This is why you don't make a deal with the devil,

[MadHound]

Sooner or later you're going to get burned.

Last week Rachel Maddow interviewed Joe Biden. One of the questions she asked concerned DADT. Specifically she wondered why the Obama administration hadn't signed an EO striking down DADT while Obama was in office. This would stop the bleeding and prevent the ongoing ruination of the lives of outstanding military personnel. Biden's answer was simple, the administration made a deal with the devil, they wouldn't issue the EO in exchange for the chance to have the issue of repeal of DADT come to a vote.

Well, it came to a vote today, and it failed. Well, actually it didn't fail, it simply didn't garner the sixty votes needed to be counted as a victory under the new Democratic method of counting votes. The Dems could force this to a real, live, talk all night, pee in a bottle filibuster, but we all know that's not going to happen. While 'Pugs only need fifty one votes to get things done, apparently the Dems have determined that they need sixty votes, which conveniently means that the Dems don't have to do much, don't have to put up a fight, and can blame the 'Pugs for the Dem's failures. But that's another matter.

So, DADT, that misguided POS Clinton law remains in effect, and the Obama administration made a deal with the devil that they inevitably lost.

You don't make deals with the devil, you just don't. But the Obama administration did, sacrificing the lives of numerous military men and women on the altar of politics.

My question for the Obama administration is this: Will Obama now issue an EO striking down DADT while he is in office, or will he continue to let down the LGBT community and let good soldiers to twist in the wind. The ball is in his court, we will be waiting to see what he does with it. Just don't hold your breath.

[laughingliberal]

1. Thank you. I think we've all seen the results of too many deals with the devil. nt

[nc4bo]

26. Ain't that the truth. nt

[CreekDog]

163. I'm tired of deals with the devil

and harassment of the angels.

:rant:



just go away...

[izquierdista]

2. Only one correction

...the 'Pugs only need 41 votes to NOT get things done... otherwise :thumbsup:

[Atticus]

70. I'm sorry. We ALLOW them to block our legislation with 41 votes. If we were willing to play

smash-mouth politics, as they certainly are, we could pass ALL of our legislation.

It's called "majority rule".

[txlibdem]

171. Well, Sen. Reid would like to gently remind his Republican friends that...

And then I puke up every meal I've had in the past week. :puke:

Harry Reid is a limp noodle. No backbone and not an ounce of fight in him.

I hate to say it but I hope that lunatic Sharon Angle wins just to show Sen. Reid that he has to pay the price for his failure to lead and to fight against the psychotic right wingers. We will win two or three additional seats in the Senate in November so the loss of one capitulating wimp won't hurt us at all.

I'd also like to see Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson lose to their Rethug rivals. We should abandon them and let their seats go red since they always vote red anyway. We ought to be putting our money and effort into taking away other seats and putting a true Democrat in those seats. I don't give a crap if Lincoln has a "D" next to her name, she's a goddamn Rethug at heart and we don't need her at all.

All together now: take down the conservadems/Blue Dogs. That "D" should stand for Democrat, not dumbass.

[KoKo]

185. Maybe the deal was...Harry would survive as Senator if he made sure

the vote wouldn't pass. It was a political choice since Harry's in trouble. RW would go wild and Harry's polling was down a bit, making his re-election in Nevada a cliff hanger if he passed that legislation.

It's possible Obama could do an EO if Harry is re-elected and remains in charge...or Harry will bring up another vote next year if he wins his election.

But, it's typical of the way things seem to be going in DC. Smack down of campaign promises because "it's too political" for the Mid-Terms and soon it will be "too political" for the 2012 Election. Remember Dem Candidates started running two years before the National Election. So the Campaign begins in January for 2012.

[hendo]

190. The Dem candidates wont start running two years before the national election

because, we do not have presidential primaries this time around.

[KoKo]

186. Maybe the deal was...Harry would survive as Senator if he made sure

the vote wouldn't pass. It was a political choice since Harry's in trouble. RW would go wild and Harry's polling was down a bit, making his re-election in Nevada a cliff hanger if he passed that legislation.

It's possible Obama could do an EO if Harry is re-elected and remains in charge...or Harry will bring up another vote next year if he wins his election.

But, it's typical of the way things seem to be going in DC. Smack down of campaign promises because "it's too political" for the Mid-Terms and soon it will be "too political" for the 2012 Election. Remember Dem Candidates started running two years before the National Election. So the Campaign begins in January for 2012.

[Lyric]

3. You said it, MadHound.

:kick: & rec

[benlurkin]

4. I would like to know

if Obama could actually issue an EO instead of the law being changed in the house. For some reason I don't think it is allowed.

If so, why couldn't a EO be issued for gay marriage etc.....? Why the hell do we fuck around with the legislation branch anyhow?

(I am so sick of it all right now)

[Fumesucker]

9. Because DADT is a military policy and Obama is CIC of the military.

Obama is emphatically _not_ CIC of anything other than the military though..

[zipplewrath]

10. DADT allows him to do it

The DADT law included a provision allowing him to suspend expulsions for military reasons. He could easily suspend investigations and explusions while the military finishes its review, and say that he will revisit it once the review is complete.

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. Yes, he could. Easily.

Thus the question is: why is he not doing just that?

[meowomon]

188. He has shown himself to weak on this issue.

So,the lives of many are ruined because a failure of leadership.

[MadHound]

15. As CinC, Obama could issue an EO that would do away with DADT for the duration of his term

Many of us were wondering why he didn't do that already, it would at least stop the bleeding while Congress worked out a more permanent solution. Instead, he made a deal with the devil and got burned.

My question is whether the President will now do the right thing and issue an EO to prevent further loss, or will this all be quietly swept under the rug.

The reason he gets to issue an EO in this case is because he is the CinC of the armed forces.

[dgibby]

192. Yes. Here:

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

There's more. Just Google: Presidential Executive Order + Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The above link was on page two.

[Individualist]

5. DLC got exactly what they wanted today

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," Dennis Kucinich

[Raster]

13. No. Truer. Words.

[PufPuf23]

20. Neo-liberals "Good Cop" - Neo-conservatives "Bad Cop"

to the same economic, foreign/miltary policy, and social agendas.

The common political philisophy is Strausian -- the end justifies the means, the "noble" lie, and an aristocracy of $, power, and crony accumulation and status quo.

Obama can do an Executive Order (like Truman over desegregation). Obama's choice to head the Marines is a bigot reagrds DADT.

[elehhhhna]

44. more like good GOP, bad GOP

[Ignis]

28. +1. "See? We tried! Shucks, now our hands are tied."

:banghead:

[Individualist]

46. That's the DLC dog and pony show in a nutshell

You're one of the few that gets it.

[Ignis]

200. It's not my first Triangulation Dance.

;)

[vaberella]

158. What are you talking about?

That's hardly the case. Everyone except for Pryor and Lincoln voted for this. That means Bayh, and Webb and Nelson who are definitely DLC voted for this and you're saying they got what they wanted. How does that make sense?!

[leftstreet]

6. K&R

[vi5]

7. Well, you know....work with the Senate you have and all that....

blah blah blah, why can't people just be happy and shut the fuck up with their complaining.

You know who else wouldn't repeal DADT? President McCain or President Palin. But then there would be other things that were bad as well. So why don't you chew on that for a while.

I for one support our president and applaud him for this brilliant strategy of not playing into the hands of the Republicans.


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

Sorry, just getting out in front of the inevitable responses to hopefully save some of the hardest working DUers some time.

[hendo]

69. So its not Obama's problem

because McCain would have been worse? Since when is that a valid excuse?

