themselves up to let DADT go on for years with their current strategy of ruthlessly pushing for enforcement while pleading with the Senate to overturn it.  You know, even though they have the tools at hand—-simply not appealing this federal decision—-to make DADT go away tomorrow.  What was going through my head the entire time was, “Is the administration being stupid or arrogant?”  The facts seem indisputable.  When was the last time the Senate actually passed a bill that explicitly guaranteed equality for a minority group that was being routinely bagged on in public forums?  Maybe you could say Lilly Ledbetter, but that was more of a smaller bill shoring up pre-existing rights—-rights that even hard right pundits are often loathe to attack.  (Instead of arguing openly that women should be paid less, they just impugn women’s abilities, and suggest unequal pay reflects that.)  But something on this level?  I’d have to say that the closest is the Voting Rights Act of 1965? If I’m wrong, please let me know.  I’m curious. 

Either way, the possibility that the current administration could round up votes, LBJ-style, is fucking laughable.  There’s a couple of reasons. The first being that Republicans in the Senate are obviously not interested in working with the President, and that goes double on this issue.  They have made it clear they’ll kill defense spending before they allow this.  They’re not being reasonable.  Second of all, Obama is no LBJ, for better or for worse.  You’re not particularly afraid that he’s going to break your knees if you don’t play ball with him.  He’s offered no real leadership on this issue, in direct contrast to LBJ.  He’s like the anti-LBJ. 

Which I tend to believe is his choice—-he actually seems to buy the Beltway wisdom that you shield yourself from right wing criticism by going through certain channels.  I suspect he actually thinks letting the courts handle this one will put it in a place where Roe v. Wade never got, which is calcified in the common wisdom.  He’s wrong on this.  People don’t hate the courts.  They hate gays.  Hating on the courts is just a cover story for that.  If Congress had legalized abortion, anti-choicers would be just as mean and ugly.  This Beltway common wisdom is for crap. 

So, are they arrogant or stupid in thinking this brilliant “let the Senate do it instead of simply instructing the Justice Department to let it go”?  The one thing they need to understand is the longer they let this question linger, the more option #3 seems possible—-that the Obama administration is homophobic and actually supports DADT, despite their protests.

Take, for instance, Valerie Jarrett calling a gay teenager’s orientation a “lifestyle choice”.  (She’s since apologized.)  That’s not the sort of thing that’s going to quell suspicions that the administration is doing the wrong thing by gay people because of some procedural bullshit but because they don’t like gay people.  What it’s going to do is ramp up suspicions that they don’t give a shit how this actually affects the fighting men and women in uniform who have to live lies, because they think that all you have to do to avoid DADT is to choose a different “lifestyle”. 

Just remember this, when the administration is making excuses: just because the Justice Department doesn’t pursue this case doesn’t mean the Senate can’t go ahead and codify the federal judge’s decision into law.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:33 PM • (169) Comments

It’s neither stupidity nor arrogance, it’s bigotry. Obama is not allowing DADT and DOMA to be overturned because he does not wish them to be overturned. He doesn’t like gays and he’s lying when he tells us that he supports us.  He uses the excuse that he wants a legislative solution. I guess that means he would’ve challenged Brown v. Board of Education.

Comment #1: pablo  on  10/14  at  06:39 PM

The Defense Appropriations bill needs to be passed by the Senate after the election, to keep the war machine going.

DADT repeal is part of the Def. App. bill as passed by the House.

Why not let it go till the lame duck session instead of giving the gOP another stick to beat the Dems with?

Meanwhile, setting a precedent of enforcing existing law you don’t happen to agree with can be used (in theory anyway) to shame the GOP when they’re in power.

Comment #2: Hector B.  on  10/14  at  06:42 PM

Hector- Shame the GOP? That’s a joke, right?

Comment #3: pablo  on  10/14  at  06:44 PM

Obama’s extension of every courtesy to the GOP has been a hallmark of his Presidency.

I’m 97% sure that when the election is over, DADT will be repealed. Reid specifically did not want it to be repealed before the election.

Comment #4: Hector B.  on  10/14  at  06:48 PM

When will Obama learn that he is president, not leader of a majority coalition in Parliament?

Comment #5: Bitter Scribe  on  10/14  at  06:58 PM

Well, this is basically what Obama said he would do, and he’s doing it. Looking at it in good faith, the most likely explanation is that he thinks that by forcing a judicial resolution to DADT, it’ll result in the political/culture wars being turned up to a new level. And considering that Obama’s response to EVERYTHING is to try to turn that heat down…that’s the change that he promised..why should we be surprised?

Now, the fact that this stance is entirely wrong for the current political climate is beside the point. You can’t cool it down. It can’t be done. If you want to restore sanity, you have to culturally crush them. I’m dead serious on this. You have to work your ass off to make sure that people KNOW what conservatism means. Bullying, low wages, no rights for the common person, subjugation. And you have to be willing to call people out for it.

And that means you don’t work with evil people. Ever. You don’t socialize with them, you don’t play nice. They are not good people with a different point of view. They. Are. Evil. Pure fucking evil. They want to hurt people.

The unfortunate reality is that most of us don’t live up to that standard either. When it comes down to it, it’s easier to just “get along”. But what that means is that the bad guys win. It means they have irretractable values and we don’t.

I personally understand the decision to appeal this. It would be terrible to not appeal it now, but to have it legally overturned or edited in some way so all the people who come out publicly now would be then suddenly drummed out of the service down the road. I think that’s a real worry. But all the same, he needs to get on TV, and to say that ALL people need to vote to repeal/support a repeal of DADT, or you are a bad person who deserves no respect nor trust. Full stop.

Comment #6: Karmakin  on  10/14  at  07:06 PM

Which I tend to believe is his choice—-he actually seems to buy the Beltway wisdom that you shield yourself from right wing criticism by going through certain channels.

I dont think Obama got this by absorbing the beltway CW—rather, I think it is who he is personally and in terms of his political instincts: you stake out a process with the different sides, commit to that process, and then accept the outcome of that process. By contrast, voters have more respect for getting things done, and you process isn’t going to work when one side is actively malicious and willing to be destructive in the hope of a payoff down the road.

Comment #7: Tyro  on  10/14  at  07:13 PM

I’ve finally decided to stop defending Obama to fellow liberals, which up until yesterday I did passionately, but the man whom I worked tirelessly for back in Chicago when he was a longshot Senate candidate has finally lost me. I don’t believe he’s personally homophobic but as Batman’s girlfriend once said, who you are on the inside doesn’t matter, it’s what you do that defines you. There is literally no other way to get this done, as Amanda says you’ve gotta go back to 1965 to find a precedent. This is an unconscionably stupid thing to do politically, never mind the morality, he is pissing on a progressive base that already feels thoroughly drenched, and he is betraying not only gay rights, but other basic cornerstones of our democracy, like civilian control of the goddamn military.

Comment #8: typist  on  10/14  at  07:30 PM

I wonder if Obama doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the generals.  I just can’t see anything other than gutlessness being the reason for his two faced strategy

Comment #9: Nick in Tacoma  on  10/14  at  07:38 PM

I was an Obama supporter in the primary, but this nonsense on DADT along with the handling of the Stupak amendment to the healthcare bill make me wonder what Hillary Clinton would have done, and I start to think maybe I picked the wrong president, because with the exception of Lily Ledbetter the Obama administration has had pretty much jack shit to offer women and LGBTs. I’ll vote for Democrats (they’ll lose, in my state) in the midterms, and I’m sure I’ll vote to re-elect Obama because the other candidate will assuredly be worse…but I don’t think I’ll be fooled into picking the less combative Democrat in the primary again. We could use some aggressive leadership right now, since the Republicans refuse to co-operate.

Comment #10: reverie  on  10/14  at  07:47 PM

Oh, FFS.  I can’t fucking believe you fell for the stupid “Jarrett called it a lifestyle choice!” meme.

Here’s what Jarrett actually said, in context:

Well, I think what we’ve seen over the last few months are some very tragic deaths of young people, our children. And avoidable deaths. They were driven to commit suicide because they were being harassed in school, and driven to do something that no child should ever be driven to do. And in many cases, the parents are doing a good job. Their families are supportive. Before I spoke at the HRC dinner, I met backstage with Tammy Aarberg, her son Andrew. These are good people. They were aware that their son was gay. They embraced him. They loved him. They supported his lifestyle choice.
But yet when he left the home & he went to school, he was tortured by his classmates.

Yes, what a fucking monster she is, talking about the parents’ pain and how they did their best but they couldn’t protect their son at school.  Clearly, she’s saying that he deserved everything he got, right:

What the President asked me to do was to go and deliver his message that this is an issue that’s important and it needs to be addressed now. We’ve got to stop condoning this in the school, and acting like this is a rite of passage or something that we can’t do anything about. My goal that evening was to really put a spotlight on the issue, to highlight it and make it very personal. So that people would understand, as a Mom, I wasn’t there just as a Senior Adviser to the President. I was there as a Mom who has a daughter who I want to grow up in a country that really symbolizes the “more perfect union,” where we are inclusive, where we are tolerant, where we appreciate our differences. And part of what makes us so strong is that we are a diverse country and that we should be setting an example for our children of civility & tolerance, and we should put a stop to all of this bullying that’s going on in the schools that’s causing these needless, needless deaths of our youth.

Because apparently “needless deaths” is now code for “kill ‘em all.”

Jesus fucking Christ.  I expect better of this from you, Amanda.

Comment #11: Mnemosyne  on  10/14  at  07:56 PM

Judicial decisions can be overturned, and all it would take is for another circuit judge to rule otherwise and this can get to the Supreme Court.  And DADT would probably be upheld there.  By appealing, the Administration is stalling to give the Senate time to act upon the House’s overturning of DADT during the lame-duck session after the election.  There are likely to be a few Republicans who have nothing to lose by not being in lock-step with their party, so it could happen.  And since it’s the military appropriations bill, chances are that the GOP will grumble and let it pass anyhow.  Obama could always play hardball then, but right now he’s just playing the “letting the process happen” game.  That’s the politically smart thing to do when he’s fighting off a radical right takeover of the House.

If the Supreme Court gets its hands on DADT, it will be bad not just for gay rights, but rights in general.  I don’t have enough hope that that nonet will do the right thing.  And the GOP would once again be unified against overturning the law.  The time between Election Day and January is going to determine the fate of this law, and I hope Obama knows what he’s doing.

Comment #12: 3letterjon  on  10/14  at  07:58 PM

Listen, fuck the culture warriors okay?  80 Percent or something close to it, support the overturning of DADT.  Obama looks like a godammned fool.  Stop making excuses for this guy, I’m so sick of it.

I have been trying to figure out why he is determined to drag this out as long as possible, and that’s what he’s doing, and if he can drag it out for years, he will.

And I realized that there is a possible answer.

WHat happens when DADT is overturned?  Do gays and gay rights advocates say, gee thanks we love you forever, and go home?

Fuck no.  They bumrush gay marriage.  That is the next barrier to full equal rights for gays.

And the longer you drag out DADT the longer you avoid having to address or even take a position on marriage equality.

And that’s why Obama is doing this.

And frankly, this feels like my last straw with him.

And yeah, I’m sorry I didn’t support Hillary.

so there it is.

Comment #13: JennyLI  on  10/14  at  08:03 PM

Amanda, ban on aisle 14 please?

Comment #14: rivki  on  10/14  at  08:06 PM

This is an unconscionably stupid thing to do politically…

Of all the many facets of this horribly self-inflicted debacle that offend me this is the worst (that’s quite a feat), this absurd political stupidity that leaves any decent tactician or Machiavellian tearing their hair out.

These chumps are awful politicians.  Alicia Silverstone would have been elected against the Republicans, that’s how disgusted and horrified everyone was, but these doofuses think they’re the hot shit, god, they’ve screwed their people badly for two years and then the VP actually has the monumental stupid arrogance to sneer at the base as whiners.

[shows hands helplessly] At this point I’m surprised Obama and Biden can find their dicks in the morning.  It would have been so much fun and so righteously easy to crush the Republicans forever, but these idiots let them back in the game.  It takes unique flaming political stupidity to pull that off in 22 months.

Then they’ll internalize it was the liberal’s fault when they get crushed.  Seriously, it’s how stupid and silly putty malleable the motherfuckers from incompetent hell are.  What fucked up repugnant leadership we are inflicted with.

Comment #15: paradox  on  10/14  at  08:06 PM

@Mnemosyne

Is being gay a lifestyle choice?  Was Jarrett referring to an actual lifestyle choice that the parents supported like buying organic, attending church, or getting really into LARP? 

If the answer is no, then she did in fact call being gay a lifestyle choice and she was wrong. 

All the context allows us to do is ask follow-up questions: Was her heart in the right place while she was being wrong?  Does it matter?

My answers, FWIW, are probably and not really.

Comment #16: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/14  at  08:26 PM

I want to know why so many Democrats continue to seem so willfully delusional about Obama.  I don’t mean anyone on this site, necessarily - I’m thinking more of Dailykos or Democratic Underground.  Anyone paying attention before the election could see that Obama wasn’t liberal.  His behavior shortly after assuming office indicated that’s he’s actually very conservative (seriously, how is he that different from John McCain, on balance?)  There are still loads of people making excuses for him just as reliably as Republicans did for Bush as he was fucking up the country.  I knew as soon as Rahmbo shelved the 50-state strategy that things were going to be bad.  I think the obstinate defense of Obushma’s record depresses me more than the man himself.  If people are that lacking in perception, how the hell are we going to get things fixed?

Comment #17: PWI  on  10/14  at  08:30 PM

Yeah, and I’m pretty convinced at this point that a lot of his liberal base on the net are making excuses for this guy mostly because of the primary battel and they will eat shit before they will give Hillary supporters the satisfaction of saying, hey, this guy fucking sucks. 

