House Dems urge Obama to halt gay discharges from the military

[undeterred]

Source: The Boston Globe

By Bryan Bender
GLOBE STAFF

WASHINGTON _ In the most vocal plea for the White House to take the lead in allowing gays to serve openly in the military, 76 Democratic lawmakers today urged President Obama to use his executive powers to order a halt to military discharges under the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and work aggressively with Congress to pass new legislation to overturn what they describe as a discriminatory policy that harms national security.

"We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell until Congress repeals the law," states the letter, organized by Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Democrat of California. "To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

A recent study by the Palm Center, a public policy think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, argued that Obama has the authority as commander-in-chief to suspend the gay discharge process through an executive order.

But only Congress can make a permanent change, by overturning the 1993 law that established the current policy -- which stipulates that gays and lesbians can serve in uniform only if their sexual orientation remains secret. And so far, virtually no Republicans in the House of Representatives or Senate have expressed a willingness to overturn the law, while many conservative Democrats are also considered wary of doing so.



Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/06/house_dems_urge.html

---

Letter was organized by Dem Rep. Alcee Hastings, of California.

Edited to correct: Hastings is from Florida

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Instead of passing the buck, why don't they get their asses moving on repealing DADT and DOMA?

Ultimately, these are both in the realm of Congress to control, not Obama. If you want action, Rep. Hastings, take it yourself!

[sisters6]

4. Pres. Obama passed the buck to Congress. He likes

'incremental' change when it comes to his health care proposal, yet he avoids it when it comes to gays.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. The buck is Congress' in the first place.

DADT and DOMA are federal laws. Obama CANNOT unilaterally repeal them. He can't retroactively veto them. He may or may not be able to sign an executive order to change how they function, but that's legally suspect and it certainly wouldn't change the core of the problem.

I don't know why people willingly fail to understand that reality. This is Congress' responsibility, and outside of Obama signing it into law, it's the SOLE responsibility of Congress.

[SoCalNative]

16. he cannot repeal them

but he can put an order in place staying their implementation until further action can be taken, whether it be congressional committes, etc.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. That's of rather questionable legality.

And frankly, it's an ass-backwards way of doing things, the kind of manner that we would've bashed Bush like no tomorrow for doing. I know a lot of people have no problem with Obama taking pages out of the Bush handbook (and that's fine - everyone has the right to their opinions), but personally, I'd rather not be one of them. Furthermore, let's not lose sight of where the problem really is - Congress.

[SoCalNative]

19. There's nothing wrong

with the President halting implementation (ie DADT so that the discharges STOP immediately) while Congress is attempting to get both DADT and DOMA overturned.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Except you KNOW congress -

if Obama were to 'halt implementation' they'd consider it taken care of and do NOTHING else - which would then leave Obama out there twisting in the wind of RW spin.

There is a REASON he's not choosing to do it that way.

[No Elephants]

83. Sure there's a reason. He doesn't want to take whatever heat may result. It's not

a courageous reason or an admirable reason, but it's a reason.

Congress has said it will deal with this in 2010 (after mid-terms, I'm guessing). However, meanwhile, lives and careers are being ruined. But, so what if Congress does leave him hanging indefinitely? So what?

[RaleighNCDUer]

114. So I don't want Romney/Palin in '12. THAT's "so what". nt

[Bluenorthwest]

27. In what way is it legally questionable?

From the article: A recent study by the Palm Center, a public policy think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, argued that Obama has the authority as commander-in-chief to suspend the gay discharge process through an executive order.

So gee. UCSB Policy think tank's opinion, well explained, verses a random internet poster's unsupported proclamation. Which carries more weight? Hmmmmmmm.....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Is your memory short?

Did we not slam Bush for his abuse of executive orders to skirt laws that are on the books?

Furthermore, how long did it take Obama to eliminate some of Bush's most heinous EOs? Is that the fix you want? Or do you want something more lasting?

Lasting change can only come through Congress. This just seems like a convenient opportunity to bash Obama instead of the people really responsible for getting this done.

Finally, while I never stated that I was the end-all be-all resource on issues of legality, you could fill a library with instances where think tanks are wrong. Think tanks are nothing more than rhetoric machine in the guise of serious intellectual thought. You tell a think tank what you want to prove, give them some money, and they'll say whatever you want. That IS an area where I can claim expertise.