I want change I can believe in, and part of that requires repealing DADT.

[vi5]

164. It's not an excuse to me....

..I was being sarcastic. But it's pretty much the entire reason for being of a loud, vocal community on DU. Nobody can ever complain about anything Obama does or doesn't do because "the other side is worse". So all he has to do is be a millimeter over the line of some perceived "center" and apparently we should be doing victory dances and praising the lord on high.

[hendo]

189. Sorry, i misread the sarcasm

That sounded an awful lot like some of the other stuff thats posted here.

[vi5]

191. Exactly.

Scary, isn't it?

[hendo]

193. Yeah, it sure is

I am amazed what we let our own party get away with under the excuse that they are not republicans. Heck, our party is leading the charge to censor the internet. Hillary has been one of the biggest supporters of internet censorship for years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9177970

edit: added the link

[libnnc]

8. And the fact that this impacts people's LIVES is totally lost on

these politico pieces of shit.

People are hurt by this Clinton piece of shit legislation. EVERY DAY.


But, this is an election year and all this is just "Political Kabuki" to quote a talking head on the tee-vee just now.

I've got relatives whose service was ALWAYS jeopardized by this piece of shit legislation. People I love and cherish. They had to live like WANTED FUGITIVES while they were in the service, constantly looking over their shoulders, scared of being "found out". You cannot imagine the stress they were under.

But to most, it's just politics. FUCK! I'm PISSED!

[Raster]

11. An EO striking down DADT from "fierce advocate"?

I'm not holding my breath.

"It's just one song and a two-minute prayer."

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. The President can't issue and EO to strike down a law

[MadHound]

17. In this case, Yes He Can

DADT deals specifically with the military, and as CinC of that military he can issue an EO striking down DADT, at least for the duration of his term. He didn't do this, exchanging that method of stopping the bleeding for a handful of magical vote beans.

Those beans failed to sprout today, so the question becomes whether or not Obama will do the right thing by our military and issue that EO striking down DADT. Frankly I'm not holding my breath.

[guruoo]

197. An EO can be used to place limits upon enforcement of said law.

Examples:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+limits+enforcement&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=bush+limits+enforcement&gs_rfai=C0JnlojKaTJqXKo6EygSWm6idBQAAAKoEBU_QLk4M&fp=e0241fe2c08f8b07

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Oceansaway]

16. K&R...n/t

[Blue Owl]

18. Kinda like their 9/11 responders fiasco vote

Leave it to a couple of lame-ass beltway Democrats to spoil a perfectly good majority.

Assholes.

[democrank]

19. Burned indeed. How the hell many more lives have to be ruined?

How many more good soldiers are Democratic "leaders" going to abandon? Apparently we`re supposed to make excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse for this and a whole lot more.

[NJmaverick]

23. Why do you feel the need to spin this to blame the Democrats, while you give the

GOP a free pass for their efforts (in solidarity) to prevent the end of DADT? It's like the GOP smacked you over the head with a baseball bat and they are standing there laughing at you with the bat in their hand and you are screaming which Democrat hit me with a bat.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Republican obstruction is expected. Democratic obstruction is not.

Which would surprise and piss you off more - that your widescreen TV was stolen by a twice convicted professional thief, or by your brother-in-law (assuming you brother in law is not a twice convicted professional thief)?

[NJmaverick]

25. Trash is expected to smell, that doesn't mean you don't take it out

This post is like blaming the flowers for not smelling sweet enough to overcome the trash stench, instead of taking out the garbage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

202. We did take out the trash in 08 - but it still stinks in here.

Why would that be?

maybe because we have blue dogs sitting on the counter pretending to be potpourri?

[MadHound]

37. Because Obama could have, and should have signed an EO suspending DADT months ago

Instead, he made a deal with the devil and it is those good soldiers who are going to be paying the price for that deal with their careers, not Obama.

Oh, and if you want me to spread the blame around a bit, the Democrats actually got a majority on this vote, just not that mythical, fictitious, magical sixty votes. They could force a real, live filibuster and put up a fight, but once again they slinking away from the battle with their tails between their legs.

[Vinca]

27. The lunacy of this entire debate is that it seems extremely likely,

thanks to the Log Cabin Republicans, this will be overturned by the courts. The POTUS should have issued an order to stay any dismissals and it should have been done the day he took his oath of office. It's foolish that people who have had tens of thousands - sometimes hundreds of thousands - of dollars invested in their training are kicked out the door because they want to claim their Constitutional right to free speech.

[MadHound]

39. Yes, what a sad and ironic statement that it is a bunch of Republicans taking the lead on this one

While the Dems back away from the fight.

[kratos12]

29. Again obama gets blamed when

The reason the bill failed was a Republican bloc votig unanimously against it along with the ysual suspect blue dogs who suck ass.




DADT would have passed if and only if the Repukes hadn't blocked it because they are bigoted fuckheads, lets not forget that very salient fact as we rush to once again blame Obama.

[xchrom]

32. This is about Obama. If had signed the EO - we would AT LEAST have that.

If this were about race - you would sing our tune.

[Number23]

49. "If this were about race - you would sing our tune."

????

[AnArmyVeteran]

34. Obama could sign an executive order in less than 5 seconds.

He could act boldly and do what is right and what he promised or he can run terrified from every republican he sees. He deserves the blame because he has it within his power to stop the affects of DADT with just his signature, but for some reason he is absolutely terrified of any republican within his sight. Any real leader would sign an EO, but it's obvious Obama doesn't want to hurt the feelings of talk radio hosts, Faux News or any republican in congress.

I am disappointed as hell that he refuses to stand up against republicans on any issue.

[kratos12]

35. Yes he could

and the Repukes would challenge it in court and the next Puke pres would sign an EO to repeal it.

This seems to be Obama's calculation and wether or not you agree or disagree with this strategy it's predicated on actually changing the existing law.

Bottom line, we can form a circular firing squad and once again blame Democrats for the asshattedness of the screaming crazy fucked up right wing or we can lay blame at the appropriate set of feet.

DADT would have ended today if a handful of Repukes would have done the right thing.

They did not.

Blame them.

[MadHound]

40. And if Obama had suspended DADT when he entered office,

Dozens of good soldiers would still be in the military instead of having their lives ruined.

This isn't about fucking political games, this is about doing what is right for people and what is right for our military. You don't play politics with peoples' lives, you simply do the right thing, and the consequences be damned. If Truman had taken the attitude you have, blacks wouldn't have gotten into the military until the sixties or seventies.

Meanwhile, in an ironic twist of fate, it is a bunch of 'Pugs, the Log Cabin Republicans, who are making the most progress in repealing these hate laws, taking them to court and getting them struck down. So tell me, if you were a member of the LGBT community, who would you think is doing you the most good, and who should you reward with your vote?

[kratos12]

45. based on your rationale I guess your voting repig

good luck with that.

[Tesha]

54. Does that lame argument *EVER* work?

As many times as it gets trotted out here, someone must
think it works.

But it doesn't.

Tesha

[MadHound]

74. Hey, everybody's got to go through Intertubes Debating 101

Some have to go through it a couple of times or more to pass.

[BzaDem]

80. What usually works is that 3rd party voters meet the reality of a Republican government.

I would certainly agree that telling an irrational person how to be rational does not usually work (after all, they are irrational in the first place). Cajoling, convincing, persuading, being nice, none of that works. Only pain works. The pain of them seeing the REAL difference between the parties when the other one is in control. Forcing their eyes to be open whether they like it or not.

That works really well. (See Nader's vote share in 2004 compared to 2000.)