As someone who supported Edwards (yeah I know) and was left really torn between Hillary and Obama, but eventually settled on Obama (because as a peace activist I believed he’s be less likely to view the people we were killing as less than human since he is non-white too, oh and how did that work out for me you ask?  yeah, not so fucking great.  I gave up the first woman president for this shit, thanks!) I never got involved on the downright personal level so many did in the primary.

So I don’t have that problem.

Comment #18: JennyLI  on  10/14  at  08:31 PM

  In just doesn’t work, leave DADT alone. The military isn’t a social experiment, their purpose is to win wars and protect the country.

The Israelis have no problems allowing it.  Are you saying the Israelis are wimps, conrad?

Comment #19: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  10/14  at  08:38 PM

How far is the administration required to go to defend passed law?

All this negativity towards Obama’s actions seems… Stupid.  He’s not done anything he didn’t say he was going to.  So why pretend otherwise?

Comment #20: Crissa  on  10/14  at  08:43 PM

@14 via 21,
not to mention the Athenians, Spartans, Romans . . . virtually any organized military in the world to some degree . . .

Comment #21: Tropes on the Run  on  10/14  at  08:45 PM

@PW1: He’s a very good liar, is all I can say.  I was certainly taken in.

Comment #22: Punditus Maximus  on  10/14  at  08:59 PM

For the record, I voted for Obama in the primary.  I did so because I believed he was less likely to be a war-monger than Hillary, who wouldn’t throttle back her belligerent rhetoric during the campaign.  So much for my perception, I suppose.

I know why everyday folks became wrapped up in the Obama mystique.  We live in an oligarchy, and since the proles aren’t allowed to participate, they have to buy a pre-packaged brand off of the shelf in order to feel that they have some control over their lives, lest their minds break.  Maybe that’s what’s happened to many political regulars, as well?

Comment #23: PWI  on  10/14  at  09:01 PM

@AnglScarlett

Yeah, I supported Edwards at first too, but switched to Obama. I picked Obama over Hillary largely because of what I saw as the revolutionary nature of the small donors who made up a greater proportion of Obama’s campaign funding, compared to Hillary who seemed more corporately funded. Plus, he voted against the Iraq war the first time around so I thought he was more likely to view the wars from a more peaceful perspective. I’ll concede to being moved by his speaking ability and educational background too, since Bush made such a fool of himself every time he spoke and Kerry was such a wet blanket. I also thought Obama’s conciliatory strategy was the best way to engage Republicans, although I’ve since been smacked in the face with the reality that even if individual Republicans (like my parents) have reasonable opinions, the GOP is a bunch of heartless politicos who outright reject bipartisanship and even reasonable policy compromise.

But hey, I was 18 in 2008 and I was a little naive. Won’t be making that mistake again. While politics shouldn’t be war, it is, and you have to show some backbone before you can create workable compromises. Obama is 49, he should know better than to pursue a strategy of appeasement with wingnuts.

Comment #24: reverie  on  10/14  at  09:09 PM

Meanwhile, setting a precedent of enforcing existing law you don’t happen to agree with can be used (in theory anyway) to shame the GOP when they’re in power.

In what universe is it possible to shame a party that is not only incapable of expressing shame for anything, but is actually most proud of its most shameful actions?

You’re giving the GOP far more credit than they deserve.

Of all the things the Obama Administration has done which merits criticism, there is very little that is as shameful as the manner in which tremendous lip service has been given to the cause of repealing DADT while virtually nothing of substance has been done by the White House to actually end that program.

President Obama today told a young audience at an MTV/CMT/BET town hall that DADT will end on his watch - he literally promised that it would happen while he is president. In less than three months, he’s going to be depending on a more Republican Senate to repeal DADT if he expects the legislative branch to lead the way on this matter.

Here’s what I wonder… if the U.S. Senate was unable to pass an amendment for DADT repeal while there are 59 senators in the Democratic Caucus, how in the hell is the U.S. Senate with only 53 (or possibly even fewer) senators in the Democratic Caucus going to get it done in 2011 or 2012?

Having made the promise to get this done during his presidency, he’ll be out of excuses come 2012… if DADT is still in place when his job is on the line, he’s going to lose a huge chunk of the LGBT vote. I don’t believe that LGBTs will flock to support his Republican opponent (whoever that may be), they’ll either vote third party or write-in or not at all on the presidential election.

He’s really fucking this up right now, and while I’ve personally given him the benefit of the doubt through much of the stalling on ending DADT, I’m finding it pretty close to impossible to continue defending him on this matter. The only possible excuse I can think of is that perhaps things are going on behind the scenes with the generals at the Pentagon which we don’t know about. But even if that is the case, we cannot have a Commander in Chief who has no ability to command his own generals.

I just don’t know what to think about all of this, and I find myself nodding my head in disgust, because he’s really disappointed me on this matter.

Comment #25: DTGslu2K  on  10/14  at  09:09 PM

Puntidus Maximus : yeah, that too.

Comment #26: PWI  on  10/14  at  09:11 PM

1. Obama was told by the senior generals the same thing Bill Clinton was told: don’t fuck with us, ever; give us everything we want or you’ll meet with a fatal accident.

2. Obama was funded by Wall Street, who made it clear to him that a precondition of their funding him was that he could not touch the golden goose of profit that is military spending.

3. Obama is a constitutional scholar: he sincerely believes that it’s Congress’s job to fix DADT and to originate health care legislation, and that a judicial solution to DADT is simply inappropriate from a separation of powers issue.

4. He and his team truly believe that if they bend over backwards not to appear liberal, the Heathers in the corporate media won’t be as mean to them.

5. What AngiScarlett@15 said.

6. Obama is deeply tied into the Black Establishment, whose homophobia is glaring and loathsome. Or, more accurately, he knows that he cannot win reelection without 98% support from black folks, and he won’t get that if he appears to treat gays like human beings.

Mix and match.

Comment #27: felagund  on  10/14  at  09:19 PM

How many of you have served in the Military?

I lived on military bases until I was 15.  If I had $10 for every gay serviceman I met along the way, I could have bought a Moog synthesizer with that money.  Queers are everywhere, moron.

Males don’t want other men checking them out when they’re in the shower or on the battle field

I’m going to tell you something really deep and profound, so listen up.

Just because you have a dick doesn’t mean I want to have sex with you. 

It never ceases to amaze me how many guys that look like Rush Limbaugh think that we mo’s want to jump their bones.  Faggot please! we have types and likes/dislikes just like heterosexuals, so, basically, STFU.

As for Barry Obama, to hell with him, I wish someone would run against him in 2012 so he can be the one-termer he deserves.  He’s not gay-friendly, the whole Donnie McClurkin fiasco showed that.  He’s a liar and dissembler, I wish he’d never been elected.

Comment #28: Henry Holland  on  10/14  at  09:29 PM

Plus, he voted against the Iraq war the first time around so I thought he was more likely to view the wars from a more peaceful perspective.

While he was publicly opposed to the Iraq War at the time we went in, it’s inaccurate to say that he voted against it, assuming you are referring to Pub.L 107-243, formally known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

President Obama wasn’t even U.S. Senator Obama in October 2002, when AUMF was (tragically) passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress. Illinois State Senator Obama expressed opposition to the Iraq War at the time, but his opposition wasn’t backed up by a meaningful vote, because he wasn’t yet in an office that would allow him to cast a meaningful vote on such matters.

While I don’t think his opposition to the Iraq War in 2002 should be entirely dismissed, it’s unfair to equate his opposition with that of the 23 U.S. Senators who actually did vote against AUMF and subsequently got branded as America-hating defeatocrats by the MSM. As a state legislator who was only beholden to a small and very liberal state district in Chicago, it wasn’t as if opposing the Iraq War was an act of political courage that would result in serious backlash from his constituents.

Comment #29: DTGslu2K  on  10/14  at  09:41 PM

Oh, fair enough, I must have been either ill-informed at the time or have forgotten the nuances by now. I remember him as being the least hawkish of all the presidential candidates in that he was at least willing to admit that the monumentally stupid Iraq War was ill-advised, and his campaign constantly touted his opposition to the Iraq War “from the beginning.” Regardless, my point was simply that I perceived him as being more anti-war than he has turned out to be, although I was apparently even more wrong than I thought earlier today!

Comment #30: reverie  on  10/14  at  10:01 PM

Could somebody please ban the shitstain that calls itself conrad? And yes, I am purposely referring to conrad as “it” rather than “he” or “she”, because it has shown itself to be such a subhuman pile of shit that it isn’t worthy of being addressed as an actual human being.

Comment #31: DTGslu2K  on  10/14  at  10:03 PM

You know, threads like these I generally ignore.  I’m pretty sure Obama ignores them as well, when he doesn’t get fustrated.  Presidents aren’t Magic Men, even for nominally simple issues like these.  The president is on top of a permanent bureaucracy, and you know what?  He has to negotiate with them.  As Seymour Hersh has described, it was like pulling teeth for Obama to get the military to give him options that he actually wanted for Aftghanistan.  I strongly doubt Obama personally supports any of the torture civil liberties actions that his administration pursued.  He does these things because he actually has to.  He pays off the hospitals et al on the public option not being a serious element of his health care plan just so he could get *something*, and it was hell just getting *that*.  The overall trajectory does seem to be elimination, but I care *very* little about DADT outside of the most basic civil liberties desire.  It’s just not that important, even in purely the scale of anti-homophobia.  Even so, judging from the internal political map, the administration’s deliberate and tortuous path on DADT is mostly about not allowing a flank available for the diehard militarists and their allies in Congress to attack.  Get as many institutions together with skin in the game so all are protected from the usual culture warriors.

The thing that strikes me as absurd is the idea that *any other politician* with a shot at the big desk wouldn’t have to do essentially the same thing.  Hillary Clinton, from what evidence is available to me, is considerably more personally conservative than Obama, and no more inclined to rock the boat.  Of course, there will be difference in emphasis on the issues, but paying the policy tolls will still be the same.

So I hear everything in a thread like this as merely whining.  I certainly don’t think if Amanda were to be magically put in the big chair, for instance, that she would be able to prioritize on DADT.  Sure, she could insist on it, but there are courtiers everywheres who are adept at coordinating elected officials’ whims to their own purposes.  She’d get DADT, but much less on some other more important issue.  And the Prez generally has a ton of issues on the plate.

We’re just in a terminally corrupt society.  Make merry, while you can.

Comment #32: shah8  on  10/14  at  10:17 PM

While I’m sure most commenters at pandagon are smart enough to realize that black women exist and that the interests of women, LGBT people, and racial minorities are usually better served by leftist coalitions than oppression Olympics, I’d like to clarify that the distinction I was making between Obama and Hillary was based on leadership style not identity characteristics. While it’s impossible to predict what Hillary would have done, she is typically characterized as an aggressive politician. Undoubtedly, some of this is a sexist reaction to a female presedential candidate. However, Obama could take a leaf out of his Secretary of State’s playbook and adopt some hard-hitting rhetoric when it comes to rights issues.

The woman who said on the anniversary of her speech Women’s Rights are Human Rights: “When I think about that and the thousands of people who were part of it who came together to declare with one voice that reproductive healthcare is critical to the health of women, and that women’s health is essential to the prosperity and opportunity of all, to the stability of families and communities, and the sustainability and development of nations, it makes me nostalgic for conferences that are held that actually produce results and give us a framework for moving forward”* would not have let the Stupak amendment slide, and is unlikely to have treated it as a minor issue. Of course, it would have been interesting to see how she handled DADT since the policy was codified during her husband’s presidency. Although, even Bill was largely in favor of rights for lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers despite the interference of a Republican Congress, and I have trouble believing he would have let a golden opportunity like this court case pass.

*http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135001.htm

Comment #33: reverie  on  10/14  at  10:26 PM

@reverie

I disagree with a lot of Hillary Clinton’s political stances, but I really can’t imagine that, if she were our president, she wouldn’t (at the very least) be regularly addressing in her statements gay and lesbian members of the military.  I think that in her (hypothetical) administration, every time the issue of DADT came up, the response would include not only the rationale for whatever action they are taking but also a reminder directed to the gays and lesbians currently serving that they are taking this action for them; no matter what the (possibly equally long, frustrating, and half-assed) bureaucratic process was, I do think that her administration would continually reassure gay and lesbian soldiers that they are not forgotten in that process.

I think Obama’s administration fails in this specific sort of vital leadership more often than it fails in any other way.

Comment #34: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/14  at  10:44 PM

All the context allows us to do is ask follow-up questions: Was her heart in the right place while she was being wrong?  Does it matter?

My answers, FWIW, are probably and not really.

She made a speech about how bullying has to end and it’s a tragedy that gay kids are being bullied to death and your reaction is that she used one phrase you don’t like so therefore she’s shit?  Hey, who cares about gay kids committing suicide—she used one inapt phrase when she talked about it, so let’s focus on that and not the fact that gay kids are being bullied to death!

Jesus, no wonder we always lose.

Comment #35: Mnemosyne  on  10/14  at  11:06 PM

@Mnemosyne

The “gay lifestyle” thing is, sadly and ridiculously, remarkably effective in helping to maintain the status quo that enables bullying kids to death.  By repeating it AT ALL, Jarrett substantiated the claims of the right-wing.  IMO, “we” always lose because “we” pull this kind of shit all the time, and the majority of the time “we” get away with it because overall “we” were trying to do the right thing.  I don’t think it is too much to ask that “we” cut it out.

Comment #36: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/14  at  11:13 PM

When democratic elected governments are in court over a particular law or policy and they loose, they generally appeal to the highest court possible. Even if its on a law or policy that they disagree with or that was passed by an administration from the opposite party. The general principle is not to have laws or policies reversed by the courts. There are exceptions but the usually tactic is to appeal.