And yes, I know I'm a random internet poster, so it's up to you as to whether or not you believe what I say there. I fully understand if you don't, but I certainly don't need an unnecessarily pithy response either way.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Well you could defend you own statement that it is leagally funky

But you can not. All Presidents use executive orders. In English, the word 'use' is not the same as 'abuse' which is what Bush did. Abuse is bad. Use of Exec Orders is necessary and Obama has already used them many times, so what is your point? That he should stop now? Or just not use one for DADT?
The Congress has asked him to stop discharging people while they get the law changed. Legal experts agree that he can do so.
You just declared that the 70+ Congress people are asking for something that is legally questionable. But you do not in any way even attempt to explain the basis for your thinking. Declaring a thing does not make it true. You have nothing to support your claim, clearly, so you resort to personalized attacks not on my opinion, but on me.
There is nothing in your post to 'believe' or not believe, kiddo. You foisted an opinion, I asked what your opinion is based on, you attacked my memory. If it is legally questionable, you have not said in what way, nor what you base your difference of opinion with UCSB upon. So believe you? I believe that your opinions are yours, and that you make up whatever you want to support them, then call people names when they dare to ask you to explain your reasoning.
I thought you would have an answer to the simple question. You are the one who make a declaration. I thought you would have a basis for that thinking. My mistake. You got nothing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. Article II, section 3

"The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

This EO would specifically order that a law NOT be executed. You can find plenty of legal experts that would make this argument.

Ball's in your court. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

[struggle4progress]

67. Thank you. We have had enough Executive lawlessness in recent years.

[JustinL]

76. the President has explicit legal authority to halt discharges

10 U.S.C. 12305:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

[No Elephants]

85. And your point is? The laws include his Constitutional power as CIC and the statute that

specifically and expressly empowers him to suspend discharges.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Not so aggressive on this front anymore, eh? (nt)

[kenfrequed]

70. There were clear differences...

Bush's executive orders were end runs around legislation and actually his "signing statements" were the real division of power and constitutional abominations.

As commander in chief Obamma is within authority to order that order that investigations and discharging be suspended. Did Truman have the authority to integrate the services when 'seperate but equal' was still the accepted judicial interpretation of the law?

[Thothmes]

73. Truman could issue an executive order to end segregation

in the armed services because there was no Congressinal Law which mandated segragation. Segregation was codified in the military regulations of each the armed services. As such, Truman could easily order service regulations changed.

[JustinL]

77. there is also a law that gives Obama the authority to halt discharges

10 U.S.C. 12305:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

[Thothmes]

78. He can halt the discharges,

For a while. Though if it is challenged in court, the Govt, may have a hard time proving the "essential" aspect of retaining gay service personnel. Since the services have activel thrown them out of the service every time they have been identified. He cannot change the law, only Congress can do that. Also, he cannot change the USMJ that makes homosexual activity illegal, Congress must do that also. The only satifactory way to end DADT is for the Congress of the United States to change the law.

[No Elephants]

86. If? May? He is CIC. And with war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, stop losses until troops go nuts,

etc., no gubbamint lawyer worth his or her salt will have any difficulty proving the need to reduct discharges. Besides, who has standing to bring this hypothetical lawsuit? Do you really think Congess is going to sue the President? And I don't think a court would touch this would a ten foot pole anyway.

The services throw them out whenever they are identified because of DADT and the executive orders, laws and regulations before DADT, so that is a circular argument, at best, for not suspending discharges.

Again, no one is saying he can change a statute without Congress, but he has plenty of power, Constitutional and statutory, to suspend DADT dishcarges.

[No Elephants]

88. Not one court case to support that proposition exists. It is speculation by some

legal writers, not law. So far, no President has done that, but that does not mean a President can't. And, there still is U.S.C. 12305.

[No Elephants]

84. Apples and oranges, to say the least. This is not the same as Bush usurping

power at all. There is both Constitutional and statutory authority for the President to deal with the military, especially when we are in two wars plus the newly re-named WOT.

[No Elephants]

82. Not at all. Please see Reply ##'s 76, 77 and 81.

[No Elephants]

81. Obama has statutory power to suspend any law regarding discharges. He also

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

It is not the sole responsiblity of Congress and never was. The only reason DADT was Congress's baby in the first place is that Bill Clinton didn't desire to deal with it, EITHER.

[RaleighNCDUer]

118. You do understand that the link is a lawyer's opinion and that is

different from a LEGAL opinion. It is the argument that would be used in court, but there is no legal ruling backing it up.

You ALSO realize that the 'statuatory power' derives from a Bushco law that was meant to keep people in the service AGAINST THEIR WILL as a back-door draft - so you want to use a bad law to KEEP another bad law on the books? Because that is all that 'suspending' would do - the law remains, to be implemented at the will of the executive. You think the law of the land should be subject to the WILL OF THE EXECUTIVE?