Eventually, you capitulate to reality, because that's how we evolved. There's only so much political pain one can inflict upon themselves before a survival instinct activates and they magically change their behavior completely.

[MadHound]

84. Wow, do you see third party conspiracies in every post?

That must be one hell of a set of sunglasses you've got on.

You're the only one who's mentioned third party in this thread, I wonder why:think:

[BzaDem]

88. Sorry, I meant "Republican." Post 40. n/t

[MadHound]

100. Umm, now you're simply not making sense, sorry. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

166. Which recent congressional election was decided by third party voters?

Be specific. And I do not mean a single candidate, I mean which national congressional election since say 1900 resulted in either the Democrats or Republicans taking control of either house as a result of third party voting?

When you cannot come up with an actual factual basis for your assertion, will you admit that you are wrong?

[MadHound]

73. LOL!

Boy, irony and cynical humor go right over your head. Good luck with that, and welcome to DU:rofl:

[vaberella]

159. He made the deal since he took office because

he thought dozens of good soldiers would still be in the military and others would get their jobs back. Why do you think the deal was done so long ago. The deal wasn't made last week or this year. It's been in the works from the get go.

[MadHound]

168. Oh, I recognize that,

But you still don't make this kind of deal, you don't gamble with the dozens of lives like that. It isn't a matter of national security, it is a matter of personal freedom.

[seabeyond]

165. i think i would say yea, the issue is forerfront, not just with congress, the pres, supreme

court but with the nation too. you had how many votes in congress, which is the majority, maybe not enough majority, but majority for people mind and then with logcabin congress going to supreme court is bringing a whole other spectrum to the issue. struck down in supreme court to me, is a more firm rejection.

but even as a gay, i would not look at what logcabins are doing and suiggest the pugs are our heros.

i do hope that they find a way to resolve soon though.

[MadHound]

172. Not saying that the Log Cabins are our heroes,

But you've got to admit that they've made more progress towards getting rid of DADT than the Dems have:shrug:

[seabeyond]

175. i hear ya. bu i dont think that is a bad thing. and i think the last couple of years

of the dems and nation and military even talking this issue has about nullified it before it has actually happen. people literally do not see that dadt should be there. (not talking minority of nation that hate and are bigots). i have been hearing a lot of talk over this time, from military and X military and more adn more i feel a sense in the nation that people have let go of this issue in the manner that it is decided it shoulnt be there.

i dont know how effective or much about Eo, so i cant put in a position there. but what i have read in the thread having supreme court strike down in resounding. i am glad logcabins are doing it. with the majority in congress, and president speaking clearly rescinding, it is all good. i hope resolved soon. an EO now, and continue thru court might be good. i dont know a lot though.

i am still thinking of helderheid's thread though

that should be billboard across the nation.

[MadHound]

178. True that, a powerful image, a powerful thread n/t

[AnArmyVeteran]

57. Obama needs to take a stand. So what if he is reversed? At least he would stand for SOMETHING!!!

Right now he's falling for everything and is a total pushover for republicans. I could do a hell of a lot better job and I would not sell out the people who put me in office.

[vaberella]

160. He did take a stand.

I'm starting to suspect people are either hard of hearing or have selective memory. He's been standing for LGBT rights and has continuously said he plans on repealing DADT and DOMA. I don't understand how this is so hard to understand. He doesn't vote on the bill you know that right. He can't control Congress. The Legislative Department is entirely separate from him. They work independently although he can try to influence as much as possible. But obviously the Republicans and some Dems have it in for him.

Rather than being angry at the President...I'm shocked you're not focusing your anger more at Congress. Good lord. Congress is the real problem while the President is waiting for some action.

[political_Dem]

167. +100000

[MadHound]

169. First of all, the president could have prevented the destruction of lives of many good soldiers

That was within his power. It still is, the question is will he take action.

The legislative process is not entirely separate from him, he has the power of the bully pulpit, and power of the office and the power of leadership. He hasn't used any of these.

But one does begin to wonder why. After all, his Justice Dept. has taken up cases that he could have left to drop, cases that set back the cause of gay rights. Not to mention that he's publicly stated that he's personally against gay marriage, more for civil unions.

Obama is, at best, a reluctant advocate of gay rights. One almost gets the impression that he wishes it would all go away.

[Skittles]

156. SO FUCKING WHAT?

who GIVES a fuck what repukes will do - THEY ARE ALWAYS HATEFUL BASTARDS. Why should that stop ANY DEMOCRAT from DOING THE RIGHT THING?

[eilen]

177. Who's the boss?

I don't know, I kind of blame them for being incompetent to get this bill passed. The Repubs managed to get all kinds of shit passed when Bush was in office without the "mythical 60". They used hardball politics. Apparently this Admin and the leadership of the Senate are afraid to twist some arms.

They lack fortitude during the election season, afraid to push and fight for what they believe in (unless of course, they don't really believe in it).

This whole idea of filibuster. Well then filibuster! Call the bluff. Do it every time. They should have to earn their payraise. So maybe they are stuck in town on the weekend and have to miss a few fundraisers.

Trouble is, their job performance is lackluster as a group.

I'd like to kick out the Democratic senators that don't pass the platform consistency test. Unfortunately that includes the DLC. They are Consevadems/Corporate shills. Those that play in the sandbox with them get up with fleas.

[katandmoon]

52. Just like he would have gotten CREDIT if the repeal had passed. See how it works?

[4lbs]

30. An EO would be challenged by the Repukes as unconstitutional.

A Presidential Executive Order CANNOT supersede established Congressional Law.

DADT is Congressional Law. It was passed by a previous session of Congress, and signed into law by a previous President. It is established law.

Any EO that tries to limit DADT can be challenged in federal court. You know the Repukes would do just that!

With the current make up of the USSC, the EO would be struck down, and DADT further strengthened, because it would have then survived a court challenge. It would then have had the full support from all three branches of the federal government. Game. Set. Match.

That would make a Congressional repeal more difficult, because the precedent favoring DADT would have then been established. Then Repukes could try to challenge the repeal as unconstitutional, and guess what that same USSC would find?

[MadHound]

41. Umm, if you read DADT you'll find

That a president can suspend it with an EO. It was built in. The 'Pugs could take it to court and they would lose.

But God forbid the Dems fight for what is right, on any level. Meanwhile the Log Cabin Republicans are taking these repressive anti-gay laws to court and winning. Hmmm.

[4lbs]

59. Where? What part of DADT allows a Presidential EO to countermand it?

I know of no instance where a Presidential EO ever countermanded, or even weakened, any already established federal/Congressional law.

Care to show me some?

If it was so simple for a Presidential EO to "block" or "suspend" current federal law or court rulings, then don't you think the Repukes would have done that?

You don't think that President Reagan, and both Presidents' Bush would have signed EOs banning abortion nationwide, smacking against Roe v. Wade, seeing as how the Christian Coalition and the anti-abortionists were major players in their administrations?

If it was that simple, Dubya could have just issued an EO allowing FISA searches and warrantless wiretaps, without having to have the Patriot Act passed.

[MadHound]

76. Look up Stop-Loss, educate yourself then get back to me. n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[kratos12]

36. You keep on saying obama is gutless

despite doing more than any other previous POTUS in trying to right this great wrong.

In fact name another POTUS who stood up in front of the nation and made it clear that he opposes the policy of descriminating against gays in the military?

NAME ONE.

