President Obama has yet to endorse the bill that repeals Don't Ask Don't Tell

[ruggerson]

He has said, on the campaign trail, and today at his reception, that he would like to get rid of DADT and that he thinks it is bad for the military and the country.

He has said it is Congress' duty to repeal it.

There is a bill in congress to do just that. It is http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1283:">h.r.1283, sponsord by Rep Ellen Tauscher with 150 co sponsors.

President Obama has yet to officially endorse the bill.

He said today: "Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress."

But he didn't endorse the bill.

As the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network commented last week:

"Congress defers to the President on matters of national defense. It is time for the Obama Administration to either endorse HR 1283 or submit legislation to lift the ban and establish a nondiscrimination policy."


Please write to him at whitehouse.gov and urge him to do so.

-----------------------------------------------------

From today's press avail with the White House press secretary:

Q Following on that, the President has talked about repealing "don't ask, don't tell," and also the Defense of Marriage Act. So I'm wondering if you can tell me what specific steps has he taken to do this? What is his timeline for doing it? And also --

MR. GIBBS: I think we got a fairly similar question a minute ago, but I'll try to --

Q -- there's legislation apparently moving through House to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," I think it's H.R. 1283, and he hasn't endorsed it. Why not?

MR. GIBBS: I can certainly talk to legislative affairs about what that piece of legislation would do. As I said earlier, the President has been involved in, personally, meetings on this topic with stakeholders, including those at the Pentagon.

Q What about members of Congress?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know if he's met specifically with members of Congress on that. I know that -- I can try to get a list, I know that staff has worked here on the issue. It's a commitment that he intends to keep.

Q Can you talk a little bit more about the meetings that he's had, what --

MR. GIBBS: No.

[vixengrl]

1. Seems easy enough. Endorse the bill that ends it--anyone asks or tells--

well, now you know. I have a feeling this transition is being made more complicated than it really is.

[madfloridian]

2. Here' s the Fehrenbach clip from Rachel's show tonight....losing job and pension

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x330931

I felt very sad when I watched this tonight. I posted about it, but I deleted the post because praise for Obama on this issue seems to be the way things go here.

Fehrenbach has about 5 months, and he said change would not come fast enough for him.

Lt. Dan Choi gets his trial tomorrow.

I did not see this video as a positive, it did not give me warm feelings. I am not gay, but I can not imagine losing my pension if I were in that position.

Obama told him it was a "generational issue." Actually it is a religious right issue, and our party is scared to death of them. I am pretty old, and I disagree about the generational thing. The religious right succeeded in using this group as scapegoats, and there is no one in the administration speaking out strongly.

BTW Fehrenbach is gracious, he says he understands. But he is still losing his job and Choi still goes on trial tomorrow.

[O is 44]

4. He may not lose his job...

he said he has 5 to 6 more months. I'm banking on this being done by the end of the year. I enjoyed the interview tonight. I since way to much pessimism on this subject, unfortunately there have been many like Choi and Fehrenbach released over the past 8 years lets not forget them either.

[madfloridian]

6. He said there was not time to help him.

In the video.

It is right to be pessimistic....265 have been fired just since Obama became president. It appears to be escalating by the Pentagon and military.

[O is 44]

3. Today Obama stated he has asked Congress

to move on DADT and DOMA. He has continued to endorse the need to repeal both. What else is Congress waiting for? The President does not need to hold these guy's hands. I never knew the legislative branch was so inept that they must not only get their marching orders from the President but he must actually write the bill for them. This is beyond ridiculous; I thought Obama was done working in the senate on election day Nov. 4th. sheesh! But what do I expect we can't even get 59 Dems Sen. to work together on real healthcare reform.

[Clio the Leo]

5. I would imagine it has to do with section 5......

.... considering how adamant the admin is about insuring that LGBT partners have benefits equal to those of straight couples. Section 5 seems to defer to DOMA on the matter.

In short, I bet he's waiting for a better bill.

I seem to be all up in the civil rights metaphors tonight but, Rosa Parks wasn't the FIRST African American to refuse to give up her seat in Montgomery, but she was the BEST one.

Section 5: Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act').

[ruggerson]

8. Section 5 is needed, unfortunately

unless DOMA is repealed first. Which politically is not going to happen. Section 5 is included in order to ensure the bill doesn't conflict with current law.