Comment #37: Lee  on  10/14  at  11:14 PM

Can we stop with the buyer’s remorse and useless fantasizing about a President Hillary? I can just as well imagine her presiding over an even worse administration. (That’s the thing about “if onlys.”)

I’m surprised that some readers of this blog think that Obama’s poor handling of DADT repeal is the most shameful thing he’s done or the final straw, etc. He’s continued all the worst of Bush’s attacks on our civil liberties, expanded the wars, expanded the use of presidential power and secrecy. We are still killing people around the world daily and even assassinating our own citizens. Yes, President McCain would have been worse, but, really, why haven’t you all given up on Obama long ago?

Comment #38: Chester  on  10/14  at  11:23 PM

Would President McCain have been worse? We already have the healthcare reform that he proposed. I see no real difference between the two.

Comment #39: pablo  on  10/14  at  11:38 PM

Would President McCain have been worse? We already have the healthcare reform that he proposed. I see no real difference between the two.

Yes. President McCain would have been worse. On pretty much every measure. By this point we would have much higher unemployment (no stimulus) and be at war with Iran (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, remember?). Not to mention I’d rather not try to figure out who the two new Supreme Court justices would be.

Comment #40: rivki  on  10/14  at  11:45 PM

I’m so pissed.

DOJ is going to appeal DADT and ignore the massive fraud committed by the banks.

Where is the change I voted for?

Comment #41: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/14  at  11:50 PM

They’re not just appealing, they’re asking for a fucking emergency stay. Fuck Obama with a rusty icepick. I wouldn’t vote for him in 2012 if he were running against Satan.

Comment #42: Steve LaBonne  on  10/14  at  11:59 PM

@Steve LaBonne

Now that’s not a fair comparison.  From what I’ve heard about candidate Satan, he is totally in favor of both gay marriage and ending DADT (also: abortion rights, women working outside the home, socialism, etc.).  I believe that the common wisdom is that many in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) owe him a lot of favors so this silly bipartisanship obsession would totally be over.

Comment #43: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  12:05 AM

H.W. Brands, a Presidential historians, says successful Presidents are only a “half-step” ahead of the the public opinion. So why is Obama trying his damndest to be half-step behind on this?

Half of weekly church goers favor repealing DADT, FFS! Why do these people act like it’s still 1993? Where they THAT scarred by Clinton’s first term?

Comment #44: Ben D.  on  10/15  at  12:05 AM

You’re right, Atheist, A Feminist- what was I thinking? Maybe we can get Satan to primary Obama!

Comment #45: Steve LaBonne  on  10/15  at  12:08 AM

@Steve LaBonne

The bigger problem will be finding a VP.

Comment #46: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  12:17 AM

Oh, that’s easy- Lilith, of course!

Comment #47: Steve LaBonne  on  10/15  at  12:35 AM

I thought we already had Satan as VP from 2001-2009.

Comment #48: Ben D.  on  10/15  at  12:41 AM

What rivki said. We would be in a Second Great Depression if McCain was President because he would not propose anything substantive on the economy and veto anything that the Democratic Party sent to him that was substantive. I don’t know if we would be at war with Iran but we would be in deeper in Iraq and Afghanistan without any exit strategy plus he would be viewed as a second Bush by much of the world rather than a new President and a fresh start. Just by getting elected, Obama did a lot to repair much of America’s damaged reputation. Plus, there is always the problem of Supreme Court justices. Sotomayor and Kagan might not be inspiring but they aren’t awful either.

  Plus we wouldn’t have any HCR if McCain was President. Yes, the ACA is not the world’s best piece of legislation but it was what passed after fifty years of attempting universal healthcare. A lot of the disappointment with Obama’s legislative achievements seems to come from frustration that Congress does not function as a Parliament, that is it does not merely ratify the laws written by the executive. Its supposed to be a place where all sorts of interests get to hash it out when making legislation.

  See http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/10/defense-of-congress.html

  Recognizing this does not mean that you have to see it as a good thing:

  http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/why-politicians-cant-compromise/

Even if Obama started with single-payer, Congress could have reduced it the ACA and there could have been little he could do about it. Just like Bush couldn’t privatize Social Security when he wanted to.

Comment #49: Lee  on  10/15  at  12:43 AM

You know, threads like these I generally ignore.  I’m pretty sure Obama ignores them as well, when he doesn’t get fustrated.  Presidents aren’t Magic Men, even for nominally simple issues like these.

How did the US armed forces become racially integrated again?

Comment #50: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  10/15  at  12:44 AM

Lee, it wasn’t Iran so much that made me nervous about McCain’s foreign policy as his insane attitude towards Russia during the Georgia crisis. That man’s mind is permanently stuck in the Cold War and thinks Russia=the Soviet Union, which is absurd.

Comment #51: Ben D.  on  10/15  at  12:46 AM

OK that’s a lot of comments and I haven’t read them yet, but YES! Not many people get me to yell at a blog like it’s a goddamn football game. Thank you. I even plugged you on Facebook:

YES! Amanda Marcotte is officially my favorite political blogger. From her literary/feminist analysis of Mad Men to her capable breakdowns of forest-for-the-trees right/left media narratives, she wows me every time. I mostly give her credit for further educating me in feminism, but when she tackles LGBT issues, she’s always spot-on!

Comment #52: DEstlund  on  10/15  at  12:47 AM

How did the US armed forces become racially integrated again?

IIRC racial segregation was never a law passed by Congress, just a military policy. So it could be repealed through executive order. DADT is a law passed by Congress, which is a little harder to remove.

Comment #53: Ben D.  on  10/15  at  12:49 AM

There was a pretty big war.  Manpower was a requirement.  Being sensitive to the feelings of assholes was ruled unnecessary for the duration of the crisis.

Oh, if you really want to bring that LBJ stuff again, there are books out there detailing the extent to which some of this was pressed by geopolitics.  Everything has a role.

I’m a big picture dude, and I’ve been pretty morose today for a reason.  Mild depression was always too good for the purposes of perceiving reality.  Processing the events, especially thinking through the mortgage crisis (and the upcoming Fed course change, plus other shit coming down the pipes), just makes DADT feel extremely petty to me.  I was already desensitized by the whole war ‘n torture stuff, which was always more important, but DADT is simply not an issue right now that I feel comfortable about the Prez spending his work hours on.

Comment #54: shah8  on  10/15  at  12:56 AM

and even assassinating our own citizens.

Was killing Confederate generals in the Civil War “assassination”?

Comment #55: Ben D.  on  10/15  at  12:57 AM

conrad:

What this all boils down to is their hatred of tradition and stable families.

Yeah, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why gays are expressing their hatred of stable families by pushing for the legal rights necessary for them to form stable families of their own. That shit’s confusing. It’s like expressing one’s hatred of mayonnaise by demanding that one be fed nothing but mayonnaise at every single meal.

Comment #56: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  10/15  at  01:01 AM

Guys, please realize who instigated this court battle:

The Log Cabin Republicans

Do you think they really give a shit about the timing of DADT repeal? It’s the prospect of their betters having to pay another nickel on the dollar above $200K that motivates them. They’re all a bunch of Joe the Plumbers. They just want to fuck Obama and the Democrats now, at the midterms. Why else do you think Reid pulled his little bit of parliamentary maneuvering? So it wouldn’t hurt on November 2.

if the U.S. Senate was unable to pass an amendment for DADT repeal while there are 59 senators in the Democratic Caucus, how in the hell is the U.S. Senate with only 53 (or possibly even fewer) senators in the Democratic Caucus going to get it done in 2011 or 2012?

Congress goes back into session November 15 with its current cast of characters. They have to pass a budget bill before they adjourn which means they have to pass the Defense Appropriations bill which means they have to pass DADT repeal.

Comment #57: Hector B.  on  10/15  at  01:05 AM

Ben D at 57/59, what I meant was that McCain would be much more prone to military interventionalism than Obama and less prone to the use of foreign aid and other forms of soft power. Plus, he would probably have been less generous in response to the Haitian earthquake. Haitians were given temporary protected status in the United States after the earthquake and this was unlikely if McCain was President.

  I actually after to side with PIOTR on repealing DADT though. It is a legitimate use of the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief to allow members of the LBGT community to serve regardless of whether if Congress passed a law. My personal opinion is that the next GOP President would reserve this because of the power of the Christian Right over the GOP, so a Congressional reversal is best policy but Obama could use his powers as Commander-in-Chief to reverse DADT.

Comment #58: Lee  on  10/15  at  01:05 AM

How did the US armed forces become racially integrated again?

There were already black people openly serving in the military. The military knew who they were, all HST asked was that they shuffle them up a bit.

Comment #59: Hector B.  on  10/15  at  01:08 AM

Hector—

But DADT repeal is not unpopular! If it WERE unpopular, or 50/50 split, I’d understand. But it’s overwhelmingly supported by the public! This is what makes me frustrated.

I understand the necessity of compromise when the need arises but there’s no reason to compromise on this!

Comment #60: Ben D.  on  10/15  at  01:08 AM

Wow. And now I’ve read Conrad’s comments. I’m sure he’s right. We’re too busy lustily gazing at our fellow officers’ manly offerings to actually serve among our heterosexual comrades. We’re getting people killed, and when we’re not, we’re no doubt contaminating them with disease and Marxism or something. If this shit didn’t make me so angry, I’d be tempted to off it.

Comment #61: DEstlund  on  10/15  at  01:09 AM

Ben D at 66: If you look at the original vote 56 of the 58 Democratic Senators voted for it, most Democratic Senators support it. Only two voted against it. The Republicans oppose it to a person because they subject to their most fanatical base.

Comment #62: Lee  on  10/15  at  01:11 AM

I think he sees it as the least-bad way to placate the Repubs, as if caving to them would lead to fair play in any other area. I don’t get it.  There’s some kind of bubble around the President and the rest of the Democratic leadership that won’t let them see what the rest of us learned by age 10: turning your lunch money over to the bully only encourages him to bully you some more.

Comment #63: Flora  on  10/15  at  01:14 AM

i>But DADT repeal is not unpopular! If it WERE unpopular, or 50/50 split, I’d understand. But it’s overwhelmingly supported by the public!</i>

Then these Senators made a hell of a mistake blocking repeal of DADT

Jim Webb (Virginia)

John McCain (Arizona)
James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Roger F. Wicker (Mississippi)
George S. LeMieux (Florida)
Scott Brown (Massachusetts)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
David Vitter (Louisiana)

Comment #64: Hector B.  on  10/15  at  01:16 AM

Then make ‘em filibuster. This is a perfect issue to do it on. DADT repeal is insanely popular.

If I were President I’d say “ok, pull out the cots. Filibuster a defense bill over unpopular homophobia, and see how the nation reacts!” I bet they’d fold like a house of cards, especially if you started accusing them on C-SPAN of “endangering our troops for a political stunt”.

Comment #65: Ben D.  on  10/15  at  01:18 AM

Hector:

God, am I ever disappointed in Webb for his cowardice on this issue. I though I’d see this kind of thing from Warner, not from him!

If there’s anyone on that list that is really going to pay for it though it’s Scott Brown. The Senator from Florida would, too, if only he were up for election. And in any other year so would Burr.

Comment #66: Ben D.  on  10/15  at  01:20 AM

Things may be insanely popular, but only a minority actually vote.  They don’t need a majority of public opinion, they need a majority of voters.

Comment #67: Crissa  on  10/15  at  01:42 AM

What are you talking about re: Webb? Wasn’t Webb one of the 56 who voted Yes? The two Dems who voted No are Lincoln and Pryor. They’re the ones who should be on your list.

Comment #68: Panda don (from woods of Oxford)  on  10/15  at  01:55 AM

What are you talking about re: Webb? Wasn’t Webb one of the 56 who voted Yes? The two Dems who voted No are Lincoln and Pryor. They’re the ones who should be on your list.

You are correct, it was Lincoln and Pryor who voted no. Webb had been rumored to be considering a no vote, but he did vote for the authorization bill.

Comment #69: rivki  on  10/15  at  02:33 AM

I have generally been fairly sympathetic towards Obama and think he usually does the best he can with a bad situation, but this DADT thing seems pretty inexcusable. I think the reason he is doing it is part of his ridiculous crusade to “reach accross the aisle.” IIRC before Obama got elected to the Senate, he spoke directly in favor of full marriage rights for gays, so I don’t think he is personally homophobic, he is just throwing gays under the bus but for no reason. Moderats don’t support DADT, he has the power to overturn it himself. There is definitely an enthusiasm gap where more people vote based on anti-gay feelings than vote based on pro-gay sentiments, and perhaps he is scared of energizing the crazies, but isn’t that sort of a moot point by now?

Comment #70: alysia  on  10/15  at  03:06 AM

This is off topic, but given the existence of blue dogs and the tea party, how is this http://thehill.com/house-polls/thehill-poll-week-2/124177-the-hill-poll-swing-district-voters-more-likely-to-see-dems-as-dominated-by-extremists- even possible.

Comment #71: alysia  on  10/15  at  03:13 AM

In his capacity as member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Webb voted against DADT repeal back in May. He did vote in September to let the Senate debate the House-passed Defense Appropriations bill containing DADT repeal, which Blanche Lincoln, et al. opposed.

Senator Webb Statement on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Vote

May 27, 2010

Senator Webb, chairman of the Armed Services Committee Personnel Subcommittee, issued the following statement today following his vote against an amendment that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” prior to the completion of the Department of Defense (DOD) comprehensive review:

“Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have both stated that military men and women in all services and at all levels should be engaged as the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is reviewed.  For this reason, in February DOD instituted a comprehensive review process that they viewed to be important in their roles as the senior leaders of the Department of Defense.  The Obama Administration agreed with the importance of this process in its letter of May 24, stating that ‘ideally the Department of Defense Comprehensive Review… would be completed before the Congress takes any legislative action.’