[MadHound]

43. Words are cheap, it is actions that truly mean something

And in the battle of actual actions on this issue, it is Republicans, specifically the Log Cabin Republicans, who are actually fighting the good fight, while the Dems spew hot air and bullshit.
<http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/trial-court-in-log-cabin-case.html>

[kratos12]

47. A broke clock is right once a day

Sure, I get it forget the last 30 years of Democratic pro Gay activism and 30 years of Repuklican homophobia and bigotry and throw your lot in based on one instance where the Log Cabiners got it right.

Forget decades of Repuklican war on the poor and middkle class, women, GAYS, minorities etc... while taking up for the wealthy and powerful, FORGET ALL THAT, GIVE THEM A FUCKING PASS ON THAT AND THEN SIT THERE WITH A FUCKING STRAIGHT FACE AND TELL ME THE THE DEMS ARE THE ENEMY!

This kind of idiocy is why the repukes can get away with once again blocking legislation while we waste time blaming the good guys.

[MadHound]

50. I'm not giving the 'Pugs a pass, despite your all caps shouting,

What I am saying is that, at this point in time, it is the 'Pugs who are making the most progress in repealing DADT.

Nor am I saying that Dems are the enemy. What I am saying is that this administration made a deal with the devil, using other peoples' lives at the stake. Worse, they are failing to stand up and fight for these people.

That is the truth, that is what I'm saying, and all your hyperbolic, all caps screaming isn't going to change that. You want me to shut up, then get the Dems to actually DO something, like Obama issuing an EO repealing DADT. That would be a great start, one that should have been undertaken eighteen months ago. Instead, dozens of good soldiers have had their lives ruined while the Democrats play politics. No excuse for that, none.

[ThomCat]

56. Obama says a lot of pretty things. But he often doesn't act on them.

Words are cheap, and said only because they sound good and have Public Relations value. It is ACTIONS that really matter.

Anyone who judges a politician's words over that politician's actions is a damned fool. Actions will tell you who that politician really is.

[Cha]

33. Only in your head has the Obama Admin "made a deal with the devil"

Unrec for trying to blame everything on the Dems(of course there are asshole dems but there are those who worked for this to be repealed)..and you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[MadHound]

42. Biden admitted it on the Maddow show last week!

He specifically stated that they made a deal, Obama doesn't issue an EO suspending DADT, and the repeal of DADT would be allowed up for a vote. This was the deal that the Obama administration made, and how many lives were ruined with this deal with the devil? How many good military men and women were kicked out because of Obama'a stupidity?

Meanwhile, it is actually a group of Republicans, the Log Cabin Republicans, who are making the most progress in repealing these vile laws, successfully using the courts to do so.

<http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/trial-court-in-log-cabin-case.html>

Funny that, how it is 'Pugs who are fighting the good fight while the Dems cower.

[EFerrari]

154. Are you saying Biden was lying?

Good grief.

[Democat]

198. Everything is Obama's fault with some people!

No matter what the Republicans do, or how the American people vote, some people will blame Obama!

[WillyT]

38. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[katandmoon]

48. K&R. Good question. I think we already know the answer though.

[ClarkUSA]

51. What "devil"? Our constitutional form of governance?

Reading all the knashing of teeth here, one would think President Obama's and Democrats' determination to repeal DADT was a bad thing.

:tinfoilhat:

[EFerrari]

155. Maybe you should ask Biden. It was his description.

[Catherina]

53. Recommended. From Rick Warren to this is no surprise n/t

[Sheepshank]

55. I am familiar with EO not having the authority to reverse laws passed by Congress

Madhound, you say that with regards to Military Obama does have the clear authority via EO to overturn a law? Can you please provide the authority/cite on that?

[4lbs]

60. There is none. If it was that simple, then the previous Repuke Presidents could have just issued EO

to override many federal/congressional laws:

abortion
FISA searches
warrantless wiretaps
Miranda rights


The fact that they didn't, and that Dubya needed the Patriot Act passed by Congress to allow fully legal FISA searches and warrantless wiretaps, means that the power of the EO is extremely limited.

The abortion one is a no-brainer. If a Repuke POTUS could have simply suspended abortion rights with an EO, he would have done so.

[donheld]

58. I'm totally convince Obama is not learning these lessons as he should

[lonestarnot]

61. EO!

[4lbs]

62. No EO has ever overriden, or even weakened any established law.

That's because the power of the EO is vastly overestimated.

If an EO was so powerful, why didn't Dubya just issue a couple of EO to allow for FISA searches and warrantless wiretaps, going against established privacy and due process laws in the Constitution?

That's because no EO can override an established law. They needed the Patriot Act, passed by Congress, to give them that power. The Patriot Act gave them specific exceptions to the privacy and due process laws, citing national security and terrorist threats as those exceptions.

No part of DADT can be overridden or even weakened by an EO. It requires Congress to do that.

Now, had Congress never passed DADT, then yes, President Obama could have issued an EO blocking any discrimination and/or dismissal of gay/lesbian military personnel.

[lonestarnot]

63. Oh horseshit! That is why they are separate but equal branches of government.

[4lbs]

64. Instead of using profanity, how about supplying one, just one, example where a Presidential EO ever

overrode, repealed, or even slightly weakened established federal law.

You only need one to convince me that an EO could do it.


EDIT: Yes, the executive and legislative branch are separate branches. They are also EQUAL branches. That means no branch is more powerful than the other.

A Presidential EO that overrides or weakens a law passed by Congress would then claim that the Executive Branch is more powerful than the Legislative Branch, that a simple stroke of the President's pen could override established law.

[lonestarnot]

66. He is the Commander in Chief and this is federal established law, unconstitutional I might add, that

he has the authority to end through the power of the executive branch and Constitution. I cannot give you an example.

[4lbs]

67. How is it unconstitutional? No court ruling has ever said that.

That's the problem.

Two branches of the federal government affirmed DADT.

The legislative branch affirmed DADT by passing it.

The executive branch affirmed DADT by signing it into law.

It's constitutionality has never been challenged in federal court has it? Why not? It's the judicial branch that rules whether a law is unconstitutional or not, whether it's scope is too broad.

Now, had President Clinton vetoed DADT and forced Congress to override his veto, then the constitutionality argument would have better legs to stand on, because DADT would then only have the support of the legislative branch.

By signing it, President Clinton gave it the full weight and support of the executive branch.

That makes it a pretty powerful law. There are only two ways such a powerful law can be repealed or even weakened:

1.) The judicial branch, via a court challenge, rules it unconstitutional in some aspect.

2.) Congress passes a new law that supersedes/repeals it, and the POTUS signs that new law.


No Presidential EO can even touch any aspect of DADT. If it does, it would be the EO, not DADT, that is found unconstitutional, because then the executive branch would be found to have overstepped it's powers.

[lonestarnot]

68. Again, you ignore the Commander in Chief issue. EO and 2/3's to override.

Neener. Neener. Neener. SCOTUS is for that unitary executive bullshit as it is comprised this date. They would not rule overstepped Commander in Chief authority over the military. And on edit further wouldn't be overturned because this "won't work operationally" once the jam is on the bread. Further, this is military policy law.

[BzaDem]

75. Just because you say "neener neener neener" doesn't mean anything you are saying is actually true.

As a matter of fact, what you are saying is not true. EOs cannot override established law, no matter HOW often lonestarnot or anyone else claims otherwise.

Obama may be the commander in chief, but that's just too fucking bad for your claim. You citing titles does not change the fact that EOs cannot override established law.

Obama may also be the President, but that's also just too fucking bad for your claim. You citing MORE titles does not change the fact that EOs cannot override established law.