JUST CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW.

It's that simple.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Congress makes the law

In case you hadn't heard.

[No Elephants]

87. A very incomplete statement. First, Congress does not, by itself, alter the Constitution of the

United States, which states that the President is the commander in chief of all out troops. Clinton could have signed an executive order re: DADT if he had wanted to, but he sent it to Congress, for the same reason Obama wants Congress to deal with it. So, Congress and the Presidentboth have power over the military. If Truman could desegregate the miltary with the stroke of a pen as to race, Obama can do the same as to orientation.

Second, U.S. C. 12305, passed by Congress and signed by the President, expressly and specifically empowers the President to suspend discharges during a national emergency. The military get stop lossed over and over until they go nuts while we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the WOT, is more than enough of a national emergency.

[alcibiades_mystery]

121. So you agree with stop loss?

Wow. And here I thought the endless state of emergency declared by the Bushies was something we should be opposed to! I guess we should only be opposed to it when the executive power grab involves something we *don't* like.

:wow:

Perpetual state of emergency! Executive overturning explicit public law on the basis of military emergency! Hip hip hooray!

Listen to yourself.

[Zenlitened]

123. Important difference: These are people who WANT to remain in the service.

They are being drummed out against their will. They WANT to serve. There is no rational reason to force them out, and EVERY reason to find a way to preserve their skills, experience and sense of duty.

[alcibiades_mystery]

124. The principle is what's at stake

The executive overruling existing public law on the basis of an invented emergency. We certainly agree that DADT should go, and it's quite obvious that the effects are different here, but the principle is the same, and a future executive could use the precedent to do the opposite. We shouldn't promote dubious executive declared emergencies. Especially when congress could apparently dispatch the matter in weeks.

[JustinL]

128. what invented emergency?

The President may invoke his authority under 10 U.S. 12305 "during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty..." Are we not in such a period? It's not as if Obama called up the reserves as a pretext for halting DADT discharges. He inherited the situation from his predecessor.

Especially when congress could apparently dispatch the matter in weeks.

And how many more troops will be discharged during those weeks? Obama could issue an executive order tomorrow, and should have done so his first day in office.

I'm not trying to excuse any lack of action by Congress. I just want the President to stanch the bleeding while Congress works on a permanent repeal.

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. Well...

The only LEGAL basis for ignoring the execution of an existing public law would be that it interferes with national security. That this implies some form of military exigency is clear enough. I don't like the idea of the executive overruling or suspending law - de jure or de facto - under the cover of military exigency, especially when it is not actual military necessity, when it is not an actual emergency, when Congress has not properly declared a state of war, and when the matter can be properly handled by the legislature. The notion that these discharges constitute a real threat to military preparedness is, of course, nonsense. The issue is ethical - a matter of civil rights rather than military exigency. I do not like the idea of using military necessity when the real motivation and need is elsewhere.

Basically, we're saying this: we don't like this law because it is a violation of basic civil rights. So let's use this provision on military exigency to stop it! This is a very dangerous road to walk down. I have, of course, heard arguments that overturning DADT actually IS military necessity, but I find them unconvincing at best. You want to leverage the provision - which is itself an overreachj on constitutional authority of the executive - to do something unconnected.

"And how many more troops will be discharged during those weeks?"

I don't care, honestly. The principle of a limited executive is more important that stanching the bleeding on eight, eighty, or eight-hundred careers. You can beat me up on that, but you won't move me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. My first thought, too.

Instead of kicking to over to Obama, who can only issue a stop-gap executive order of dubious legality, CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW YOURSELVES.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. These fucking scumbags are trying to push all of the suddenly hot potato GLBT issues to Obama.

Instead of, you know, actually doing something themselves and risk getting their hands dirty. THIS is where the ire of the GLBT community really belongs, not with Obama. I sure as fuck know that this is where my immense ire is right now on this issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. There has been a repeal bill in the House for over 3 months

The ire that Obama is getting is his own damn fault, and there is plenty left over for Congress, don't worry. However, Congress did not run for office promising to provide leadership on DOMA an DADT repeals. Obama did. In clearly spoken, fully broken terms. Over and over again, he said if we supported him, he'd use his bully pulpit, and instead he just bullies from a pulpit.
No one asked him to make promises he did not wish to keep. No one made the man run for office, nor declare himself a fierce advocate. He said he was fierce, not anyone else. He is the one that said he would lead, yet you call the Congress people who are picking up his slack scumbags? They are actually taking action. Unlike the President. Who has shown himself to be a man whose word is of no value, most of them being spoken in praise of himself or his wife anyway. "I am a fierce supporter of Obama." See. Now you have no complaints. I am a fierce advocate for Obama, because saying it makes it so, right?