“DOD reaffirmed this position in a statement on May 25: ‘Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the DOD review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law…’ The chiefs of all four military services also concur in this view.

“I agree with this viewpoint.  I have met personally with the officials in charge of this review, and communicated my own observations regarding the comprehensive survey that will be a part of this review.  I see no reason to pre-empt the process that our senior Defense Department leaders put into motion, and I am concerned that many members of the military would view such a move as disrespectful to the importance of their roles in this process.”

Comment #72: Hector B.  on  10/15  at  03:26 AM

A 4th alternative is that if he issues an executive/ commander-in-chief order, it can be over turned by a following administration. It becomes like the funding of foriegn abortions, and whether NCOs receiving US government funds can do so. Under progressive administrations, yes. Under conservative administrations, no. If he issues an executive order, it takes the issue off the table, until a conservative administration comes into power. Then, that administration can reinstall DADT, they could actually ban gay military service. What happens them to gays that have come out in the interim? However, a favorable court descision or bill passage prevents the issue of gays in the military from being used as a political football (while an unfavorable descision just keeps it the issue alive as political football) If the case lasts longer than his administration, the following administration will have to allow gays in the military, either openly or under DADT, to make the case go away without a court descision or congressional clarification.  He already has one case going up the flag pole and potentially more. This is a hard slog of a way to do it, and puts a lot of people through a bunch of hard shit, but it might be the less painful and better route to go. Can’t say if this IS their motivation or not though.

Comment #73: Juicyheart  on  10/15  at  03:27 AM

DADT WAS DEAD: and Obama Resurrected It

Why, I don’t know and don’t give a fuck.

But there was no legal reason on this green earth for him to do so, despite this Administration’s zombie lies.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/14/910383/-DADT-WAS-DEAD:-and-Obama-Resurrected-It

Comment #74: judybrowni  on  10/15  at  03:38 AM

@alysia

I would really want to see exactly what the questions were because the write-up is all kinds of dumbed-down inconsistent.

Fifty-eight percent of Democrats said they would urge the lawmaker they supported to “look for compromises across the aisle”; only 35 percent would rather urge their representatives to “stay firm on their principles.”

Sixty-two percent of Republican voters said they would urge their lawmakers to stand firm on their principles, while only 32 percent wanted them to look across the aisle for compromise.

Thirty-five percent of independents said they would urge members of Congress to hold fast to their principles and 56 percent wanted to see more efforts to achieve bipartisan compromise.

They are polling in battleground states, so are they asking about candidates (which the Democratic voters wording suggests), on all legislators from a particular party (which the Republican voters wording suggests), or on Congress as a whole (which the independent voters wording suggests).  Did they ask different questions based on whether the party affiliation of the voter matched that of their current representative?

Also, did they define “extremists” or “extreme views” at all (and which did they actually use)?  Because really, extremists could mean “people on the extreme ends” (so, progressives vs. Blue Dogs or Meghan McCain vs. Tea Party), assholes (Blue Dogs and Tea Party, hopefully), or people farthest from the center.  Given the media’s tendency to classify everything as a two sides issue, maybe the term “extremist” has lost any unified meaning.

Comment #75: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  03:44 AM

How many of you have served in the Military?  Males don’t want other men checking them out when they’re in the shower or on the battle field. You don’t want sexual relations going on during basic training.  In just doesn’t work, leave DADT alone. The military isn’t a social experiment, their purpose is to win wars and protect the country.

I did.  And in a military that has spent the last nine years in combat.  And which has allowed openly gay members to serve from the moment a court case informed them that discrimination against such members was unconstitutional.  No whining about needing to study the issue.  No requests for more time.  Upon being informed that this was the way it was going to be, they saluted and got on with it.  We’ve even had gay military weddings in our country.

But maybe the US military is different.  Maybe it’s composed of weak-kneed pansies who get their panties in a bunch at the thought of a gay man in uniform within a 100 klicks of their position.  Maybe it’s full of crybaby pussies who piss their pants at the thought of being on the same base with someone who happens to have a partner of the same sex.  Maybe they really are a bunch of cowardly, bigotted, infantile pantywaists who get the vapours at the thought of sharing a shower room with a guy who likes men, but very likely has no interest in a straight soldier.

That your position, Conrad?  The the American military is too chickenshit to be able to do what the Canadian, British, Israeli, French, Australian, German, Russian, Norwegian, Peruvian, South African, Danish, New Zealand, Polish, Finish, Dane, Dutch, Colombian, Spanish, Swedish (and a bunch more) have done, some of them while in combat either against internal threats or on international missions such as Afghanistan?

Comment #76: KeithM  on  10/15  at  04:03 AM

Of course Conrad couldn’t give a shit about women getting hassled by men because that’s just the normal state of affairs. 

The homophobes are the ones you want out of the service. The military remains a job that’s guaranteed and offers health care and education for people who otherwise couldn’t afford it. A guy who can’t take gays won’t be able to tolerate other minorities, and that means he can’t deal with the general population or his fellow soldiers. Assholes like Conrad shoot first, then…nothing. If he ever served.

Comment #77: ginmar  on  10/15  at  04:18 AM

My grandfather (of The Greatest Generation, y’know) served with at least one gay man.  My grandfather seemed to think it was worth pointing out in reference to a funny story (I’m not sure I agree), but he certainly didn’t make it a big thing.

I didn’t press because I have no desire to find out exactly how homophobic my 91-year-old grandfather is (probably, as with his racism, slightly more than I’d like).  It was obvious, though, that it was not a big deal and certainly didn’t make my grandfather fear rape or flirting or being too confused to remember who he was fighting or whatever the hell the dire threat openly serving is supposed to pose.

Comment #78: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  04:27 AM

Oh, and my father was gay and served in the National Guard.  He wasn’t out, but he also didn’t seem to have been looking for a boyfriend either.  (He met his eventual partner at a dog show, I think.)

Comment #79: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  04:30 AM

Would President McCain have been worse? We already have the healthcare reform that he proposed. I see no real difference between the two.

No matter how frustrating President Obama has often been, we still would have been worse off under President McCain. Three words convince me that we wound up with the least bad option in 2008:

The Iran War

Have no doubt, had McCain become Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, he would have had thousands of troops deployed to invade Tehran before the end of 2009, and we would have been mired in three deeply unpopular wars with rapidly dwindling resources to fund those wars.

Comment #80: DTGslu2K  on  10/15  at  07:19 AM

Atheist, A Feminist at 82: The results aren’t actually all that puzzling if you keep in mind that Republicans are more likely to be dogmatic about their beliefs than Democrats and independents when you consider what segments of the population they come from. Democrats and independents are probably less prone to think that their beliefs are the only correct ones and are therefore more likely to favor compromise. Republicans not so much.

Comment #81: Lee  on  10/15  at  07:50 AM

Murrow Fan: Another reason why we would be worst off under McCain, Vice President Sarah Palin whom could easily become President.

  I’m really still not getting why people think that HCR to the left of the ACA was possible if the President tried harder to do some vague unspecific thing that nobody seems capable of mentioning. Do you really think that the Blue Dogs could be forced to accept single-payer or the public option or even a medicare buy-in for people fifty-five and older?

  http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2009/12/the-green-lantern-theory-of-the-presidency.html

    http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/07/the-political-version-of-green-lanternism.html

Comment #82: Lee  on  10/15  at  07:58 AM

Forgot one more link, sorry about the extra post: http://trueslant.com/jamellebouie/2010/06/17/the-green-lantern-theory-of-presidential-power-a-continuing-series/

Comment #83: Lee  on  10/15  at  08:01 AM

@Lee

From the wording of the write-up, I think that it’s hard to tell what the results actually say.  The Hill basically comes to the conclusion that Democratic voters think the party has moved too far to the left.  I’m skeptical of that.  There are plenty of reasons why the actual results might make sense, but plenty of other reasons why it may just have been a really poorly done poll.

Comment #84: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  08:09 AM

I am beginning to suspect that conrad is Two-Face.

Comment #85: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  08:32 AM

Even if Obama started with single-payer, Congress could have reduced it the ACA and there could have been little he could do about it.

Sure.  And then I’d be upset at Pelosi/Reid/Blue Dogs.

Obama didn’t even TRY.  He ran on change and hope, remember?  And even knowing him as my Senator, knowing he wasn’t very liberal, I believed that the Constitutional scholar might try to live up to his campaign promises.

Instead, he’s been an ass to the people who put him there.  He shits in our faces and tells us we should support him even when he panders to Republicans.  B/c who else are we going to vote for?  It’s pure Rahm philosophyy, but Obama apparently agrees with him b/c he gave Rahm the power.

Why no recess appointments?  Why the constant need to be ‘bipartisan’?  Why set the DOJ on DADT and not Cheney/Bush/bankers/other fuckers who deserve it?

No, Obama deserve all the anger I have for him.  Congress could have stopped him, but he had a clear Democratic majority and a public dying for change.  He threw it away, and I don’t know why.

Comment #86: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/15  at  08:42 AM

The Hill basically comes to the conclusion that Democratic voters think the party has moved too far to the left. 

I think The Hill is interpreting the data wrong: Lee is correct that many Democrats seem to share Obama’s pathological fetishization of bipartisanship.

Comment #87: Tyro  on  10/15  at  09:38 AM

@Tyro

I’m sure many do.  Hell, I like it a lot in theory.  I was mainly pointing out the odd wording in those descriptions alongside the “extremists”/“extreme views” problem.  Given how poorly described the results are, I also wonder if some of those Dems might have meant that they wanted their Republican representative to be more bipartisan or the Democratic candidate who hasn’t done anything yet to be that way.  I’m really not sure The Hill described anything well enough to exclude that possibility.

Comment #88: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  09:49 AM

” I’m really still not getting why people think that HCR to the left of the ACA was possible if the President tried harder to do some vague unspecific thing that nobody seems capable of mentioning. Do you really think that the Blue Dogs could be forced to accept single-payer or the public option or even a medicare buy-in for people fifty-five and older?”

Once it became clear that they couldn’t get 60 votes and would have to use the reconciliation process, Obama could have changed tactics pushed for whatever he could get 50 senators to support. Presumably, that would have been something more destructive to private insurance and more generous to public than what we got. We don’t know, because the senate never tried and there’s no evidence Obama tried to get them to try.

Comment #89: witless chum  on  10/15  at  10:25 AM

Tyro at 95: I’d phrase it slightly differently. The Democratic Party is still an American political party while the Republican Party has become more of a European party. Historically, neither party revolved around any particular ideology but consisted of various geographic and ethnic alliances. Party discipline was weak and Senators and Representatives saw their primary job as advancing the particular parochial interests from their districts and states plus getting pork. Sure the Democratic Party was kind of to the left and the Republican Party kind of to the right but individual members were all over the place and ideology played little role in why they were Democrats or Republicans. Over the course of several decades, the Republican Party has started to revolve around a particular ideology and now operates in a relatively European manner, where Republican politicians view their primary job as advancing the ideology rather than representing the parochial interests in their states and districts, although this still occurs on a more limited basis. This process never really happened to the Democratic Party to the same degree and most Democratic politicans and their voters still expect them to operate as much. Same goes for independents Thats why compromise is more tolerated among Democrats and independents. This isn’t really a good thing but the American system forces everybody who isn’t a Republican to work together against them and this covers a wide ideological range.

  Caren at 94: My question is Obama should have tried what? A lot of criticism involves Obama didn’t try but it is never explained what he shoudl have tried. Should he have just introduced single-payer legislation and go from there? Have you ever considered that the adminsitration believed that if they attempted single-payer that not even a moderate bill would pass but that everything would crash down into flames like every other attempt at universal healthcare. Did you even read the links I posted. The American system generally requires a modest start for social legislation with gradual improvement over time. Its frustrating and I don’t like it but thats how it exists.

  Back on topic, my basic feeling is that Courts are good starting places for civil rights expansions but that the best work is done on the Legislative level. Civil rights legislation was more effective for pushing African-American rights than the Supreme Court cases like Brown vs. Board of Educaiton, which starte the process but required executive and legislative enforcement to bach them up. Plus legislation is more permanent and less likely to result in voter back lash than court opinion even if the polls do favor the opinion in some way, re Busing. So while Court legislation is a great place to start the battle for LBGT equality, it will require legislation to make it permanent.

Comment #90: Lee  on  10/15  at  10:30 AM

@witless chum

And I don’t think that Obama did the best that he could do in leading the public.  There should have been more of a pushback against those terrible town hall meetings (with the birth certificates in baggies) and the beginnings of the Tea Party that has only grown crazier.  I understand to a certain extent his “hands off” policy with Congress, but we really do need one person telling us what the country is doing.  That is his job and it is the part that he think he really doesn’t handle nearly as well as I expected after his campaigning.  (Not just him, of course, his whole administration needs to work at this.)

Comment #91: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  10:34 AM

The country would be worse off if McCain were president, but progressives and the liberal movement would be a lot better off.

It is better to be an honest opposition, able to argue compellingly for our principles, than it is to be a hopelessly compromised governing party, unable to advance any of those principles in a meaningful way, and in fact spending political capital to FIGHT AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS.

If you want proof, consider this: We’ve had thirty years in which the Democratic party was the only (if awful, unreliable, half-assed) ally the LGBTQ community had in mainstream politics, thirty years in which the Republican party was our outright enemy (with a few honorable exceptions).

And now Republican lawyers for Republican groups are fighting our battles, winning victories on DOMA and DADT - and being fought tooth and nail by a black Democratic president elected via overwhelming progressive support. It’s going to go down in the history books that Republicans got gay rights over the goal line.

Fuck this. Fuck him, and fuck anybody who defends him.

Comment #92: Alkaloid  on  10/15  at  10:43 AM

Oh, and by the way? Obama is not being “pig-headed on DADT”.

Obama is going to court to fight against gay rights.

(I guess misogynist rape apologists are just “pig-headed about sexual assault”.)