[lonestarnot]

85. And you are the authority I presume.

:rofl:

[BzaDem]

89. Actually, believe it or not, most fifth graders would know enough to declare your post bullshit. n/t

[lonestarnot]

91. Oh really, is that your idea of redneckers smarter than a 5th grader, yeefuckinghaw, githerdone?

hmmmmf.

[BzaDem]

92. The fact that a fifth grader would know more than you is a statement about you, not the fifth grader

and in particular, your "knowledge" of how separation of powers actually works.

[lonestarnot]

97. By all means you can step right up and splain all you know about it. Should I donate an apple?

[BzaDem]

99. All I need to do is state that an EO cannot override established law. The fact that you think it can

says something about you AND the educational system you were educated in.

[lonestarnot]

105. Ok. Now you are advocating for what kind of education?

[BzaDem]

113. Perhaps one that explains the basic functions of each of three branches?

You know, the one where the Legislature enacts laws, and the Executive enforces the laws that have been enacted by the legislature?

Executive orders are used to determine how to enforce the law. To fill in the details.

Maybe there is some wiggle room. Maybe Obama could reduce the number of people working on discharges. Maybe he could create a huge backlog of other work. If that were consistent with the law itself (and courts agreed), that might be possible.

But what he can't do is simply issue an executive order declaring a duly-enacted statute null and void.

[MadHound]

122. Oh geez, there is no point in talking with you,

You have absolutely no clue about how such matter work:eyes:

Excuse me, but even Biden stated that such an EO could be issued that would suspend DADT. The entire interview is over on the Maddow site, clips were replayed tonight. I would think that the VP would know exactly how such matters could be done, don't you? Or are you going to tell Biden that Obama can't suspend DADT?

Please note, I'm stating "suspend", I'm not declare it null and void. But he can suspend it for the duration of his term in office. Get it now, or are you going to continue with this vacuous, yet hyperbolic nonsense of yours?

[BzaDem]

125. "federal law that has created military policy, unconstitutional, that is the President's job"

That is what lonestarnot said. That DADT is unconstitutional because it has to do with military policy, and therefore an executive order can declare it null and void.

That is bogus.

I have no idea if a creative lawyer can come up with a plausible administrative-law interpretation that would have the effect of stopping the policy. That would ultimately be decided by the courts (as it was when a lower court blocked the Obama administration's oil drilling moratorium, when a lower court blocked Obama's stem cell executive order and then stayed its order, etc.).

[MadHound]

132. I'm not talking about lonestarnot said, I'm talking about what Biden said

Don't get me wrong, I think that lonestarnot is a fine, witty wonderful person:hug: And certainly easier to have a discussion with, but I was speaking about the Biden interview on Maddow last week. He laid out the facts, he is the VP, he should know. Why don't you go over there, watch and learn.

Please, stay on topic with me, stop trying to throw strawman, and please, please, don't conflate my discussion with you with that of somebody else.

[BzaDem]

139. I was talking to lonestarnot, not you. See subthread.

Therefore, it only makes sense that I was responding to lonestarnot's posts, and not yours.

I find it interesting that you accuse me of "throwing strawman" because I (gasp) respond to posts and statements that people other than you write.

[MadHound]

143. But you were replying to MY POST! Hello, McFly!

You really are departing from reality this evening, more than normal. First you claim you're talking about Republicans when it's clear you were trying to stir up a gratuitous third party shit storm. Now you're saying you're talking to lonestarnot when replying to me in our little subthread.

Put the whatever down and back away slowly, it ain't doing you any favors tonight.

[BzaDem]

147. You are ridiculous.

I was responding to lonestarnot for the whole subthread. Then you came along and told me that I had no idea what I was talking about, and that my criticism didn't apply to your point. When I pointed out that I was actually replying to lonestarnot's point, and not your point, you accuse me of coming up with a strawman.

:rofl:

With respect to YOUR POINT now (not lonestarnot's point), I already said that the administration could try to come up with an interpretation consistent with the law that would have the effect of stopping discharges, and that such an interpretation would be judged by the courts.

[MadHound]

149. Say the one who is passing off third party nonsense as somehow being about 'Pugs

And who apparently doesn't know who they're replying to at any given time.

Please do try to keep with the program.

[keepCAblue]

195. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Call me crazy, but somehow I think a panel of MILITARY LAW EXPERTS knows a tad more about this matter than some armchair yahoo.

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

Furthermore, if Truman had the cajones to do it, then so should Obama, but the sad, pathetic fact is that Obama doesn't, or he'd have done something by now to correct the vulgar discrimination of DADT.


EXECUTIVE ORDER 9981
Establishing the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity In the Armed Forces.

WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense:

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known as the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.

3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the Armed Services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgment of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.

4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.

5. When requested by the Committee to do so, persons in the armed services or in any of the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall testify before the Committee and shall make available for use of the Committee such documents and other information as the Committee may require.

6. The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive order.

Harry Truman

The White House
July 26, 1948

[4lbs]

79. It's not just military policy law. By Congress and President Clinton passing DADT, it became

national, federal law.

Remember when President Truman desegregated the troops, segregration was just a military policy, but there was no law passed by Congress that allowed troops to be separated. If Congress had passed such a law, allowing separate white and black units, then Truman could have in no way issued such an executive order desegregating the troops. He would have needed Congress to pass a law making segregation illegal.

You've still not given an example where any EO has overridden or even weakened federal law, nor what part of DADT can be weakened/blocked by an EO and withstand a federal court challenge.

[lonestarnot]

86. What I am saying is, the Commander in Chief can issue an EO. And the SCOTUS will not

rule that the EO is an overstepping authority and that it will take 2/3's to override by Congress. It will be too late at that time because by then the gays will be out and cannot be put back into the don't ask don't tell bag. SCOTUS would not override.

[BzaDem]

90. It won't be the Supreme Court. A lower court will stay the order.

Just like a lower court did for the oil drilling moratorium. Obama can appeal and he will lose there too, just like he did for the moratorium.

[lonestarnot]

93. Not necessarily.

[BzaDem]

96. Under the same grain, a Republican President executive order aboloshing Medicare might not be stayed

depending on how lawless the judge is.

Does that mean a Republican President is going to try it? No. Just because there is a hypothetical possibility that you might get a lawless judge doesn't mean you write out diktats from a piece of paper and pretend they are law no matter how contrary to the law they are.

[lonestarnot]

110. Again, you ignore the issue and for whom the policy is created and who is the Commander in Chief.

[BzaDem]

116. You are pretending that the "Commander in Chief" title is at all relevant to this conversation.

Just because you can state a title doesn't meant that title is at all relevant. I can name the Queen of England, but that doesn't mean anything in the context of this conversation. Neither does "Commander in Chief."

[4lbs]

119. Once again, what power does an executive order have to override established law.

There is none.

If an EO could do just that, then the last 3 or 4 Repuke Presidents could have simply issued EOs overriding or weakening established federal law as they saw fit.

They could have issued EOs blocking the following:

abortion
Miranda rights
Due process
Right to privacy
Social Security/Medicare

They could have issued EOs that allowed the military to actually ask a new enlisted person their sexual orientation, and if they stated gay/lesbian or lied as such, then they could be dismissed on the spot.

They could have issued EOs that prevented women from being hired for governmental jobs.

Darn those female voters that often vote for the Democrats, they would say. A Repuke President would have issued an EO that prevented females, especially those registered as Democrats, from voting, wouldn't one? That would smack against the 19th Amendment, but hey, since an EO can contradict established federal law, a President can do that!

Amazing that they didn't, unless you acknowledge that Presidential Executive Orders have no power to suspend, repeal, overturn, or weaken any federal law.