[Clio the Leo]

11. And if he backs it ......

... then folks will complain that he's supporting a bill that doesn't guarantee benefits to same-sex partners. And we go round and round.

Is the presumption that DADT could be repealed before DOMA? (that's a serious question) Seems to me that it would be easier to do it the other way around. Which one is the top domino?

[ruggerson]

12. the bill cannot pass without section 5

Everyone in Washington is aware that DADT is going to be repealed well before anything is done about DOMA.

Section 5 is there deliberately to ensure the bill covers all the bases. No one is going to be upset about section 5, because the moment DOMA is repealed or declared unconstitutional (more likely), section 5 becomes moot.

[Clio the Leo]

15. And what about the notion that old Harry says he ....

"cant find any sponsors in the Senate." (I have this mental picture of Harry walking around, looking under desks and opening closet doors.)

Is there a risk of the President supporting a controversial bill that doesn't currently have enough support to see the light of day? (you know, that doesn't involve a wind turbine.)

Or is the presumption that the Senate is just waiting for the President to blink first?

[ruggerson]

17. It's not controversial. Obama admitted that today. 75% of the country supports it.

And this is not a game of chicken.

[Clio the Leo]

25. 75% of the American people .....

... not the Congress.

And, unfortunately, that number is not evenly spread across the representative districts. And that's the problem we always have. I can guarantee you that 75% of, oh say .... Heath Shuler's constituents dont think it should be repealed and probably would simply outlaw "the gay" if they had the chance.

It's been 8 years since the Matthew Shepard bill was introduced and still nothing. And that's something that there should be a piece of cake compared to these other issues.

But its not. Again, I fear we too often over simplify things.

[ruggerson]

29. but again, it's irrelevant to the simple act of endorsing a specific bill

which has already been introduced and has 150 co sponsors. You seem to be shooting darts in every direction coming up with reasons or excuses why he shouldn't endorse it.

He has reiterated he supports repealing DADT. HR 1283 does just that. It reeals DADT.

[Clio the Leo]

43. No, no, no, I'm honestly trying to understand it all.....

... and thanks for answering my questions.

I think though we're operating under two different assumptions when it comes to the President .... one that presumes his sincerity on the matter and one that doesn't. Which, of course, is our respective prerogatives.

[ruggerson]

47. It's not that I don't think he's sincere

I thought it was a good speech. His words are often quite moving.

So I don't have to repeat myself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8501923#8502624

[Clio the Leo]

52. Yeah, and I thought that post was a bit unfair....

.... to say that some are more worried about the President's approval ratings than about basic human rights was perhaps the kindest put down I read on the board all day. lol

We all recognize that our liberties are co-dependant one one another. That's why we are lobbying our representatives (even though we know we're wasting our time like I feel I am writing and calling my Red-state reps.) That's why we fight against prejudice and unfair treatment when we see it in our daily lives. Just like Dr. King said, "we cannot walk alone."

The President could be re-elected easily if he never moves on LGBT issues, we all know that. It's sad, but true. Equality doesn't pay the bills (for most Americans.) So the poll numbers are irrelevant on this matter.

But as I said, there are folks, perhaps not you, who are operating under the basic assumptions that the President is, was and always will be, full of shit on the matter. And no matter what he does, it will never be good enough.

There's a fine line between constructive criticism (which is necessary) and uninformed blathering .... something people on both sides of the matter are guilty of.

[ruggerson]

59. well I stand by that observation

because I see it every day here.

I will commend you for asking questions and actually listening to some of the people whose lives are actually affected by all of this.

[Clio the Leo]

73. And again I thank you for your answers....

... and otherwise pleasant debate.

A bit more of this around here and we might actually get something done. ;)

[boston bean]

55. Obama can make DADT irrelevant with a stroke of the pen. Then he can get his ass working on DOMA!

[vaberella]

61. You do realize you are very wrong, right? n/t

[MiniMe]

7. What else is in the bill?

Bills can be tricky things and tend not to be single issue bills. What if the bill repeals DADT but allows off-shore drilling? I'm not saying that is what the bill does, just using that as an example.

[ruggerson]

9. absolutely nothing

read the link in the OP. The bill is very straightforward. It repeals the 1993 policy and institutes a policy of non discrimination in the Armed Forces. That's all it does.