Comment #93: Alkaloid  on  10/15  at  10:47 AM

@ AnglScarlett

And I realized that there is a possible answer.

Eh, I think its really simple.  OBAMA DOES NOT LIKE GAY PEOPLE.  (Which is a “both/and” with your answer - he doesn’t want to get to gay marriage because he does not like gay people.)

and

Yeah, and I’m pretty convinced at this point that a lot of his liberal base on the net are making excuses for this guy mostly because of the primary battel and they will eat shit before they will give Hillary supporters the satisfaction of saying, hey, this guy fucking sucks.

Count me out of that part of the liberal base.  This guy sucks.  I supported him in the primary. I’ll admit that I think Hillary Clinton would have been better on LGBT issues.  And I am also sick of “a lot of the liberal base on the net,” particularly on Kos, who continue to clap harder.

Comment #94: Richard Goblin  on  10/15  at  10:47 AM

@3letterjohn

Judicial decisions can be overturned, and all it would take is for another circuit judge to rule otherwise and this can get to the Supreme Court.

Nope.  You are dead wrong here.  Once the time to file an appeals runs out, it’s a done deal.  The federal government cannot just go forum shopping and relitigate the issue in another district court.*  Even if someone else could get standing to challenge the injunction (I seriously doubt that they could), they would have to challenge the injunction in the court that issued it.**  Nor could another administration do jack shit about the injunction once the time limit to file an appeal runs out.  You can’t challenge the injunction if you did not appeal, and you can’t file an appeal past the time limit.***

* If a defendant could challenge an injunction or any other judgment of one district court in another, then litigation would simply never end if a defendant has enough money to continue litigating.  So neither the federal rules of civil procedure nor federal case law allow you to.

** Once a court takes jurisdiction over an issue, jurisdiction continues there.  And in this case, the District Court imposed a world-wide injunction against enforcing DADT.  What?  Do you think if you don’t like a decision by the Massachusetts district court you can get a do-over in the Southern District of New York?  If you could, litigation would never come to an end.

***This was not a default judgment.  DOJ actively participated in the proceedings and are thus on notice of the decision and injunction.  If they don’t file their notice of appeal in the time allotted, then the issue is dead on the spot.  The Supreme Court would never even get to touch the issue.

Comment #95: Richard Goblin  on  10/15  at  11:03 AM

Alkaloid at 100: This is a highly debatable proposition. If McCain was President but Congress was Democratic, we would probably be in a situation where the Democratic Congress kept passing bills that were vetoed by McCain and kept rejecting the legislation that McCain proposed. The result would be that nothing would get done and both sides would blame each other. The public would have to decide which side to support but public anger tends to be directed more towards Congress than the Presidency. Ben D has pointed out that Obama’s approval rating tends to be in the mid to uppper forties, which is extraoridinarily high for the state of the economy and higher than every other politician in America. Its much higher than Cognress. So if McCain was President, the positions would probably be the same and the Democratic Party would be facing massive losses during the 2012 mid-terms. Since the Democratic Party is the vehicle for liberal and progressive legislation than a McCain presidency would be a bad thing for liberals and progressives, not a good thing.

  The idea that Republicans are fighting and winning the battles against DOMA and DADT is also laughable. Republican politicians, especially those holding legislative positions, are fighting for DOMA and DADT tooth and nail. The suit against Proposition 8 was a joint project of a Democratic lawyer and a Republican lawyer. Certain factions of Republicans might be against DOMA and DADT but the majority are for them.

    Witless Chum: Once it became clear that Reconcilliation was needed, the bills were largely written and writing a more anti-private insurance HCR bill would have required a start over. This means that the vested interests would have had an opportunity to wage war against HCR like they did with every previous attempt. The private insurance companies were the victors in the message war in every previous attempt. Obama didn’t handle HCR perfectly. He should have been more engaged with the public in teaching them about the importance of HCR, there should have been more coordination in the public affairs aspect of HCR, and he should have realized that the Republicans weren’t going to play ball a lot sooner. However, buying off the vested interests was a good thing even though it was frustrating from a liberal/progressive point of view in how it shapped the ultimate legislation.

  Look at my first link in post 55. This is how the system was designed. To allow every faction to have its say in the shapping of legislation.

Comment #96: Lee  on  10/15  at  11:04 AM

Guys, please realize who instigated this court battle:

The Log Cabin Republicans

Pardon my language, but so fucking what?  When you’re right, your right.  And on this issue the Log Cabin Republicans are right.

Politics isn’t a fucking sport, and the democrats are not my fucking team.  I do not root for the Democrats.  I care about issues - like justice and equality.  Political parties are a vehicle - a means to an end, not an end in themselves.  I care about the ends.

Comment #97: Richard Goblin  on  10/15  at  11:10 AM

There’s a reason why Obama didn’t start with single payer. It would put a LOT of people out of work.

No really. That’s what he said during the campaign. He favored single payer for a brand new system, but not for an already existing system because the economic changes would be rather radical, especially during an economic downbeat as it is.

And yes, the problem with Obama is that he wants to be bipartisan. It’s not that he WANTS to throw gays under the bus. It’s that it’s his idealism that the ideal president would follow the proper protocol, as he would like a future Republican president to do the same for his policies.

Which is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. And that’s the problem. He’s an accommodating them in a world where accommodation has NO place anymore.

Comment #98: Karmakin  on  10/15  at  11:11 AM

All the administration has to do at this point to end DADT is… nothing. That they continue to appeal this case makes it very clear exactly how much they “care” about civil rights. That they continue claiming they’re doing the best they can for civil rights makes it quite clear how far they can be trusted when they say they’re doing their best.

Comment #99: quercus  on  10/15  at  11:12 AM

@63:
The case was started in 2004.  That makes it extremely unlikely that it was aimed at Obama, or even the Dems.

Comment #100: helen w. h.  on  10/15  at  11:12 AM

I think a lot of the problem with the liberal base (and I count myself both among that base and having this problem) is that we believe, mostly with a certain empirical justification, that the policies we support are the right ones. But we forget that we represent less than 1/3 of Americans, and we’re disproportionately concentrated geographically in a political system that rewards geographical spread. Someone like Obama, whom I supported and whom I’m coming to believe is a complete douche, simply can’t rely on the liberal base to govern. Yes, the system is fatally compromised by corporate power, and yes, the “conservative” group on the other side is rabid, insane and very, very stupid, but even were those things not true, it would still be difficult if not impossible for a president to govern on liberal policies and still retain political power. Because the third 1/3 of Americans really, really hates liberals. Liberals, like me, do not value authority: that’s our defining feature. And people who do value authority, who are the large majority, view this as a defect. It’s both a structural and a philosophical problem, and while it’s compounded by corporate power, crazy right-wingers and liberals’ absolute fucking inability to deliver a message that resonates on the emotional level where 75% of Americans operate instead of on the intellectual level, it’s still a problem that I don’t see a way out of.

Comment #101: felagund  on  10/15  at  11:20 AM

felagund at 109: I think its a little more complicated. The data seems to show that most Americans are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal. That is they call themselves conservative and respond better to conservative rhetoric but that they generally like and want liberal policies. This seems to have been the case for a relatively long time. There was a famous poll around FDR’s first re-election in 1936 where a slight majority of those polled said they would rather join an explicitly conservative party than an explicitly liberal party. Yet, they gave a very liberal President one of the biggest landslide victories in American politics. What liberals haven’t figuered out is how to work with a population that is ideologically conservative and operationally liberal.

Comment #102: Lee  on  10/15  at  11:43 AM

@Lee

The sad part is that I really think Obama could have won over and convinced that population (not the completely-flipped-their-shit-racists, obviously).  I think that if he had, from Day One, explained to the American people how he planned to govern and why that the really wonky-Constitutional-law thing and intellectual love and respect for our founding document could have really worked.  If he talked about separation of powers and procedure and whatnot the way Bush used to talk about “security” (although, obviously way smarter and using actual words and logic), I think it actually may have been a bit unifying and certainly would have held the Tea Party narrative at bay.

I’m actually pretty willing to go along with the excuse/rationale that these frustrating processes are necessary for the good of the country and precedent, etc. but he needs to fucking say that!  (And we know that most Americans are pretty fucking dumb when it comes to the Constitution, so the need is even more pressing for those who can’t rattle off the preamble.)

Comment #103: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  11:57 AM

Hector B. @63: Guys, please realize who instigated this court battle: The Log Cabin Republicans. Do you think they really give a shit about the timing of DADT repeal?

Come off it.  The lawsuit was filed in 2004.  The litigants had little control over the timing of this decision.  It could easily have been decided while George Bush was still president.

The groups actively seeking an end to DADT - Log Cabin, Palm, SLDN, Servicemembers United, etc - care about timing in one respect only: that the end of this policy should come as soon as possible, in the interest of our National Security.  The groups that care about timing - HRC and the White House - are quite happy to drag their feet.

shah8 @37: I care *very* little about DADT outside of the most basic civil liberties desire.  It’s just not that important, even in purely the scale of anti-homophobia.

I couldn’t disagree with you more.  The repeal of DADT should be the gay lobby’s first priority.  It will hasten the end of DOMA, and open the door to ENDA.  Denying benefits to the husband or wife of a war hero is unconscionable, and all but the hardest of the hard right will find it indefensible.

Comment #104: BABH  on  10/15  at  12:10 PM

Maybe it makes me a silly hand-wringer, but I’m really not that comfortable with the idea of the DOJ not appealing a decision when they actually want the judge to rule against them. Among other things, imagine what conservatives would do with that precedent.

On the other hand, can we please just stop talking about LBJ? No, Obama isn’t LBJ, but LBJ wouldn’t be LBJ today either. For one thing, the Senate today is different than it was in the 1960’s. There’s more party discipline and fewer individuals looking to cut deals to advace their own goals, so there’s just not a lot of opportunity for deal-making. But even more than that, there’s the simple fact that a lot of what LBJ did to get votes is just flat out illegal now. You can’t send your chief of staff out with a pocket full of cash to hand out to members of Congress.

Comment #105: Brien Jackson  on  10/15  at  12:13 PM

Also there’s the fact that LBJ had a much larger Senate majority than Obama and that the conservative Democrats of the time were pretty amenable to liberal causes other than civil rights legislation.

Comment #106: Brien Jackson  on  10/15  at  12:15 PM

As long as we’re willing to “believe” that the next person will be better on these issues, we’ll continually get fooled again.

And I second Brien that while the ends here (ending discrimination in the military) are laudable, our continued belief in magic imperial president, i.e. the ongoing taint from post-9/11 destruction of the separation of powers, is dangerous.

Comment #107: norbizness  on  10/15  at  12:18 PM

I’m actually pretty willing to go along with the excuse/rationale that these frustrating processes are necessary for the good of the country and precedent, etc. but he needs to fucking say that!

I happen to think that Obama is wrong. A proper reading of the electorate, following felagund’s model, is that the wide majority of people want a leader, not a parliamentarian in chief who explains why certain “rules” mean that nothing can be done right now. When the public complains about an unresponsive government, they are referring to the bureaucrat who drones on and on about “process.”

When studying FDR, one of the characte traits used to describe him was “pragmatic”, and the term has quite a different implication than it does now in modern political parlance. What it meant is that he was willing to <I>try anything, and if it worked, he kept doing it, and if it didn’t or if it was struck down by the Supreme Court, he tried something else. And he kept doing this over and over again. By this standard, Obama is being the polar opposite of pragmatic: he has a program and process that he is sticking to and he is going to see it through to the end in the hopes it gives the ultimate outcome he wants.

Comment #108: Tyro  on  10/15  at  12:19 PM

Here, read this essay from heritage.org and be proud of our homophilic, Machiavellian President:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Dont-Ask-Ill-Just-Tell-You-What-the-Law-Should-Be-Log-Cabin-Republicans-v-United-States

<i>In Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, the Obama Administration sought to win a policy victory by losing a case. By failing to adequately defend the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) statute—a bipartisan act of Congress that provides that members of the military are subject to separation for engaging in a homosexual act, stating that he or she is a homosexual, or marrying a person of the same sex—President Obama is able to undermine or do away with a statute that he opposes. He can do so while shifting any blame for the change in policy to the courts. And a Clinton appointee, Judge Virginia Phillips, proved more than willing to accommodate the Administration, issuing an activist opinion that reads more like a press release than a legal judgment.

A Thrown Case

One would have to go back to the 1919 World Series to find a Chicagoan throwing a game so flagrantly. The court noted that the Obama Justice Department “called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act.”[1] Indeed, the Justice Department failed to present witnesses from the Department of Defense who could have testified about the policy behind DADT, its importance to military readiness and unit cohesion, and the deleterious effects of DADT being eliminated.

If the Obama Administration’s inaction was not bad enough, when the Administration did speak, it undermined the case for DADT. The court quoted the President’s unsupported and unsubstantiated views at length in support of the position that DADT should be struck down because it supposedly “doesn’t contribute to our national security.”[2] Of course, no national security experts who could testify on this issue were presented to the court by the Justice Department.

The Justice Department’s behavior in this case violates basic rules of professional conduct that require lawyers to do their utmost on behalf of a client, even if they disagree with a client’s views on a matter.

Regrettably, this is not the first time this has occurred. As Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center points out, “The court’s ruling is the latest step in the Obama administration’s sabotage of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law.”

Comment #109: Hector B.  on  10/15  at  12:19 PM

A proper reading of the electorate, following felagund’s model, is that the wide majority of people want a leader

A leader who gets things done. You guys keep staring at the hole and ignoring the doughnut.