[MadHound]

124. Again, not "override", suspend

Again, look up stop loss. Also, I suggest that you go to the Maddow site, go back to the Biden interview she did last week, and Biden himself will confirm that yes, an EO can suspend DADT from taking effect while Obama is in office. One would think that Biden knows what he's talking about, being VP and all:shrug:

[4lbs]

129. Again, President Obama can suspend DADT dismissals but on a case-by-case basis.

He can't do a single EO that prevents ALL dismissals.

He must issue an EO for EACH PERSON being dismissed under DADT.

In each particular EO, he must state the exact reason(s) applicable under the DADT exceptions which would allow the person to stay in the military. He would have to state the national security reason(s) for keeping them, the *unique* value that they bring.

Tens of thousands of EOs aren't the way to go.

[MadHound]

136. As they say, you have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to the facts

And the fact is that yes, Obama can suspend DADT through one blanket EO. Biden agrees with me, the law agrees with me, who the fuck are you? If you aren't God, then your opinion doesn't count, only facts do.

[4lbs]

142. Uh, no he can't.

What laws or precedents did VP Biden state that would give President Obama the ability to supersede established federal law? I missed his statement.

That's a pretty big freaking power. I wonder if it existed all along, why didn't previous Repuke Presidents use the same logic, the same power, to issue EOs all over the freaking place and supersede federal laws as they saw fit?

The only way President Obama could have such far-reaching powers is if he declared martial law, essentially making him a dictator for a while. That is another can of worms we don't want to open.

Remember back in 2004 when people were afraid that Bush might declare martial law to suspend national elections? That would have been the only way the President could do that.

[MadHound]

144. Tell you what then sport,

You just go right ahead and write VP Biden, tell him your little theory that Obama can't issue such a suspension. You'll be roundly laughed at and pointed to by Biden and his staff.

Why do you keep asking me for specifics of what Biden said. I've told you, go to the Maddow site, watch for yourself, education is good for you.

[Sheepshank]

194. I cannot find ANYWHERE where EO can be used by CIC to change a law

even when it applies only to the military. None, nada.

Perhpas there are bigger, better laws that disallow such actions to ensure a DICTATORSHIP is avoided at all costs.

Just 'cos someone spouts what they think is a peachy idea without any long term consideration, doesn't make it so, or plausable, or right.

[lonestarnot]

81. Read the fucking Constitution 14th Ammendment.. And don't forget the Declaration of Independence

and the REAL policy that this nation was built upon the self evident truth that "All men are created equal."

[4lbs]

95. How does that apply to strike down DADT?

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

The U.S. Constitution is though. That's why there have been amendments to the Constitution, but no amendments to the Declaration of Independence.

The 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment doesn't cover national discrimination. DADT created a federal law that allowed the military to discriminate against openly gay personnel.

If the 14th Amendment covered national discrimination (i.e. outlawed it), then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have never been needed would it?

If the 14th Amendment covered national discrimination, then the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) would not have been needed would it?

What does the 14th Amendment cover?

It declares that no STATE shall make a law that abridges the rights, protections, or immunities of U.S. Citizens.

Get that? No --> STATE <--- can do that. It says nothing about what the federal government can do.

DADT is a federal law, not a state law.

That's why we needed the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To make it a national, federal policy, that NO STATE can go against.

The 19th Amendment gave women nationwide the right to vote. It prevented states from preventing them from voting.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents national employment discrimination, and public access, based on race or sex. There is nothing about sexual orientation.


None of the above apply towards DADT, a federal employment law.

[lonestarnot]

114. so "protections" apply only to a few. And my reference to the Declaration of Independence

was for policy purposes. Are you disputing that all men are created equal now?

[lonestarnot]

118. Again, federal law that has created military policy, unconstitutional, that is the President's job

and he can issue EO which I do not dispute will be challenged and lost.

[4lbs]

126. Once again, how is DADT unconstitutional?

It is morally wrong, but is not unconsitutional in the legal sense.

It doesn't smack against the Constitution or any Amendments. The 14th Amendment applies to states discriminating against U.S. Citizens, not the federal government. DADT is federal law, not state law.

The 19th Amendment doesn't apply since it's about women's voting rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't apply. It only deals with discrimination based on race or sex/gender. It says nothing about discrimination regarding sexual orientation.

If DADT did go against any previous federal law, it would have been declared unconstitutional years ago, probably soon after it was signed. The legal challenges would have been non-stop.

There have been no judicial challenges to DADT, which would give the judicial branch an opportunity to declare it, or part of it, unconstitutional.


Therefore, it's not unconstitutional in the legal sense. I agree it is a morally wrong piece of legislation, but then so are other parts of federal law. It doesn't mean they are any less legal or that they are unconstitutional.

[BzaDem]

131. To be fair, the Supreme Court has read the 14th amendment as applying to the federal government

by "reverse-incorporating" it through the 5th amendment. (Bolling v. Sharpe banned Washington DC from having segregated schools). That's also why the federal government can't have affirmative action laws.

However, the Supreme Court has never held that the equal protection clause has anything to do with sexual orientation, and has repeatedly refused to despite many chances to do so. They have been some major gay rights decisions, but they all explicitly were not based on the 14th amendment.

That is the ultimate goal of the same-sex marriage case in California (to have the Supreme Court apply the equal protection clause), but it will not reach the Supreme Court for a long time.

[4lbs]

137. That is true. Furthermore, the EPC begins by explicitly limiting the states' powers.

The word "federal" doesn't appear anywhere in the clause.

[BzaDem]

141. The Supreme Court has basically added the word "federal," and that is binding law.

See the case Bolling vs. Sharpe.

That case was about Washington DC trying to maintain its segregated school system. Washington DC argued that the EPC does not have "federal" in it, just as you are. The Supreme Court said we're applying it to the federal government, using a new doctrine called "reverse incorporation."

Ever since then, the EPC has been applied to the federal government and no one has argued to the Supreme Court that it should not apply to the federal government.

[4lbs]

145. Well, I'm pretty sure that the supporters of DADT would cite that to

this incarnation of the USSC that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply against DADT because of such language. I would be willing to wager that the current USSC would agree, sadly, even with two Obama appointees on the court.

I further don't know why the DC school district even attempted to breach the 14th Amendment. I would think that Truman's EO desegregating the troops could have been used as precedent against the DC school district. That EO was used as the catalyst for other anti-discrimination legislation afterwards.

Nevertheless, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sure put it all to rest 10 years later.

[BzaDem]

148. The USSC would have to decide whether equal protection applies to sexual orientation and not just

race/gender. It all comes down to Justice Kennedy.

But what they won't do is decide the 14th amendment no longer applies to the federal government. That is settled law and is uncontested now. (Robert Bork tried to claim that the 14th amendment shouldn't apply to the federal government, and he was, as we say, "Borked" and not confirmed to the USSC.)

[4lbs]

150. Yeah. I hope it stays that way, but as long as we have those obvious Repukes on the USSC

there's always a chance of them reversing the 1954 finding.

Or they could now state that it applies to the federal government on a case-by-case basis, instead of a blanket application.

[dgibby]

180. According to the judge who recently ruled against it,

it is a violation of the First Amendment.

[lonestarnot]

121. Due Process, 14th Ammendment!

[4lbs]

133. Once again, the 14th Amendment only applies in limiting what the states can do.

It doesn't state anywhere in the amendment what limits are placed on the federal government.

DADT is a federal law, not a state law. Therefore, the 14th Amendment isn't applicable.