[LooseWilly]

10. There's a link to the bill in the OP.

Here, I'll copy it here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1283:

Of particular note

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Section 654 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note).

10 USC 654 is what is generally referred to as DADT. This section explicitly repeals that.

The bill is only a couple of pages long... scan through it. As of now, no offshore drilling amendments added. No reason not to endorse it (unless Obama is now going to say that he won't support repealing 10 USC 654... DADT... unless DOMA is repealed at the same time... which would put Obama in the position of being the one who is arguing for "all or nothing"...)

As a matter of fact... now that there's a bill ready to roll... there's no longer any reason not to suspend investigations/dismissals under 10 USC 654 (DADT) because there's no reason to believe that Congress won't act... as they now have a bill. Hence, suspension of investigations/dismissals would simply be a stop-gap while Congress goes through the details of lining up the votes for HR1283...

[babylonsister]

13. Has the bill come up for a vote?

No.

Good job, ruggs.

I want to know if you saw or heard what Obama said today.

Yea, he sucks.

[ruggerson]

14. It's already been introduced. Which is why his endorsement is much needed

as the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has said:

"Congress defers to the President on matters of national defense. It is time for the Obama Administration to either endorse HR 1283 or submit legislation to lift the ban and establish a nondiscrimination policy."

The SLDN is the organization that has been closely involved with actively pushing for repealing DADT since 1993.

http://www.sldn.org/

[babylonsister]

16. And I've read it's Congress' job. I couldn't tell you. People are passing the

buck, seems to me.

[ruggerson]

18. They've introduced the bill. If the Preisdent wants the policy repealed

what's the reason for not endorsing it? He's endorsed a whole host of other bills.

His support would help move the legislation.

[ruggerson]

45. Since you edited your post after I replied

I'll add that him "sucking" is not what this OP is about. It was a good speech. But it didn't do anything except make some people *feel* good. He can endorse this bill and do something concrete to move the legislation. I see nothing wrong with urging him to do just that.

[merh]

19. I believe you are mistaken

And finally, I want to say a word about "don't ask, don't tell." As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.)

Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8502281

[ruggerson]

21. I quoted that in the OP

He has not endorsed HR 1283. Let's hope he does in the next few days.

[merh]

22. Does it matter the bill number of the legislation that repeals DADT

or is it important that DADT be repealed?

[ruggerson]

23. uh, presidents endorse bills

they do it all the time. All he has to do is issue a statement that he supports the bill. Read the press avail transcript. Gibbs claims he doesn't even know what's in the bill!

[merh]

24. He supports repealing DADT -

it could be that bill is not the bill he will endorse.

Again, do you want DADT repealed or do you just want a bill endorsed?

You need to understand that the bill may not be what the Pentagon has been working on with members of congress.

[ruggerson]

28. Please educate us specifically

as to what the Pentagon has been working on with Congress.

Then read Tauscher's bill. You surely are aware she sat on the House Armed Services Committee and is about to become Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security?

[merh]

30. I don't know what bill the Pentagon has been working on with Congress.

It could well be that bill and if it is, he JUST ENDORSED IT - you say you quoted his speech, that is endorsing it.

Get it, he just publicly said he wants DADT repealed and that the Pentagon is working on a bill with Congress. Congress critters are bright enough to know that if the Pentagon is working on the bill with a congress person or persons, then the president supports the bill.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Pssst, there is nothing going on in Pentagon in regards to DADT repeal

Unless someone is working on this inside a closet in the E-ring, there is nada.

[merh]

32. And you know this how?

Do you have connections at the Pentagon? Do you know everything that is going on in the administration? Do you know all of the formal and informal meetings had involving members of the admin, the pentagon and congress?

Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Pentagon: No plans to end don't ask-don't tell

Pentagon: No plans to end don't ask-don't tell

May 19 01:12 PM US/Eastern
By LARA JAKES
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon says it has no plans to repeal the don't ask-don't tell policy for gay troops.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday that the military's top leaders have only had initial discussions with the White House about whether gay troops should be open about their sexuality.

Under current rules, openly gay troops can be discharged from the U.S. military.

