Why isn't anyone offended that Obama is repealing "don't ask don't tell" /first/?

[LoZoccolo]

Emphasis on "first". Everybody knows that a new president does their most risky things first, so that everybody forgets them by the time the election rolls around in four years. Bill Clinton lifted the ban on gays in the military as one of his first things for this reason.

I'm not saying I disagree with Obama on this one, or trying to cause poutrage, because I'm one of the most anti-poutrage people here. But I'm wondering about this discrepancy: if Rick Warren caused such an uproar, why not this? Wouldn't you think that Obama is basically saying that this thing is so controversial that he hopes people forget about it by the next election? Wouldn't that make you even more angry? And that's a actual policy decision, not an indirect association such as Obama's embracing of Warren on some issues but not others. So why get mad about that and not this?

[jobycom]

1. Why do witches burn?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P31ckdumtI

[HardWorkingDem]

2. A true story with vulgar language....not meant to offend...(adult language involved)...

Now, I don't mean to offend people with this story, but I think it shows an insight into the primitive male mind.

I was in the army during the Clinton win (for me, it was great - oddly, the soldiers didn't really give a shit and they seemed more interested in the usual young person things - getting drunk and getting laid - it was the officers who were really bummed).

Anyway, we were in the day room awaiting the call for the daily physical exercise routine and CNN was on. Back then, if people recall, CNN Headline News was anchored by this very buxom, attractive brunette woman. I can't recall her name, but she was pretty well known. If I remember, she resigned from CNN to become a deputy in Georgia.

So the top story that day was on Clinton and gays being allowed to serve in the military. The video feed goes to Clinton and this male soldier yells out something like, "I don't want some dude in the god damned shower staring at my god damned cock!"

Then, the feed goes back to the female reporter and this same soldier declares, "God! I'd love to see her tits."


When he said that I just looked at him and wondered if he even perceived any of the hypocrisy in his words.


Like I first typed, I don't mean to offend with this story and hope people don't take it as offensive.

Frankly, I don't care what consensual adults do, but what I do care about is I wish we lived in a nation where none of the -isms mattered anymore.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Overcompensating homophobe if I've ever heard of one.

I don't ascribe to the "all homophobes are gay themselves" bit that many do, but screaming those two things in succession says to me "I'm not gay! Look at how manly I am! See how much I dig chicks!? Really, I'm not gay!"

[MarjorieG]

16. Enough. This is a GOP wedge issue and people differ on marriage. Wrong, stupid, to think homophobic.

No proof on that, but plenty he favors equal rights and respect for differences. Civil unions are largely favored in this country on fairness. Let's have a union on every block first, the rest will come, and as soon as clergy stops demonizing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. My comments are refined to these quotes:

So the top story that day was on Clinton and gays being allowed to serve in the military. The video feed goes to Clinton and this male soldier yells out something like, "I don't want some dude in the god damned shower staring at my god damned cock!"

Then, the feed goes back to the female reporter and this same soldier declares, "God! I'd love to see her tits."


I think your post might be misplaced, but I figured I would clarify anyway.

[HardWorkingDem]

38. Seriously, I hope you didn't take offense at that memory..

It's just it was so bizarre hearing this guy state the one thing and then a few seconds later say the next thing. And I just brought it up because the OP brought up the "don't ask, don't tell."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. Not at all.

I quite appreciated it. It was a vivid example of what we're working against here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Had A Buddy Who Was Bisexual

He said some of the best same sex he had was in the Air Force

[dsc]

3. because some of us actually read these quaint things called newspapers

and the polls contained within which show that a clear majority favor ending DADT.

[Solon]

4. Don't mind the OP, his mind is still stuck in 1993...

not much goes on in that yawning chasm that's within his skull.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Yeah but does that mean they want to end it in the sense that...

...you should be able to ask and tell, or that they want to ban gay and lesbian servicepeople from the military entirely? There are two ways of looking at "ending" it.

[dsc]

27. the 70% figure feels that gays and lesbians should serve openly.

[pnwmom]

5. Maybe he's doing it first because it's so long overdue that even

the Rethugs will be fine with it.

[harun]

19. I think you are right. No one cares at this point.

[elleng]

6. 'EVERYONE KNOWS?'

The statement is incorrect, and the assumption is incorrect.

If he's actually doing it, its because it is EASILY DONE, nothing more than that.

[Darpaek]

7. Who says this is gonna be his first act, anyways?

[nemo137]

8. Isn't it one of the fw things he can do w/o congress?

And, to echo another poster, is it first, or in the first batch?

[elleng]

43. YES, and WHO KNOWS?

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Not true.

The most risky stuff usually happens after the first 100 days. The first 100 days go to urgent national needs and campaign promises, because you need that push and honeymoon period to get those things done ASAP. The risky stuff typically comes right after that.

[Clio the Leo]

11. I think you're trying cause a poutrage. :-)

Are his efforts to improve the economy and close Guantanamo ALSO such controversial matters that's he doing them early in hopes people will forget?