Now, if a state (say, Mississippi) passes a law that prevents gays/lesbians from being allowed into movie theaters in that state for fear of catching "teh gay virus" in an enclosed space, then yes the 14th Amendment applies in that case. It would be a state law that abridges the rights of some U.S. Citizens.

[lonestarnot]

203. So you are saying that the federal government has no duty to comply with the due process clause of

the Constitution of the United States?

[lonestarnot]

130. Equal Protection Clause.

[4lbs]

135. Once again, the Equal Protection Clause only prevents the STATES from abridging the rights of

U.S. Citizens.

It doesn't apply to federal laws.

That's why it begins with "No state shall..."

If it applied to the federal government (and thus, all states as well), it would have begun with

"The federal government shall not..."


The EPC only limits state powers, not the federal government.

DADT is a federal law, not a state law.

[lonestarnot]

204. So you are saying that the federal government has no duty to comply with the equal prot. clause of

[ruggerson]

138. A federal judge just ruled it unconstitutional three weeks ago

[MadHound]

140. Thank you!

Geez, you put facts and facts out there, backed by court documents and the VP himself, and some folks think they know better how such matter work.

And I thought this kind of blind spot was for 'Pugs and Bush lovers only. Guess not.

[4lbs]

146. And yet that judge said that full repeal must still happen by Congress.

Why would the judge state that?

If it is fully 100% binding, then DADT is null and void, and we wouldn't have needed today's attempted vote in the Senate right?

What happened was she didn't rule it unconstitutional, but just issued an injunction against further dismissals. The government can still appeal her ruling to a higher court.

So, it's technically not ruled 'unconstitutional' to the point of making DADT null-and-void, 100% fully repealed.

We still need Congress and the President for full, 100% repeal.

By the way, that injunction can be lifted at any time, and then DADT is back into full effect. She can lift her injunction, or a higher federal court can do that. DADT isn't dead by any stretch of the imagination. It's just been placed into a temporary holding pattern until further legal wrangling.

The only way to truly get rid of it is via Congressional repeal, signed by President Obama.

[MadHound]

82. Again, look up stop loss,

Educate yourself on how an Executive Order works. Go find a Civics 101 book and read it. Hell, you can call the President and he will tell you, "Yes I Can." But he hasn't, it's that simple.

[4lbs]

104. "stop loss" I think I get what you are getting at.

That President Obama can issue an EO to prevent a particular individual from being discharged, for national security or other military need.

That's on an individual one-at-a-time basis. He can't issue a blanket EO blocking all dismissals.

So, if 25,000 gays/lesbians are to be dismissed, he would have to issue 25,000 EOs blocking their dismissal. One EO for each person.

In each EO, he would have to state the exact reason he is blocking their dismissal. What vital national security purpose they serve that makes them valuable.

25,000 EOs! If he did that, he wouldn't have any time to do anything else! I'm not even sure he could even do that many in a year. It would mean almost 70 EOs per day, every day, all year long.

[MadHound]

115. Need to think a little harder, do a little more research

He wouldn't need to issue an EO for each soldier.

[COLGATE4]

184. EO for group stop loss are issued all the time. My daughter,

along with all her fellow Navy doctors was stop-lossed in order to send them all to the MidEast. It certainly does not have to ve one EO per individual.

[Doctor_J]

65. I have never met anyone as unteachable as Obama on this topic

The dumbest person I know wouldn't keep sticking his fingers in an electrical outlet after the 2nd or 3rd time. This president just doesn't catch on.

[BzaDem]

83. Or perhaps he simply disagrees with you on what is equivalent to sticking his fingers in an outlet

and what is not.

[MadHound]

94. Sticking his finger in an outlet?

Wow, first of all, the fact that you are putting petty politics above civil rights really just goes to show your true side, and it ain't pretty, let me tell you.

Worse, you're wrong!

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104873.html>

Hell, even sixty four percent of Republicans think DADT should be repealed.

Now don't you feel stupid.

:hi:

[BzaDem]

101. What are you talking about? When did I mention politics? n/t

[MadHound]

109. Playing coy tonight, eh.

Your statement above implies that suspending DADT is the political equivalent of sticking one's finger in an outlet. Don't say shit and then try to play all dumb when you get caught out.

[BzaDem]

123. This post has nothing to do with politics or "political equivalents."

It has everything to do with executive orders and laws and which override which.

[MadHound]

127. Yeah, right, just like you were really talking about "Republicans" upthread

And not deliberately trying to conjure up a third party strawman. Riiight:rofl: We can let the public decide.

[readmoreoften]

152. Yeah, 67% of Republicans support the repeal of DADT and it's "a finger in an outlet"

Give me a break. This is the bipartisanship that he campaigned on. But the only bipartisanship he seems to care about is bipartisanship that fucks over his base and gives him cred with the moonbat tea party brigade.

[Doctor_J]

176. True. It is much more dangerous to take on Boner than me

and Jamie Dimon for that matter. We will see how his strategy of foresaking anti-war folks, anti-DADT folks, prosecute Cheney folks for Wall Street and teabaggers works electorally.

[Better Believe It]

71. K & R You understand the game that is being played MadHound

[BzaDem]

72. "The Dems could force this to a real, live, talk all night, pee in a bottle filibuster"

Do you think the more you say this, the more it becomes true? Or do you know it's false and are you deliberately trying to mislead others to Bash Obama?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

"As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture.""

[Forkboy]

77. Do you feel this procedure is correct?

[BzaDem]

106. I would change the whole system the first chance I got.

The filibuster is anti-Democratic and destroys accountability, causing voters to blame the wrong party each and every time.

The piece I linked to is an accurate description of the current procedure. But that doesn't mean I like that procedure.

[Forkboy]

Ok, thanks for your answer.

I appreciate it.

[MadHound]

87. Yeah, you're right,

But Reid can talk, and Obama can talk, and Biden can talk, and they can beat the living shit out of the Republicans for being obstructionist, for holding up a defense budget over an issue that there is overwhelming support for.

What better could you ask for in an election season. Hell, a good filibuster, on the right side of the issue, kept in the news cycle for days is just the thing to make the 'Pugs look like fools, fire up the base, and issue a statement to the country that the Democratic party still has a spine left.

Really now, you haven't studied much realpolitik now, have you.

[BzaDem]

103. People talk all day on the floor of the Senate. You actually think anyone cares?

That would be no different than any other day. The media would tune it out and no one would even find out about it (let alone change their behavior based upon it).

[MadHound]

112. No, what people care about is what Obama and the Dems would say outside the floor of the Senate

Or haven't you studied filibusters in your educational process. I suggest you start with LBJ and the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. Riveting stuff, truly, and it worked. I never cared much for LBJ, but the man could use the bully pulpit.

[Better Believe It]

98. Senator Dick Durbin: Make the Republicans filibuster on the Senate floor!

Dick Durbin: Let GOP filibuster
By MANU RAJU
March 4, 2010

Senate Democrats may be ready to actually make Republicans carry out filibusters.

Basking in their political victory over Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-Ky.) blockade of an extension of unemployment insurance, Democrats say that they may force Republicans to talk endlessly on the floor in the months leading up to November’s elections.

For months, House Democrats — and liberal activists — have implored Senate Democrats to let filibusters unfold over hours on the Senate floor, rather than try disposing of Senate business with cloture votes and unanimous consent requests.

Asked Thursday why Senate Democrats don’t force Republicans to carry out filibusters, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “We may.”