Morrell said the White House has not asked for the 1993 policy to be scrapped.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D989EH1G0&show_article=1

And in this story, Morrell is forced to clarify his comments, yet other than restating Obama's lofty words on DADT repeal, Morrell adds nothing that contradicts his original statement that the Pentagon was not working on DADT repeal:

Pentagon Clarifies Comments on Repealing 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, who said Tuesday the military has no plans to repeal the military's 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy, issued a statement of clarification Friday at the behest of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/22/pentagon-clarifies-comments-repealing-dont-ask-policy/

[merh]

50. Here ya go, guess you want it repeated.

"I've asked the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal."

"President Obama has been clear in his direction to Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen (Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) that he is committed to repeal the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy," Morrell said in a statement released to a few members of the Pentagon press Thursday night and to the rest of the media Friday.

"He has also been clear that he is committed to do it in a way that is least disruptive to our troops, especially given that they have been simultaneously waging two wars for six years now," he said. "Although this will require changes to the law, the secretary and chairman are working to address the challenges associated with implementation of the president's commitment."

[ruggerson]

33. read the press avail - Gibbs says (or pretends) that he doesn't know what's in the bill

Obama did not endorse HR 1283.

For many people, this is not a game, this is their lives. The naysayers should start understanding that.

[merh]

34. What you don't get is - equality is not just for you - it is about

equality for everyone - you assume because I challenge you that I am a naysayer and am against your agenda and don't understand your needs and your rights.

That is a load of crap.

I challenge you because Obama said just tonight, in the presence of the GLBT community leaders "Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress."

That means he publicity has stated AGAIN that he wants DADT repealed. It doesn't matter the bill number that repeals it, it matters that it is repealed.

Gibbs doesn't have to say jackshit now that Obama has said it again, he is against DADT and has members of his administration and the Pentagon working on the way to do that with Congress.

[ruggerson]

42. He hasn't endorsed the bill

And why anyone would be upset by people urging him to do so is incomprehensible.

[merh]

54. What is incomprehensible is to think that he doesn't support

a repeal of DADT just because he hasn't said the words "I endorse HR 1283".

He has publicly stated: "I've asked the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal."

The word "endorse" means: to approve openly; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely. So, he has publicly and definitely supported the repeal of DADT and, should HR1283 make it out of committee and be called up for a vote, should it be the bill that the Pentagon can work with and supports, then it is the bill that Obama supports (and as far as I can tell, it is the only bill on the repeal of DADT that is out there for consideration).

As another has pointed out, HR1283 is not necessarily the best bill out there. Section 5 sure does get in the way of things, doesn't it. I can't believe you endorse HR 1283.

Section 5: Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act').

[ruggerson]

58. now you're grasping at straws

section 5 has to be included, as DOMA, unfortunately, is still the law of the land. Without it, the bill would not pass. I would think you would want Obama to endorse this bill, as you say you are in favor of repeal. This bill gets the statute repealed.

[merh]

60. I am in favor of DADT being repealed

I also know that you just don't adopt a bill cause it sounds good - there are more things involved with its passage than just a repeal of DADT.

And it is you that is now saying you want Obama to endorse a law that endorse DOMA. LOL, you are a laugh a minute.

[ruggerson]

62. your legal skills are sorely lacking

if you don't understand why section 5 is there. When DOMA is repealed, section 5 becomes moot. Until then, it has to be addressed in ANY repeal of DADT and a concurrent non discrimination policy. It's the current law. But you understand all this, thus I'm left to the conclusion that you're being disingenuous.

[merh]

68. You need to stop with the personal criticism and stick to the issues.

I know how legislation can be written where the DOMA language is not necessary.

Section 5: Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of the laws of the United States or the U.S. Constitution.

Why endorse legislation that acknowledges and validates DOMA when it is not necessary to do so?

[ruggerson]

69. you know perfectly well why

it's been explained ten times in this thread. You just validated my previous statement. See ya.

[merh]

71. And I just proved that the explanations were bullshit.

And your "see ya" proves you cannot disprove what I have written.

You always cope out once you are beaten. Well, you insult and then you run away.

:hi:

[LooseWilly]

35. If Obama had endorsed HR 1283 today, then we would've heard it in the speech.

If he just says "I endorse the repeal of DADT, and I am working with the Pentagon and several members of Congress..." then he hasn't endorsed HR 1283. To say otherwise is disingenuous at best... and imbecilic at worst.

If Obama says he is working with Congress and the Pentagon... but has no bill to show for it thus far... then why not endorse HR1283? Here... read it for yourself (at this point I'll presume you didn't click through the link in the OP... so I'll post it for you again: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1283).