Comment #110: Hector B.  on  10/15  at  12:27 PM

I think felagund is exactly about the “liberal base” representing a small percent of Americans—only I think that, depending on how you define the base, it is less than that. About 10% of Americans are well-informed voters who are likely to vote and also left-leaning. Elections are decided by whether and for whom the uninformed 80% decide to vote. Republicans seem to do pretty well at charging ahead and speaking out to unengaged voters, where as Dems seem to be dominated by nerds who are always trying to identify how an uninformed voter might make a decision, replicate that action, and then manage to piss of their voters while convincing the independent voters of nothing. I really couldn’t identify a solution to this problem though.

Comment #111: alysia  on  10/15  at  12:29 PM

Atheist, A Feminist: This could very well-be true. Obama hasn’t really explained himself well to the American people and seems to like focusing on governing more. This is a good thing but politics, even in authoritarian systems, have always necessitated large elements of showmanship and entertainment. Democratic politics even more so. Obama can do this but really seems loathed to do so. That being said, when FDR gave his fire-side chats radio networks felt compelled to broadcast him because President speaking, obviously important and people listened because President speaking, obviously important. People have more entertainment options at their disposal and are more able to and likely to ignore the President speaking these days.

  Brien Jackson: Also LBJ’s wilder tactics would probably receive a much more negative reaction these days. He would probably get away with using them against Lieberman or Nelson but Lincoln, Snow, or Collins. Not so much.

Comment #112: Lee  on  10/15  at  12:30 PM

You know what? If nothing else I think this is just more proof that the Justice Department really should be its own branch of government.

Comment #113: Brien Jackson  on  10/15  at  12:30 PM

should say felagund is exaclty RIGHT about the liberal base.

Comment #114: alysia  on  10/15  at  12:33 PM

There is actually political research showing that access to cable and the internet have made nerds much more informed, but allowed unengaged voters to ignore politics almost completely.

Didn’t LBJ take a piss on some Senator he was quarelling with?

Comment #115: alysia  on  10/15  at  12:36 PM

I think its roughly around twenty percent of Americans that identify as liberal. Identification isn’t really a big an issue as people think. Many more Americans like liberal policies even though they do not identify as liberal.

  It should also be stressed that Obama is still startling in his popularity level. He is still the most popular politician on a national level, tens of percentage points above anybody else including every prominent Republican. People are mainly angry and planning to vote out Congress because they are mad because of the economy. Most seem to expect the Republicans not to do better, many expect them to do substantially worse but are voting them in out of protest.

Comment #116: Lee  on  10/15  at  12:37 PM

But the group that identivies as liberal, AND is well-informed, AND is likely to vote is even smaller. Only about 10% of people fit this discription in the conservative base as well.

I definitely agree that people overlook how well Obama is doing given the crippling effect a poor economy has on a president’s political capital.

Comment #117: alysia  on  10/15  at  12:41 PM

<blockqote>The repeal of DADT should be the gay lobby’s first priority.  It will hasten the end of DOMA, and open the door to ENDA.  Denying benefits to the husband or wife of a war hero is unconscionable, and all but the hardest of the hard right will find it indefensible. </blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is the final stage in full equality, in practice.  In just about all countries that have instituted it officially, gay rights in just about everything else (at least in theory, you can’t legalize away bigotry), including military service while being out, had to come first before there was a sufficient comfort level to make it legal.

If you look at the list of countries allowing openly gay service members (and the date of that happening) and comparing it with the legalization of same sex marriages (and the date of that happening), you immediately see two things:

1.  no country exists that has national recognition of same-sex marriage but prohibitions on gay service members; and
2.  in all cases, allowing openly gay service members came first.

Comment #118: KeithM  on  10/15  at  12:42 PM

Identification isn’t really a big an issue as people think. Many more Americans like liberal policies even though they do not identify as liberal.

And that’s because the Republican noise machine (aka Fox) has been outstandingly efficient in demonizing liberal words, even as they haven’t been able to demonize many liberal ideas. When three quarters of the country want a public option for health care and gay soldiers to serve openly in the military it’s not a “center-right” country. The word “conservative” has come to be synonymous with sensible thought, so sure, a lot of people will call themselves conservative, but that doesn’t mean they agree with the Right.

Comment #119: rivki  on  10/15  at  01:21 PM

OBAMA DOES NOT LIKE GAY PEOPLE.

It’s a sign of serious narcissism to assume that someone who is indifferent to you actively hates you.  Obama doesn’t care enough to make gay rights a major priority.  That doesn’t equal hate, unless you’re the type of person who’d rather be hated than ignored.

Comment #120: keshmeshi  on  10/15  at  01:47 PM

alysia at 123, I think that LBJ did engage in some form of intimidation that involved his penis and a toilet on at least one occassion but I’m not sure of the exact details. I really don’t think that this would go over that well today, especially if used against a woman Congresscriter. Using it against Lieberman or Nelson would be priceless though.

  rivki at 127, fox news certainly doesn’t help but the actually phenomenon is decades older. It existed during FDR’s Presidency to a certain extent.

Comment #121: Lee  on  10/15  at  02:07 PM

@keshmeshi

It’s a sign of serious narcissism to assume that someone who is indifferent to you actively hates you.

‘does not like’ /= ‘hate’.  Strike one

All Obama had to do was nothing - i.e. don’t file an appeal.  Obama ordered/approved the appeal DOJ filed.  Thus Obama took action against the LGBT community.  He did this while saying he is a ‘fierce advocate’ for the LGBT community - he’s not stupid so he must be lying.  Obama has also said that he is opposed to marriage equality.*  In other words, Obama thinks the state should grant greater rights to straight people over LGBT people.  How do I read any of this to mean that Obama is anything other than against homosexuality?  Strike two.

I don’t know Obama and he doesn’t know me.  If he doesn’t know me then I can’t really think that he actively hates me, now can I.  But then again I am talking about a group of people not me personally, which is clear from my post.  From Obama’s words and actions, I infer that he does not like gay people as a group whatever his feelings or lack there of may be for any individual.  But hey, I’m sure some of his best friends are gay so it’s all a-OK, amirite?  Strike three.

Three strikes means you’re out, keshmeshi.  See ya.

*Sure, he doesn’t believe in marriage equality because with marriage “God is in the mix.”  So he’s a religious bigot and not just a bigot simpliciter.  So I guess that makes it OK, right?  Whatever.

Comment #122: Richard Goblin  on  10/15  at  02:36 PM

Sure, he doesn’t believe in marriage equality because with marriage “God is in the mix.”

That statement made me angrier than anything else. In part because as a lawyer with an understanding of the Constitution he should know better than to think that a specific religious view should effect governmental policy on any issue, let alone a fundamental right. But really because his parent’s marriage was condemned for precisely the same reason. To be the recipient of an extension of privilege but to refuse to extend that privilege farther makes me really mad.

Comment #123: rivki  on  10/15  at  02:44 PM

They’re one vote short on a must-pass bill of repealing DADT the best possible way.  It’s all lined up, and otherwise non-pro-gay Democrats are on board because it’s the defense funding bill and you have to support that, especially in A Time Of War.  To get to that point in the Senate, they had to have the Pentagon do its review, so that Democrats who aren’t pro-gay can say, “Hey, I’m just doing what the military leadership says it wants.”  So if everything goes according to this sequence:

1. Pentagon concludes its review, makes recommendation about policies related to DADT.
2. Senate votes for the defense funding bill that includes a law on gay servicemembers that respects Pentagon recommendations.

then DADT is gone, the law is changed, and everything works out.

If (2) doesn’t happen, for example by a Republican filibuster, THEN SHAME THE MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICANS FOR DOING IT.  Not only are they bigots, but they’re “playing politics with the military in a time of war,” and they’re “undercutting our troops in the field.”  Republicans will say it back.  BUT DEMOCRATS CAN FINALLY WIN THAT ARGUMENT by standing firm.  Finally there’s something that Democrats can do that lives up to all the backseat driving and sideline carping about how they shouldn’t compromise too soon, should stand up for themselves and draw sharp contrasts, etc.  BUT Y’ALL WON’T LET THEM DO IT!  You want them to wriggle off the hook with a half-assed executive order.  Why would you do that?

The minute the executive order happens, there goes ANY hope of getting DADT repeal through the legislative process.  You know that there are plenty of Democrats in the Senate who would prefer not to deal with this but have been backed into a procedural corner and have to support the “defense bill,” so, for once, they have been manipulated into being _better_ than they normally are on a civil rights or sexuality issue.  Issue an executive order and they scatter to the winds.  They need ONE MORE VOTE.  If you’re an activist on this issue, get that vote.  Susan Collins _says_ she supports DADT repeal.  Pressure HER.  Not doing that is just so procedurally dopey I just don’t know what to say.

Comment #124: FlipYrWhig  on  10/15  at  02:51 PM

Take, for instance, Valerie Jarrett calling a gay teenager’s orientation a “lifestyle choice”.  (She’s since apologized.) That’s not the sort of thing that’s going to quell suspicions that the administration is doing the wrong thing by gay people because of some procedural bullshit but because they don’t like gay people.

This is beneath you, Amanda, because you usually read carefully.  “Lifestyle choice” is a clumsy phrase, fine.  The entire statement was EXPRESSLY about how no one should have to be subjected to such horrible treatment and how sad it was that the teenager felt so despondent even with a supportive family.  “They don’t like gay people” my ass.  I expect that from John Aravosis, who is a shit-flinger who likes to find flimsy pretexts for his shit-flinging.  I don’t expect that from you.  Ridiculous.  Totally ridiculous.

Comment #125: FlipYrWhig  on  10/15  at  02:56 PM

FlipYrWhig@132: This, this, a hundred times this.  And in the meantime, everybody get out the vote for the midterms, so we’re in as strong a position as we can be in the Senate.

Comment #126: BABH  on  10/15  at  03:15 PM

They’re one vote short on a must-pass bill of repealing DADT the best possible way.

They’re always “one vote short.”  In other news, the Pope is Catholic.

Comment #127: Richard Goblin  on  10/15  at  04:02 PM

I agree with those upthread: comparing Obama to Satan is totally unfair.

After all, Satan rewards his followers.

Comment #128: Captain Bathrobe  on  10/15  at  04:36 PM

I expect better of this from you, Amanda.

Worry less about me and my concerns about someone using homophobic language, even when they say the right things, and more about the Obama administration. 

After all, as someone who fears they are just cowardly and pandering might imagine, they are in fact appealing the decision on DADT and fighting to keep it alive.

Comment #129: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/15  at  07:19 PM

@Alkaloid@96: Exactly. I’m pretty much convinced he’s just a bigot. It’s not like we didn’t get an awful lot of advance warning with the whole Rick Warren thing. (Which it looks like all his apologists forgot about.) At this point I wouldn’t vote for the man if it came with a bag of gold and a puppy. And I’m probably voting Green as much as possible in this election. After all, if all we’re going to get is Republican solutions to problems, who cares which particular set of Republicans has power?

I also love hearing about how he’s a “Constitutional Scholar”. Seriously. The only president I can think of with a worse civil liberties record than George Bush and we’re supposed to take “Constitutional Scholar” seriously. At this point the only amendments his administration hasn’t attacked or weakened in some way are the 2nd and 3rd. So we can still own guns and don’t have to quarter troops in our homes. Sounds like fierce advocacy to me.

Comment #130: JThompson  on  10/15  at  08:08 PM

After all, as someone who fears they are just cowardly and pandering might imagine, they are in fact appealing the decision on DADT and fighting to keep it alive.

I think I’ve provided a reasonable explanation as to why they might do that:  in order to hold together their Democratic bloc that is just shy of overturning this thing in an upfront and definitive way. 

I also think that whacking someone for “homophobic language” that is approximately as homophobic as calling a woman “girl” is misogynistic, for the purposes of building a highly tenuous and circumstantial case about “pig-headedness” and tone-deafness at best and stone-cold bigotry at worst, showcases the worst habits of the well-intentioned liberal and pro-gay precincts of the blogosphere.  I associate John Aravosis with those, not you.  And all the people who still bring up Rick Warren and Donnie McClurkin.  And for that matter I think Rachel Maddow hasn’t handled it well either. 

I know I sound like a scold and/or a rank apologist, but this is really starting to gnaw at me, because it’s, like, All Aboard the Outrage Bandwagon, don’t get left behind!  Obama hates gay people and wants to assassinate Americans!  If you don’t think so, you’re part of the problem!  Heighten the contradictions!  Bad as Bush! 

I’d like to see people give Obama a modicum of the benefit of the doubt they extend to Joss Whedon and Matthew Weiner.  _Maybe_ there’s something else going on.  _Maybe_ there’s some kind of twist being set up.  Let’s not be so dedicated to declaring things disappointing and offensive until we’ve seen them _actually play out_.

Comment #131: FlipYrWhig  on  10/15  at  08:39 PM

@FlipYrWhig (and BABH in #129)

I also think that whacking someone for “homophobic language” that is approximately as homophobic as calling a woman “girl” is misogynistic.

I think it is quite a bit closer to putting scare quotes around “health of the mother” or saying that the President is “not like us.”  I responded to Mnemosyne on this in #16 and 38 (so, warning, a bit of context is missing).

The “gay lifestyle” thing is, sadly and ridiculously, remarkably effective in helping to maintain the status quo that enables bullying kids to death.  By repeating it AT ALL, Jarrett substantiated the claims of the right-wing.  IMO, “we” always lose because “we” pull this kind of shit all the time, and the majority of the time “we” get away with it because overall “we” were trying to do the right thing.  I don’t think it is too much to ask that “we” cut it out.

Comment #132: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  09:39 PM

@FlipYrWhig

FWIW, I actually don’t give much benefit of the doubt to Joss Whedon at all.  I think his views on women are a really fucked up version of enlightened.

Comment #133: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/15  at  09:40 PM

Obama hates gay people and wants to assassinate Americans!  If you don’t think so, you’re part of the problem!  Heighten the contradictions!  Bad as Bush!

He doesn’t hate gay people.  He just doesn’t give a shit about when—or if—they ever get to exercise their civil rights.