No, I suspect he's doing them early because they are EXTREMLY IMPORTANT!!!

And why, if he doesn't want to make a big deal about it, have Robert Gibbs contact the press to tell them? Why not just DO it and let the press find out on their own?

[CTyankee]

23. These things are usually done with lots of care. You have to have your ducks in a row.

When you roll it out you do it with the strongest back up you've got: big military brass who agree with you coming on the talk shows on Sunday. You prep the media with backgrounders that cite facts w/regard to other countries that are successful in having openly gay members of their armed services. You cite studies that bolster your argument. You anticipate the questions, esp. the hostile ones. You line up Republicans who are in your camp.

It's naive to think that you can just throw something out there and hope for the best. Certainly, this issues deserves to be handled in the best way possible and displaying the greatest support there is for it among the experts and the rank and file. It can be done and done well. Or it can fall victim to sloppy handling and fail for the worst of reasons: lack of careful planning.

[Uzybone]

13. Hahahaha

I didn't get what you were saying at first, but then it started to make sense. Hahahahahaha.

[Thrill]

14. Gibbs already said its not one of the first things he's going to do

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I Didn't Think He Was

The OP is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Why not just speak for yourself?

Why pretend to wonder about what others say and don't say. Be an adult and speak your mind directly, if there is anything there to speak, or the courage to do so in a direct manner. This is one of the most dishonest and baitish posts I have ever read on DU.

[jobycom]

18. Ah, but his superiority to everyone else is demonstrated by his keen use of the Socratic method

and by creating such intricately woven scenarios to demonstrate his subtle grasp of issues beyond what we plebians are likely to grasp on our own. Doncha' see? He is Mr. Rourke, and we are the mere mortals he pities yet struggles to educate.

We are blessed.

[PVnRT]

21. Sense - this post makes none

Why would people upset about bigot Rick Warren at the inauguration be upset that Obama is doing something on the human rights checklist? That makes no sense at all. That's like saying they should be angry that he's signing a bill legalizing gay marriage.

[LoZoccolo]

22. I. SAID.

"EMPHASIS. ON. 'FIRST'."

[AZ Criminal JD]

31. He is not doing DADT "first"

If it comes it will be months from now.

[scheming daemons]

24. Why? Because most of us aren't LOOKING for reasons to be offended...

[WinkyDink]

25. It didn't get Clinton off on the best footing, IIRC.

[Creideiki]

28. Has there been another shift?

Or do you mean /first/ thing in 2010? Because the administration has said that they were putting off a decision on whether or not to push for repeal until then.

[Occam Bandage]

29. It's dumb as hell to do risky things first.

Both Clinton in 1992, and Bush in 2004, rung in those terms with risky overreaches. Both suffered several lost years, and the opposition gaining control of the House in the next election, as a result.

[ecstatic]

30. Wasn't there a huge attack thread saying that Obama wasn't

going to look at DADT until 2010? :shrug:

[LynneSin]

32. With the state of our economy, if Obama puts anything else first the world will be pissed

Hopefully once he gets this stiumulus package thru he can then re-evaluate other issues including DADT

[petronius]

33. I don't think the 'risky things first so they'll be forgotten' thing is true at all

It's certainly never crossed my mind. Quite the opposite - when someone does something right away I assume it's because they think it's important.

In a general sense, I think it's a bad idea to open with risky or controversial moves; you're more likely to set an adversarial tone that impairs your ability to get much done...

[Yukari Yakumo]

34. Easy. Visibility

Closing Gitmo will produce far more headlines than ending DADT will. Furthermore, He could end DADT shortly after announcing the shutting down of Gitmo and hardly anyone would notice.

The M$M largely didn't care much about Warren nor should they. The closing of Gitmo, OTOH, will be in headlines for weeks. So by your own measuring stick, the closing of Gitmo is a far more logical choice than dealing with DADT.

[Fran Kubelik]

35. Goodness gracious you are annoying.

You might claim to dislike "poutrage" but you sure as hell seem to love shit-stirring.
I found you mildly amusing when you mostly posted Oasis bullshit. Can't you go back to that?

[sundog]

36. correction:

I'm one of the most anti-poutrage people here

should read:

I'm one of the most pouty anti-poutrage people here

[Zuiderelle]

37. Correction...

It should read:

I'm the most pouty anti-poutrage person here

[crimsonblue]

39. seriously?

man, GDP has gone full-blown batshit crazy today.

[yardwork]

41. Why don't you get back to us if this actually happens.

[Critters2]

42. Transition team members have said he's doing this in 2010.

So, not "first".

[AllentownJake]

44. When someone does the right thing

I don't give a fuck about the timing.

[Iggo]

45. Why am I not offended that he's doing the right thing?

I'll have to get back to ya on that one.

:eyes:

[EmilyAnne]

46. I'm more offended that such a policy ever existed. How stupid.