“When we think the Republicans are being unreasonable — we’re going to consider our options under the rules of the Senate, I think there is a feeling after what we went through with Sen. Bunning’s blockage and unemployment benefits that we need to stand up more and make it clear what this obstruction costs,” Durbin said.

In the past, Democrats have hesitated to employ the tactic, fearing that it would serve only to bottle up the agenda further and create even worse perceptions of the Democratic-led Congress. Instead, when Republicans have threatened to filibuster, Democrats pull the legislation from the floor if they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Read the full article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33920.html


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



Democrats May Force All-Night Session
By John Stanton
March 2, 2010

Democrats are hoping to turn the procedural tables on Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and use Senate rules to break his blockade against an extension of unemployment insurance, including possibly forcing a round-the-clock session.

Although no final decisions have been made, Democrats confirmed it is increasingly likely that Democrats will force Bunning into an actual filibuster of unemployment insurance extension Tuesday night by repeatedly offering up unanimous consent agreements to bring the bill to a vote.

Although Members often threaten actual filibusters, they rarely materialize. Instead, lawmakers tend to rely on “Cadillac filibusters,” essentially stalling procedures that can be used to block legislation without having to actually stay put on the Senate floor.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/43730-1.html

[BzaDem]

102. Democrats can force an all-night session where a Republican asks for a quorum call every so often

and for which there is otherwise complete silence and music on CSPAN2 (like most of the time on the Senate floor). Sure, that's possible.

That is the limit of the extent to which that is possible. None of that changes anything that I wrote or the reality of Senate rules. In fact, it is entirely consistent with what I wrote. I used it as an example.

[ProSense]

78. What was the deal?

Did it include the Dream Act?

Was it upon review of the report due in December?

This is going to be addressed by Congress. The administration is not going to act before the vote.

[MadHound]

107. The deal was this

Or as Biden put it on Maddow last week, the compromise.

The defense budget, containing the amendment repealing DADT would get enough votes to come to open debate on the floor. In exchange, Obama would not suspend the DADT while all this political maneuvering was going on.

The question now becomes whether the administration is going to act at all. He has kept up his end of the bargain, bad as it was, up to this point. There is no point in continuing, especially since people's lives are at stake here. It is time for Obama to end this madness, something he should have done months and months ago.

[vaberella]

161. Exactly.

However bad the compromise was, he was looking for the best alternative. Executive Order's aren't enough----he wants full repeal. I hope he does EO at this point. But I'm sure if he even does that the Repubs will come up with another procedural issue and vote against it.

[MadHound]

170. But he could have issued the EO in the interim,

And saved the lives of dozens of soldiers. Instead, he played politics with peoples' lives and lost.

[BzaDem]

108. I don't think it will be addressed by Congress. Republicans will simply vote down the defense bill

until they take the House in January and make any DADT compromise impossible.

[ProSense]

111. Don't agree.

Your premise rests on them taking the House.

[BzaDem]

120. Even if we retain the House, we are not going to have enough votes to pass DADT again.

Even the most optimistic models predict that. If they were all wrong it would be the first time ever.

Our only chance is in the lame duck. Given special elections, we will probably have 57 votes in the Senate then. We would need Snowe/Collins/Brown or some other combination to change their votes (and for Pryor and Lincoln to change their votes), or some other combination of 5.

[ProSense]

128. The vote comes up before this Congress ends.

Republicans will posture, but eventually they are going to have to vote for the defense bill. They didn't want to vote for the tax on multinational corporations in the state aid bill either, but they can only obstruct so long.

I suspect on this issue they're going to hear from a lot of people. Where are the Log Cabin Republicans?

[BzaDem]

134. You have much more faith in Congressional Republicans than I.

From where I sit, it looks like their entire plan from the start was to push the defense authorization bill to the next Congress, just like they are going to (probably successfully) push all 13 appropriations bills to the next Congress. They will only vote for a continuing resolution until then.

[vaberella]

162. I think the deal included all of the above.

It was to repeal DADT although Biden didn't go into the Dream Act---but he put the dream Act in there for the Repubs who were pushing for it and would have given the vote. He said he'd old off on EO's UNTIL DADT could go through proper repeal. I think the Repubs threatened some procedural nonsense if he used EO----I remember him saying that if he used the EO, he wouldn't get the votes needed because he would have the EO in place. And he knew the EO only lasted as long as his Presidency and he wanted assurance that he would get the votes to repeal.

[TexasObserver]

117. Sat-an!

Van Halen: "Runnin' with the devil!"

[Iwillnevergiveup]

151. Today, hands down the most agonizingly annoying person

is the hypocritical, lying (caught on tape) Senator from Arizona. What a truly despicable human being he's morphed into over the past decade. McCain is on a loop - around and around he comes wreaking havoc, hatred, hubris and heartache. I don't want the blood pressure to go up too much since a good night's sleep is mandatory, but words can't say enough how thoroughly disgusted I am with his shenanigans. No doubt in my mind he was one of the deal breakers - he'll never get over losing an election to Obama, so it will always be payback for him.

I remember Eugene Robinson writing he should apologize to the nation for bringing along Palin as his VP. She and McCain are both hideous traitors.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Touchdown]

153. Big, giant, engorged K&R.

:applause:

[vaberella]

157. He probably will. He probably thought he had Collins and McCain on this.

He got no one. He'll turn this around on them.

[Erose999]

173. This post assumes the Obama himself isn't the "devil". He hasn't shown ANY initiative on LGBT issues

other than empty rhetoric. He would have ended DADT by EO on day one if he were really serious about it.

[deutsey]

174. You not only get burned, you lose your soul. n/t

[liberalla]

179. How can they make a deal with the devil, and expect any

other outcome? Haven't they learned by now?

paraphrasing... "They couldn't help themselves. It's their nature."

(Republicans = the Scorpion)

[dgibby]

183. Charlie Brown, Lucy, Football.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[h9socialist]

181. The Obama Administration should simply agree with the court decision against DADT and end it that wa

But at the same time, activists and progressives should look at the roll call of yesterday's vote and remember who voted to end the filibuster and who didn't. The REAL culprit is the set of institutional rules that allow the minority to thwart the majority, and the Constitutional provisions that allow such a travesty
.

[MadHound]

182. That would be one way of repealing DADT

It would be long and ardorous to do, and the results will be considered illegit by anybody right of center. It would be much more effective to have this go through Congress.

What the Dems need to do is let the opposition filibuster, and use the bully pulpit to beat them over the head for their obstructionism. This is something that has been needed for a long while, it would make the 'Pugs look foolish, it would energize the base, and after a few dozen bumps and bruises, the 'Pugs would think twice about a filibuster.

[h9socialist]

187. That makes the point, BUT . . .

It doesn't end the injustice, it frustrates people in the Democratic base, and gives the Republicans a wedge to say that the Democrats just want to waste time on these issues when unemployment is near 10%. If such a ruling stands up in court the Executive Branch is sworn to uphold the law of the land.

In any event it is unfortunate to be in this situation. But I think that Rachel is right, there's no longer any reason to try to compromise with the Republicans in hopes of getting them to do the right thing.

[avaistheone1]

196. k&r

[DeSwiss]

199. "...or will he continue to let down the LGBT community and let good soldiers to twist in the wind?"

- That's what he's gonna do. And we all know it.

K&R

[earcandle]

201. American politics is getting more and more stupid every day as we grapple with issues that obviously

conflict with our constitution.  Gay and Lesbians are
Americans, just like Catholics, and Muslims.  JUst like men
and women.  Just like Irish and Italians.  Can we please get
more sophisticated and stop looking like idiots in the eyes of
other countries and in the eyes of our own children?