The part I particularly like is this:

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Section 654 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note).

In case you weren't aware, 10 USC 654 is DADT. This bill explicitly repeals it. Go through the link... there's no pork... there's just a repeal of DADT and an insertion of "SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES."

What's not to support? Are you suggesting that this straightforward bill might not meet Obama's interests in catering to Pentagon pet interests on the subject? Is that what you are (tacitly) suggesting?

I am not looking to put words into your mouth (though, to be blunt... you might want to consult someone to put a set of more cogent words into your mouth for you)... so I'll ask you... go through the link and tell us what portions of HR 1283 you think that Obama should point to, in order to justify not supporting the bill, and instead holding out for whatever bill the Pentagon people he's talking to might prefer... and, ideally, it would be nice to hear why you think the section of HR1283 that you cite justifies not supporting the bill.

[merh]

49. You can cut out the condescending comments.

Why should anyone want to have a discussion with you if your posts are riddled with put downs and pathetic insults? After reading your post my first instinct is that you are best put on ignore. Is that why you write with such disdain, so that people will put you on ignore and then you can complain that no one pays attention to your concerns?

I'm aware of the statute number for DADT. I'm also aware that HR1283 is more than just Sec. 3 that you highlight. I don't know how the Pentagon or the Secretary of Defense view HR 1283, there may be something in the other six sections that they do not like.

HR 1283 hasn't made it out of committee or subcommittee, no vote has been had on it yet in either chamber. From what I gather, it is the only proposed legislation that repeals DADT.

It is a fact that Obama has publicly stated that the wants DADT repealed and repeated that desire last night. "I've asked the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal."

[IndianaGreen]

20. How much support did Obama give to Prop-8 opponents?

Right there is your answer!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. Maybe President Obama doesn't feel like he has to inject himself into EVERYTHING?

and certainly not all of the time? :shrug: There are anti-gay laws and constitutional amendments established in several states, some others of which were also enacted in 2008 (if memory serves). Was he responsible for having spoken out against those as well? Heck, if I remember correctly, some of President Obama's strong African-American constituency was actually blamed by some people for the outcome in California.

If the standard by which Presidents are judged now include whether or not they spoke out on a particular topic, law, etc. that's particularly important to somebody, then I don't see any President, past or future, EVER meeting it.

[vaberella]

64. He supported the opponents of prop 8 heavily, however. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

72. To be honest, I didn't really pay attention to President Obama in regards to Prop. "H8"

However, you wouldn't know about many of good things he's said or done on behalf of the GLBT community if you just read here (although I have to admit it's been a little better here these past few days). I have a little more confidence than some people here that he genuinely cares about GLBT individuals and wants to help them even though he has a different strategy for achieving the same goals. President Obama certainly seems to have the best "wide" stance (;-)) on GLBT issues of any modern Presidents (including even Bill Clinton- DADT I could understand, DOMA I simply couldn't). I just don't understand all of the "pile on"- it's almost as though President Obama is being held responsible for all of the wrongs, injustices, and indignities visited upon the GLBT community during the past decade- which, of course, he is expected to fix immediately.

[vaberella]

63. Huh..He gave them quite a bit of support. So I guess I can depend on him to repeal DADT.

Here's the link:

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid74685.asp

Plus he talked against prop 8 at his townhalls. So I don't know where you're going with this.

[HamdenRice]

75. He gave a lot of support. After the election it was revealed GLBT orgs didn't use it

That was part of the big reassessments of what went on when everyone calmed down and started looking at events.

Obama had provided a lot of written and taped support, and for reasons that still aren't clear, the anti-prop 8 campaign in California declined to use his messages.

[Starry Messenger]

83. Taped support?

That is a new one. The letter I knew about and its efficacy has been debated here. Taped is new though. The only tapes I know of were the ones where he stated that marriage is between a man and a woman which were used to great effect by Yes on 8 in robocalls. The reason the letter was not used was because it was felt that an actor reading a letter would not counteract the voice of Obama.

[krawhitham]

26. President Obama has yet to walk on water

[IndianaGreen]

27. He has yet to stand on the shore next to LGBTs

Yet he gives signing statements saying he will disregard this or that provision that Congress put on the law, while continuing to enforce DOMA and DADT.