He panders to the right, desperate to prove he’s not the liberalest President ever, when what the nation truly and desperately needs are leftist solutions.  The Right’s have obviously failed.

But he wants a second term, and he thinks kicking the left under the bus is the way to do it.  Never mind that the left came out and worked the vote for him.  Never mind the promises he made.  Maybe in his second term he’ll get around to it…

Appealing DADT is just 12th dimensional chess, after all.  Never mind that it’s directly advocating for bigotry and discrimination.

Comment #134: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/15  at  10:43 PM

they are in fact appealing the decision on DADT and fighting to keep it alive.

Much better to let the right criticize the end of DADT as a mere act of judicial activism, that will be upheld by the 9th Circuit and overturned by the Supreme Court. Or did Roberts, Scalia, Alito. and Thomas retire when I wasn’t looking? How sure are we that Tony Kennedy will vote on the right side? He held in Lawrence that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional because they “further[s] no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” But consider that just a few sentences earlier, Kennedy referred to consenting adults practicing a “homosexual lifestyle.” It all depends on how much deference Kennedy thinks the military deserves here.

But why play this game of handicapping the Supreme Court? Why not just let Congress repeal DADT before Christmas?

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.

Comment #135: Hector B.  on  10/16  at  01:36 AM

One thing that’s becoming pretty clear here, is what this is all about, or at least how the lines are drawn. For many of us, and I really don’t mean this as an insult as I think there’s positive connotations of it as well…

The ends justify the means.

The ends, that is, ending DADT, is justification for not following the job description of the executive, that is, to enforce the laws that are passed by congress. Now, do Republicans do this? Of course not. But just because they are lowlife scum…you know..

At the end of the day, I think there’s an argument that forcing this through congress in the long-term will result in a better result than forcing it through the courts. I think it’s a valid argument. What pisses me off is that I think Obama needs to do more to vocalize this. Someone mentioned above putting the pressure on Susan Collins. I agree. I think that Obama should appear at a protest outside a fundraiser or something Direct pressure, something that will cause a splash.

And that’s where I have a problem with Obama, and I suspect many others do. He won’t make a splash. Now’s the time…it’s more than a splash that’s needed. It’s a tsunami. He needs to get on TV, and explain that the Republicans want YOU to make nothing and be slaves to their “elite” interests, that the religious right are a bunch of hypocrites and “Christian Morals” are a sham. that opposition to REAL health care reform is basically murder. That the financial system is a joke, a sham, a ponzi scheme, and needs to be cut down in size. Massively.

And yes, that congress needs to repeal DADT immediately, and any politician who opposes it is a homophobe who has proven him/herself entirely unfit for office, and thusly should resign.

Comment #136: Karmakin  on  10/16  at  02:08 AM

I’ve finally decided to stop defending Obama to fellow liberals, which up until yesterday I did passionately, but the man whom I worked tirelessly for back in Chicago when he was a longshot Senate candidate has finally lost me.
Comment 8—typist

Last time around DADT was my first disappointment of the Obama administration. Not that I approoved of his performance up to that point (March 2010, if memory serves), but DADT was the first thing he punted that I thought he might actually attempt to acccomplish.

I’m surprised that some readers of this blog think that Obama’s poor handling of DADT repeal is the most shameful thing he’s done or the final straw, etc. He’s continued all the worst of Bush’s attacks on our civil liberties, expanded the wars, expanded the use of presidential power and secrecy. We are still killing people around the world daily and even assassinating our own citizens
Comment 40—Chester

Yeah, but I expected all that stuff. I didn’t even get the hard-boiled egg.

Maybe it makes me a silly hand-wringer, but I’m really not that comfortable with the idea of the DOJ not appealing a decision when they actually want the judge to rule against them. Among other things, imagine what conservatives would do with that precedent.
Comment 108—Brien Jackson

State rather than Federal, but I seem to recall Roy Romer was 110% opposed to the law at issue in Romer v. Evans.

Comment #137: Hershele Ostropoler  on  10/16  at  03:32 AM

Atheist, A Feminist @135: I’d just like to correct the record - I do not agree with FlipYrWhig’s comment about “lifestyle choice,” but with his/her post just before that on the politics of DADT repeal.  I think Amanda may have banned a troll, renumbering our comments (hence the confusion).

Comment #138: BABH  on  10/16  at  04:13 AM

I sort of get how this appeal is maybe part of the endgame of forcing Congress to repeal DADT. OK, I’ll give him that. But. I don’t see the president saying “It’s not in my power to end this and do it right and permanently. By not acting, Congress is forcing GLBT soldiers out of the military and forcing DOJ to appeal the policy that everyone wants to see end.” So, yeah, when I see him aggressively put Congress on the spot and push them to do this, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Until that happens, I can only assume the pres doesn’t give a shit about GLBT rights and is willing to throw the community under the bus in the name of political expediency.

And you can’t have members of your administration go out there and speak out against the bullying of GLBT youth while at the same time you continue to perpetuate a policy that feeds the bigoted representation of homosexuality as something shameful and disruptive that should be kept secret! Does he not see the connection? That institutional discrimination and bullying feed off each other and into the ugly culture of bigotry?

Comment #139: elena  on  10/16  at  04:38 AM

Why not just let Congress repeal DADT before Christmas?

Because I wouldn’t trust this Congress to pass a bill expressing a sense of the House that puppies are sweet, love makes life better, and chocolate tastes good, let alone a bill that some of them might have trouble with back in their districts.

And I don’t trust this President’s ability to lead his party out of a burning building and into the annual convention of the Free Beer and Infinite Money Association, let alone in a direction where some conservative somewhere might murmur a word of criticism in his direction, leading him to flee shrieking into the night about rancor and divisiveness.

And any progressive person who does trust this Congress or this President is, at this date, a complete and total fucking moron.

That’s why.

Comment #140: Alkaloid  on  10/16  at  05:21 AM

“It’s not in my power to end this and do it right and permanently. By not acting, Congress is forcing GLBT soldiers out of the military and forcing DOJ to appeal the policy that everyone wants to see end.” So, yeah, when I see him aggressively put Congress on the spot and push them to do this, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Until that happens, I can only assume the pres doesn’t give a shit about GLBT rights and is willing to throw the community under the bus in the name of political expediency.

This.

Same with health care.  The man is eloquent.  There is no fucking reason he can’t be out there giving weekly fireside chats pushing hard both the facts and a progressive policy.

Well, there’s one reason:  he’s not interested in furthering those policies.  He thinks that foot-dragging, even on issues that show majority support, somehow makes him look more “bipartisan” so he can peel off Republican votes and get a second term.

Nevermind Republicans are still held in worse regard and defeating them by exposing them and ffighting for reform is a winner on its own.

He really deserves to be tossed on his ass.  He won’t be b/c the alternitive is fascism.

I really would like a Democratic option as opposed to Republican and Fucking Nuts.

Comment #141: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/16  at  10:57 AM

Caren - Primary challenge in 2012. A big divisive fight would make this an awful option, handing the White House back to the pubbies, but maybe we can do it without a big divisive fight. The ass beating we’re about to take might convince enough of the Homophobe in Chief’s supporters that sometimes you DO have to change horses in midstream, if you’re already drowning because the horse you’re on can’t keep his feet.

Comment #142: Alkaloid  on  10/16  at  01:37 PM

A big divisive fight would make this an awful option, handing the White House back to the pubbies, but maybe we can do it without a big divisive fight.

I repeat, it’s not for no reason the suit was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. Maybe they didn’t know it would hurt the future President Obama, but the suit would have been certain to hurt the Democrats. They know how to press the buttons of the progressives, sending them into a self-devouring frenzy. And, to paraphrase alkaloid, any progressive person who lets the wingnuts goad him into a masochistic rage is, at this date, a complete and total fucking moron.

Comment #143: Hector B.  on  10/16  at  02:45 PM

Caren - Primary challenge in 2012. A big divisive fight would make this an awful option, handing the White House back to the pubbies, but maybe we can do it without a big divisive fight. The ass beating we’re about to take might convince enough of the Homophobe in Chief’s supporters that sometimes you DO have to change horses in midstream, if you’re already drowning because the horse you’re on can’t keep his feet.

History suggests that the end result of that would be the nominee of the non-incumbent party becoming the 45th POTUS in January 2013. See 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1992.

Only one president in history won the general election after defeating an incumbent president within his own party - James Buchanan, in 1856. And then the country split in half and entered the bloodiest war in American history.

The only Democrat who could even mount a serious primary challenge to President Obama is the current Secretary of State, and I still don’t think the end result of that would be a good thing. In all likelihood, Clinton loses the primary, but Obama is completely weakened heading into the general election, which he then probably loses. And I believe that even if Clinton did beat himin a primary, she would also lose the general election, because the base would be fractured regardless of who wins the primary.

The best thing that could have happened for Democrats in 2004 would have been for a high-profile Republican to challenge Bush 43 for the GOP nomination. Considering how close the general election ultimately wound up being, I have little doubt that Dubya would have been toast had he not had the full support of his base from day one in the 2004 campaign.

On January 20, 2013, one of two things is almost certain to happen: either Barack Obama will be inaugurated into his second term, or a Republican will be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.

Good or bad, 2016 will be the first opportunity Democrats have to put a different candidate into the White House.

Comment #144: DTGslu2K  on  10/16  at  04:13 PM

repeat, it’s not for no reason the suit was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans.

Yeah! What kind of crazed game would a group that believes in gay rights from an economically conservative point of view be playing, where they file lawsuits trying to advance gay rights!

THEY’RE UP TO SOMETHING.

Maybe they didn’t know it would hurt the future President Obama

Who at the time of the filing was a nearly unknown state legislator in Illinois. So if by “maybe” you mean “SO obviously that it hurts my brain cells to even consider the possibility of the counterfactual”, then yes.

but the suit would have been certain to hurt the Democrats.

Because nothing knocks Democrats back on their asses more than filing lawsuits compatible with the policies the Democrats support.

Tomorrow I’m really going to go piss off some Democrats, I’m going to go down and sue local companies for violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I’ll see if I can get the LCR to join me on an amici brief on some excuse or other.

To you it will just look like another random suit, but we’ll know that we’re secretly plotting to destroy the Presidency of Alistair McJohnson (D), 2020-2028.

Comment #145: Alkaloid  on  10/16  at  04:15 PM

Chet at #148, yet another person who doesn’t understand the concepts of “leadership” and “bully pulpit,” I see.

Comment #146: elena  on  10/16  at  04:44 PM

Do any of you actually know anything about the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is outside the sphere of the courts or the constitution I might add.

Because what I see here is that once you repeal DADT, you fall right back to the outright ban of homosexuals in the military. Before DADT can be repealed there needs to be a stopgap measure put in place to protect homosexuals from being dishonorably discharged from the military. And I know for a fact that there are military commanders waiting for DADT to be repealed to get rid of men that they don’t want in the military because I have a friend in the Marine Corps who dreads the day that he gets discharged because he refuses to lie under oath, and he will be asked whether he is homosexual or not when they repeal DADT. Now me and my friend could be wrong, maybe there is a change to the UCMJ and military policy that is going to be forced with the repeal of DADT, but if there is nobody has told him or I.

But do you get where my concern is? DADT was put in place to protect homosexuals from the outright ban in place on them. The way military law works is that once DADT gets repealed, it falls back to previous policy until new policy is put into place and I believe that military policy goes to the Joint Chiefs. The Army and Air Force will most likely support allowing homosexuals in the military, but expect a fight from the Navy and the Marine Corps. And once homosexuals are allowed in the military, expect years of hazings and mistreatment and men refusing to share a berth with an openly gay man (which raises further problems. Would they seperate gay men into their own berths the way they put women into their own berths on a Naval vessel? Is it a sailors right to not have to share a shower with someone who might or might not be sexually attracted to them much the way women don’t have to share showers with men? etc. etc. etc. Theres going to be a lot of questions and backlash both inside and outside of the active duty military)

Comment #147: Truthfuldemise  on  10/16  at  06:29 PM

Yep.

You repeal DADT and 1982’s DOD Directive 1332.14 goes back into effect which effectively bans homosexuals from the military and allows open gays to be immediately discharged no questions asked AND allows the military to start doing regular searches to find closeted gays and bisexuals.

This on top of Sodomy being grounds for discharge from the military all the way back to the Revolutionary War.

And again, that pesky UCMJ that Truman signed in 1950 which also bans homosexuals and is not subject to the constitution, hence no freedom of speech or freedom of the press in the US Military.

To sum up my previous comment (and this time with some research thrown in to back it up) you repeal DADT and every man or woman who admits to being gay gets a discharge, and the base commanders can go looking for the ones who aren’t openly gay.

Comment #148: Truthfuldemise  on  10/16  at  06:47 PM

The UCMJ is outside the sphere of the Constitution? The “highest law in the land” that every member of the armed forces swears an oath to uphold? That’s some novel legal theory ya got there
Truthfuldemise.

Comment #149: typist  on  10/16  at  07:25 PM

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a series of statutes passed by Congress which can thus change it as they can change any statute. In Truman’s day, sodomy was a crime in every state of the union, and remained so until Illinois repealed their statute in 1961.

Members of the military can exercise their constitutional rights only as far as is consistent with good order and discipline and national security. Draftees could make an argument that it was unfair of government to take any of their rights away, but this is an all-volunteer military. The military will gladly discharge anyone who wants to recover the full extent of their constitutional rights.

Comment #150: Hector B.  on  10/16  at  07:49 PM

Do any of you actually know anything about the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is outside the sphere of the courts or the constitution I might add.

Yes, I do, both as a law student and as someone who has been deeply involved in this issue for years.  The UCMJ, as pointed out above, is a body of law passed by Congress, just like any other set of laws.  It is absolutely subject to review by the courts, and it is absolutely subject to Constitutional controls.