[Dawgs]

38. Amazing!!

Why am I not surprised that even after bringing the GLBT community to the Whitehouse; to tell them that he is working to end DADT, DOMA, and getting equal benefits for all, many DUers are still saying that he does not stand with the GLBT community?

Is there an emoticon for :shaking my head:?

WTF!!

[donco6]

40. Yeah, that's almost just like.

Supporting a bill . . . walking on water. Sure, I see the similarity.

[trayfoot]

37. I've heard him endorse it in several venues.

[vaberella]

66. Really can you provide a link and proof. Because the OP says otherwise. n/t

[ruggerson]

70. He can't provide a link to something that has not yet occurred

[trayfoot]

76. No, I can't provide a link, as I heard him endorse a bill to repeal

DADT on TV in speeches and conferences. He did not mention any bills by number, but he did say he endorsed Congress to pass a bill repealing DADT! Obama is not "Bewitched" who by merely twitching his nose can make something happen or not happen! Sometimes, people on DU seem awfully impatient with a man who has only been in Office since January 20th!

[Canuckistanian]

39. Whatever happened to the words "I want to see a bill on my desk..."

You never hear that any more.

[xchrom]

41. recommend -- just come out and endorce it. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. Geez! Moving goalposts much?

First, some individuals and organizations were up in arms about him not speaking out ("not showing leadership") about GLBT rights (and DADT specifically) and now that he has, some individuals and organizations are now upset that he hasn't "endorsed" a specific bill. Is it essential that he endorses a specific bill or is it sufficient that he has agreed to sign a bill repealing DADT? Are people concerned that he's NOT going to not sign the first piece of legislation that makes it through Congress repealing DADT? If he says he's committed to signing legislation repealing DADT, then I think that it's safe to assume that he will- be it HR 1283 or another bill- in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, so why worry? :shrug: He's letting Congress do their thing, which is, of course, writing, debating, and, hopefully, passing a repeal of DADT, which he can (and has committed to) sign into law.

[scheming daemons]

46. Welcome to the OP's world....

Whatever actions Obama takes, the goalposts will move.

[ruggerson]

48. strawman

SDLN has been pushing for him to endorse this since it was introduced in March. Why on earth would anyone have a problem with urging him to support a bill which does exactly what he says he wants to do.

[incapsulated]

51. Because they care more about defending him than holding him to his word

Or your civil rights.

It's that simple.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

53. Well I guess there's nothing wrong with urging him.

I apologize for my overreaction. I thought that this was just another "Obama's not doing enough" threads or at least that's how it looked. Maybe not.

[ruggerson]

65. no problem

I actually posted about this a week or two ago and asked people to write the WH then and ask Obama to publicly and specifically endorse this legislation to give it the momentum it needs.

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. The bill was introduced in March

But its sponsor left the chamber, and it was picked up again only last week, by Patrick Murphy. I agree Obama should endorse it.

[deadlyaj]

78. You're the most thoughtful pro-gay poster I've seen on this issue. I commend u .

[donco6]

81. And thankfully, you're a granite cookie. n/t

[Renew Deal]

56. I think someone is confused about the legislative process

Why hasn't congress taken up and passed the bill? Obama is not king.

[Boomerang Diddle]

67. Obama hates teh gays. He wants them all kicked out of the military

Yeah, that's the ticket ..........................
:sarcasm:

[struggle4progress]

74. This is stupid and counter-productive for the following reasons: to move a bill

in Congress, constituents should be pressuring Congress; Obama has no leverage over Congress; and attacking Obama distracts attention from the real issue

[donco6]

77. "The President has no leverage over Congress."

Wow - do go on.

[struggle4progress]

79. You may want to review what happened in the early 1990s when Clinton tried to lead on this subject

The result was: a rightwing energized against gay rights, focussed on Clinton as the face to oppose; DADT and DOMA resulted. With that history, a more diffuse approach seems smarter

[donco6]

80. 16 years is a long time.

And Obama will never have more clout with Congress than he has now. And he certainly can influence Congress, and does when he wants to.

It's a different world. Most Dems are still acting like it's 1993.

[Ken Burch]

82. Actually, Clinton made no real effort to lead on lifting the ban at all

He put it out there, then let the right seize control of the debate, allowed them to assert(despite all the national polls)that the majority of the country was AGAINST lifting the ban, and refused even to guarantee that active-duty service personnel testifying in favor of lifting the ban before Sam Nunn's gaybashing starchamber of a committeee would face no retribution from their superiors for doing so.