For example, the UCMJ includes a prohibition on sodomy.  In the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, it is now unconstitutional to prosecute servicemembers for private, consensual sodomy that has no effect on good order and discipline.  Leaders who sleep with their subordinates can still be prosecuted for sodomy.  See U.S. v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

Striking down DADT returns us to the situation in 1993, where the President had complete authority to set policy with respect to gay and lesbian servicemembers.  If you’ll recall, it was President Clinton’s attempt to change the policy and integrate the military that led to the reactionary passage of DADT.

once homosexuals are allowed in the military, expect years of hazings and mistreatment and men refusing to share a berth with an openly gay man ... [parade of horribles] ...

Unlikely in the extreme.  Military folks are very, very good at doing what they’re told (even to the point of charging into machine gun fire).  Just look to our cousins in England, Canada, Israel, etc.  Integrating the military is straightforward, and will not lead to significant problems.

Comment #151: BABH  on  10/17  at  02:09 AM

And once homosexuals are allowed in the military, expect years of hazings and mistreatment and men refusing to share a berth with an openly gay man (which raises further problems.  Would they seperate gay men into their own berths the way they put women into their own berths on a Naval vessel? Is it a sailors right to not have to share a shower with someone who might or might not be sexually attracted to them much the way women don’t have to share showers with men? etc. etc. etc. Theres going to be a lot of questions and backlash both inside and outside of the active duty military)

And again I ask my previously unanswered question: since this demonstrably did NOT happen in the other militaries when they tossed their gay bans, and no special accomodations had to made, what is so special about the precious, sensitive, wimps wearing US military uniforms?

Clearly the optimum counter to American military force isn’t nukes or IEDs.  It’s dressing gay folks in uniforms and having them approach US personnel.  Based on comments such as the above, some people seem to assume they will piss themselves in fear and run away screaming like little girls.

Comment #152: KeithM  on  10/17  at  03:57 AM

The UCMJ is outside the sphere of the Constitution? The “highest law in the land” that every member of the armed forces swears an oath to uphold? That’s some novel legal theory ya got there

I’m a bit confused by that statement as well. Perhaps it was phrased wrong. I don’t know how exactly the UCMJ relates to the U.S. Constitution, but I know that active duty military personnel do forfeit some of their constitutional rights once they’re in, namely First Amendment rights.

Members of the military are explicitly forbidden from publicly criticizing the U.S. President, who is their Commander in Chief. The rule also applies to the VP, all members of Congress, the Sec. of Defense, the Sec. of Transportation, and the governor of every state. Not only are they prohibited from openly criticizing those officials while in service, they are also prohibited from doing so following retirement, if they are drawing a military pension.

Comment #153: DTGslu2K  on  10/17  at  06:46 AM

The UCMJ isn’t outside the Constitution. Rather, it has been held by a long line of court cases that people in the military, while not giving up all of their rights, do not have the exact same set of Constitutional rights that a civilian has. The exigencies and nature of military service itself make it impractical, for example, for soldiers to have full First Amendment rights. Like Murrow says, soldiers aren’t allowed to make certain types of statements, as just one example of the differences.

Comment #154: Alkaloid  on  10/17  at  08:50 AM

And yes, complete DADT repeal would leave the policy in the hands of the military, subject to their civilian control by the President. If Obama loses his appeal and DADT falls apart, then he will need to hastily issue an executive order to set a new policy if he does not want the policy to fall back to what it was in 1983.

Bear in mind though that the appeals court may uphold part of the repeal but not other parts. DADT has multiple components. That could get complicated for what would happen, and I don’t know enough to handicap it.

Comment #155: Alkaloid  on  10/17  at  08:53 AM

What is this crap about how the UCMJ is separate from the Constitution? Some conservative pundit must have made that his talking point.

Also, hazing and attacks?  Then you toss the attackers out. At some point the military has to start acting as if the trust reposed in them is justified. If they can’t handle gays, toss them out. That goes all up the chain.  It’s so funny how men just get absolutely paralyzed and forget everything they were taught, not matter how basic——“Obey lawful orders!”——-when it comes to stuff that doesn’t go their way.

Comment #156: ginmar  on  10/17  at  01:01 PM

My opinion:

1)  Obama is a religiously-motivated “moderate liberal”-style bigot towards LGBT people.  The same kind that MLK Jr spoke eloquently about in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail.  The LGBT MLK Jr might say something like this:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the LGBT’s great stumbling block in their stride toward freedom is not the Religious Right Crusader or the Gay Basher, but the liberal moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action…

2)  There is a reason the military brass wants to keep DADT beyond any of their own personal bigotry: the US armed forces have become radically Christianized over the last 10 years and there are likely many personnel who will consider the repeal of DADT as an attack on their religion.  Had the military bothered to suppress the growing religious intolerance at the training schools they wouldn’t find themselves in the thick of it now, where the majority of the US civilian population is ready for real justice but enough of the troops want to hang onto their piece of Bigot Pie that it is now an actual staffing problem.

Comment #157: boring old dude  on  10/17  at  01:51 PM

Obama is a religiously-motivated “moderate liberal”-style bigot towards LGBT people.

I think it’s unfair to call him a “bigot,” but as to Obama’s temperament as a “moderate liberal” of the sort that MLK, Jr. excoriated, you are pretty much correct. But that is really the appeal of mainstream/moderate “liberalism”—the idea that if we all get together and work out a nice process, we will be able to talk out our differences and come to a mutually beneficial outcome.

And it is this defining characteristic that a lot of people who support people like Obama are actually concerned about: their main objection to republicans is not their policies but that they don’t seem nice enough. And when republicans do throw a tantrum over the democrats’ legislative determination, the first instinct of these moderate liberals is to ask themselves, “gee, what did we do to get them so upset ? If only we were nicer to them and were able to set up a mutually acceptable process to work out our differences, all these problems would be solved.”

Comment #158: Tyro  on  10/17  at  02:22 PM

“I think that LBJ did engage in some form of intimidation that involved his penis and a toilet on at least one occassion but I’m not sure of the exact details.”

Lee @124—For some reason, your description makes it sound so much worse.

Comment #159: alysia  on  10/17  at  09:01 PM

alysia at 165: Well, what I think LBJ did was have a meeting where he would be sitting on the toilet with his pants down and the bathroom door open. He was a rather vulgar, in the sense of physically disgusting and rude, person. This wouldn’t go over so well today but it was more tolerated during his presidency.

  Re Obama and the bully pulpit: Obama definitely could have explained what he was doing a lot better and placed more emphasis on educating the public on the importance of HCR and other policies. I don’t know how effective they would be. When FDR did his fire-side chats, people had much fewer entertainment options and more stations would have felt compelled to broadcast them because President speaking, important. With cable, the internet, dvds, and video games, people have more entertainment options and less reasons to listen to the President and the media less reason to cover Presidential speeches, which could be regulated to the news/political channels.

Comment #160: Lee  on  10/17  at  09:08 PM

Chet, you’re being deliberately obtuse. The POTUS has several ways of influencing Congress to push policy/legislature and get votes. Does the POTUS always get his way? Of course not. I made it clear that I was talking about Obama’s (lack of) leadership on the issue - i.e. using the bully pulpit to call on Congress to repeal DADT. He said he was a “fierce advocate” for gay rights. The bare minimum of what he can do here is just that - advocate. If he was doing that while appealing the court decision on DADT, I would find it easier to believe that the DOJ is appealing only because it has to. But since he’s shown zero leadership on the issue and has failed to lay out the case for Congressional repeal to the people and has failed to put Congressional feet to the fire, I can only assume that he’s either a coward or doesn’t really care about GLBT rights, or both. And that’s the last I’m going to say to you on this.

Comment #161: elena  on  10/17  at  09:25 PM

Wow, Chet, I’m sure you could get more intellectually dishonest if you tried, but should you?

#162: that’s an awfully, awfully good point, and it’s worth stressing. OF course, this happened under Bush II, and Obama knows that too many morons think he’s a secret Mooslim anyway, so he’s got to be more Xtian than thou.

Comment #162: ginmar  on  10/18  at  12:22 PM

How did all those bills pass the House, then, if not for Obama’s leadership?

That would be Nancy Pelosi.

Comment #163: boring old dude  on  10/18  at  03:19 PM

@Chet

Nancy Pelosi acted as Speaker, and they don’t have one of those in the Senate.  Specific enough for you?

Comment #164: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/18  at  07:52 PM

@Chet

How isn’t is specific?  It is a very specific answer to your dumbass question. 

I know you are trying to prove some larger point about Obama, which I am totally not going to argue with you since I made my thoughts clear earlier in the thread (without the phrases you apparently find so objectionable).  The problem is that you are attempting to prove this point, you ask absolutely ridiculous questions.  I answered one and it was incredibly specific.  Nancy Pelosi cannot do what she did in the House in the Senate because she is not the member of the Senate, the Senate is different than the House (in numerous ways), and her leadership role doesn’t exist in the Senate (even if, somehow, she could theoretically hold both). 

You asked why the bills passed the House if not for Obama.  The answer to that is Nancy Pelosi.  Then you asked why Nancy Pelosi couldn’t do the same thing she did in the House in the Senate.  I answered, specifically.  If you meant to ask why Obama or Reid couldn’t do in the Senate what Pelosi did in the House (in other words, a relevant and less stupid question), then maybe you should just ask that question. 

There are (oversimplified) two answers: 1) different procedures, set-up, etc. and 2) they could have, but they didn’t.  It is a combination of both that you are hearing from people on this thread who have far more knowledge about the structure of our government than the idiot who asked the question in #171.

Comment #165: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/18  at  09:12 PM

On the subject of DADT, the only thing Obama could have done was get Lincoln and Pryor to vote for closure. There would still be two missing votes and nothing would convince any Republican Senator, not even the moderate trio, to vote for closure on DADT repeal.

Comment #166: Lee  on  10/18  at  10:36 PM

@Chet

I told you, I am not arguing that with you.  My thoughts on what Obama should have done are already in this thread.  If you can’t be bothered to read and respond to those, then I am not going to bother to copy/paste or retype them.

I wasn’t saying that your overarching question was stupid, just the follow-up ones where you got weirdly off-track. 

Well, one way in that it’s not specific is that I asked you what Pelosi did, and you told me what Pelosi is. So, it’s not specific in that it’s a very specific answer to a question that I didn’t ask.

I told you Pelosi’s JOB, which is what she does.  If you thought specific meant holding your hand through elementary civics, then fine, I wasn’t specific.  Not really proving you should be responded to seriously though.

Let me repeat this, though:

I know you are trying to prove some larger point about Obama, which I am totally not going to argue with you since I made my thoughts clear earlier in the thread (without the phrases you apparently find so objectionable).  The problem is that you are attempting to prove this point, you ask absolutely ridiculous questions.

In defending your ridiculous questions, you sound even more ridiculous.

Comment #167: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/18  at  10:55 PM

@Chet

What I’m asking for is whether or not, when you say that “Obama didn’t do enough”, you have any idea of what he should have done but didn’t. Not what should have happened but didn’t, which is what you’ve already posted.

Are you sure you read my posts?  I said specific things that I think Obama should have done and tactics that his administration as a whole should have adopted.  I actually said flat out that, while I think the current political situation would be different had he done that, that I wouldn’t necessarily care if nothing different had happened.  If you are going to treat my comments as if they were no different from the comments you started responding to, then I know you aren’t being serious about this.

You’ve simply observed that legislation did move through the house, and ascribed that success to Nancy Pelosi even though you have apparently no idea why.

No, I ascribed that success to Nancy Pelosi because it was her success.  I actually remember the past couple of years and was paying attention.  Again, if being specific requires me to write a book of basic political and historical facts because it is unreasonable to expect you to have any knowledge at all, then I admit (again) that I wasn’t specific. 

We all know your reading comprehension is poor (XKCD, The Social Network, not being able to follow “I will not repeat myself” through a single comment to place “Let me repeat this, though” in context, etc.), but… this is just mediocre and sad.  You learned to count in civics.  I think that is all we need to know about how seriously to take your arguments.

(Just to be completely clear, because I am always shocked at how obtuse you either are or pretend to be: I am not arguing what you want me to be arguing.  I will not argue what you want me to argue.  That doesn’t mean that I will not argue with you since you are trolling.  I am having fun with you, but you are really wasting your time going back to asking me to answer a question that I have been very clear I will not answer unless you bother to actually stop trolling long enough to respond to my earlier arguments.)

Comment #168: Atheist, A Feminist  on  10/19  at  01:06 AM

Chet, I’m impressed that you have learned to count to 60 in your civics class. I’m very disappointed that you have not learned anything about Congressional procedure, however. I know the Bush years have been painful, but not so painful as to completely suppress the memory of all kinds of fucked up legislation sailing through Congress without the magic number 60 you’re so obsessed about!

I’m sure anyone with such a deep knowledge of civics is aware that the magic number has to do with preventing a filibuster, or surely you would have mentioned it. Bush & Co were pretty successful at stopping the dems from filibustering by going to the press at every opportunity to whine about it or to accuse dems of jeopardizing national security, or threaten the “nuclear option,” or what have you.

We’ve all seen that most Congressional democrats are push-overs and cowards, so the strategy that worked on them might not work now. But when the Congress is not acting on a piece of legislature favored by the POTUS, it’s part of the POTUS job to alert the public to the issue and to hold Congressional feet to the fire (not literally - I know I have to tell you that!) and make sure that the voting public is aware that their elected representatives in Congress are obstructing popular policies. And, why, I distinctly remember that Obama did just that back in July, when Congress was obstructing the unemployment benefits extension! And, hey, it passed! Was it down to Obama? Who knows, but at least he did his job. He’s not doing it now.

But feel free to continue successfully counting to 60. It’s entertaining!

Comment #169: elena  on  10/19  at  02:19 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.