Clinton didn't lead on that. And he didn't lead on healthcare. In both cases, he dithered and let the reactionaries control the discussion. The only time he actually DID lead at any point in his term was in the fight to approve NAFTA, a treaty that only benefited people that voted straight-ticket GOP.

[alcibiades_mystery]

84. Sam Nunn was a Democrat

Just sayin'...

[Ken Burch]

89. I'm fully aware of that

However, Sam Nunn was also on the far right edge of the Senate Democrats, and was a crucial figure in the creation of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group whose objective was to remove support for social justice and workers' rights from the Democratic party's program and to make the Democratic Party as indistinguishable from the Republican Party as possible.

If nothing else, it should tell you all that you need to know that Sam Nunn was one of Ben Wattenberg's top two suggestions for who the Democrats should have nominated for president in 1992. If he'd won, he'd have given us the Johnson Administration's policies WITHOUT the War on Poverty or any real support for the Civil Rights movement. You would have been unable to tell that a Nunn Administration was a Democratic presidency.

[TexasObserver]

86. Kicked and wanted to recommend, but couldn't

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. I don't see a repeal of DADT in this congress, or the next.

TPTB have decided that there are more important things than furthering the civil rights of our LGBT Moms, Dads, Brothers, Sisters, Daughters, and Sons. Their civil rights aren't worth pursuing at this time.

Much more important stuff looms, such as enriching bankers, lawyers, and high-dollar investors/contributors.

Remember, Obama has only been in office 175 days. It's not fair yet to hold him to his promise of being a "fierce advocate" of LGBT rights.

[SeattleGirl]

88. There's a bill?

If there is one, I don't believe it's hit his desk yet.

[enigmatic]

90. He needs to endorse this

Now.

[Egnever]

91. I don't agree with your hyperventilating

I believe Obama has every intention of pushing the repeal of DADT. When the health care fight is over I will jump on your bandwagon till then we have larger fish to fry and I think health care for all is too important to get sidetracked on.

[Prism]

92. Thank you for your eventual and conditional support n/t

[Egnever]

93. You are welcome

[Prism]

94. I promise to eventually support health care reform in return

The thing is, I really like my current health care coverage, so reform isn't much a priority for me at the moment. I don't understand all the hyperventilating over it. I mean, I'm fine. What's the problem here?

However, I wish you the very best of luck in your efforts! You can count on me someday though. Promise. Once I have my equality. But the very instant it happens, I'll be there. With bells on.

Or I'll at least stop intimating you should keep quiet about it. Maybe. Unless some other priority more interesting to me comes up. One never knows. That's what makes peoples lives so much fun. You just never can tell if something more important to me will bump everyone else's suffering right off my list of things to feign concern about. Politics, eh? It's a magical, magical world.

[Egnever]

95. Works for me

I don't know where you get I think you should keep quiet. I don't think pretending Obama is ignoring you is helpful though.

But hey its your fight so do what you you feel is right. I'll keep talking to my reps asking for them to support civil rights the same as I have done for years. I just wont pretend the president is some how trying to undermine you. Cause I don't buy that nonsense for a second.

My current health care rocks as well, I recognize however that this health care reform will affect everything our nation does going forward. It is important to everyone in the nation not just me. Clearly you don't feel the same, thats your prerogative. Have at it.

[Prism]

96. "Hyperventilating"

The OP's tone is quite neutral and matter-of-fact, yet that is how you chose to characterize it. Neutrally and matter-of-factly outling something quite simple the President can with do with a minimum of political risk is not hyperventilating. When even small requests are met with "Pipe down!" what other word but silencing should be used?

It is the very least the President can do, the tiniest action he can take, the bottom of the barrel tangible movement forward on DADT that goes beyond giving a speech and paying lip service to equality.

And yet even that seems far too much to ask. If that is not undermining, what is it?

I suppose we simply make presidents too delicate these days. After all, LBJ managed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965 (Medicare). According to his most fervent supporters, President Obama is a far weaker figure, unable to manage even small movement on LGBT civil rights while preoccupied with health care. There will be no gum with all this walking.

I'm not entirely certain why describing the President as a political impotent is considered a defense, or even an admirable quality, when explaining and apologizing for his absence in pushing LGBT rights forward.