265. That is the number of military men and women fired by Obama since Jan 20.
265 and counting.

[AlbertCat]

46. However, Congress did not run for office promising to provide leadership on DOMA an DADT repeals.

Are you sure?

Have you been through all the campaign speeches of all members of Congress?

[No Elephants]

90. Oh, please.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. You want numbers?

14.5 million Americans are unemployed - only 0.0018% of which were affected by DADT.
Approximately 47 million Americans lack health care - only 0.000563% are so as a result of DADT.

There is no scenario under which it's more important for Obama to repeal DADT than it is to get a health care solution (public option, please) and get our economy on the right track. It's been five months and two days. This is where I talk about ponies, you yell at me for crimes against humanity or something of the sort, and that's where the conversation ends, right?

There are 535 Congressmen that can lead on this issue and can take Pelosi to task for not getting this done. There's only one President.

[No Elephants]

91. Because no one can walk and chew gum att the same time? Obama could

have signed an Executive Order suspending DADT discharges before he left Congress on Inauguration Day, as he did other orders. He can still sign one in about 5 secconds.

There were good economic reasons for continuing slavery, Jim Crow and racial discrimination, too.

[No Elephants]

96. + 1

[struggle4progress]

35. "maximum discretion legally possible in administering" is a reasonable request:

the Executive doesn't have the authority to ignore the law or to set it aside, but the Executive does have some regulatory discretion, some power to interpret, and some ability to prioritize enforcement actions

It's perfectly acceptable to ask the Executive to set a high evidential bar and a low priority for DADT actions: this won't eliminate separations, but it will slow them, and thus the ball will remain with Congress for final action

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. I get why HRC and other would ask for that action.

It would make perfect sense coming from them. It's reasonable enough, though it still would be walking a line of legality (though it's fair to note that it probably wouldn't end up getting challenged, that doesn't make it any less of a fine line).

It makes no sense whatsoever coming from Congress. They can do this themselves. Why ask Obama to do it half-assed?

[struggle4progress]

64. It has been my view that any action by the President reduces the chance Congress will act

but since I don't have a dog in this particular fight I'd assume I should defer, so far as I can, to those who do have a dog in the fight

[No Elephants]

94. We all have a dog in the fight for equal rights. Some of us realize that others may not. And it

is the military of the United States of America. That's all of us, too.

And if the discharges are suspended anyway, it may make Congress less reluctant to act instead of more. No one can know one way or another. But, if the discharges are suspended, that will at least keep some careers and lives intact.

[struggle4progress]

115. This habit of misrepresenting what people say rapidly becomes tiresome and will backfire

[No Elephants]

92. It's not ONLY Congress asking Obama. It's members of the military who are getting discharged and

those who support them. And gay people in general, who want their humanity recognized, and all those who support them.

[No Elephants]

89. You could easily say the same about Obama for lying that he cannot do anything about it, when

he has both Constitutional and statutory power to act. Fact is, the courts are leaving this to Congress and the Executive and both Congress and the Executive are being cowards. But only Obama is also being dishonest about it.

[Zhade]

132. Nah, Obama's bigotry should be addressed as well.

NT!

[No Elephants]

93. An Executive Order suspending DADT would NOT be of dubious legality.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. Really? Any other laws you'd like set aside by decree?

How about trial by jury. He could just write an executive order suspending jury trials - after all, what good is a judge if he can't JUDGE?

Habeaus Corpus - that's a good one, but it's been overdone a bit lately.

How about Miranda rights? A bothersome detail that gets in the way of locking up bad guys - just a simple EO saying that Miranda will no longer be necessary.

What LAW would YOU like set aside?

[JustinL]

127. the President has explicit legal authority to suspend discharges

10 U.S.C. 12305:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

All your examples involve the President issuing decrees that abrogate people's rights. That is not the same as the President using his valid legal authority to protect people's rights.

[No Elephants]

97. They are asking for him to do both--issue a stop gap order and work with Congress to get a law

passed. Nothing wrong with that, especially since he campaigned on repeal of DADT and DOMA.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

10. Maybe because this only has 76 Democratic supporters?

Which I personally find pathetic.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. People were citing polls showing 70+% support for repeal of DADT

And the Democratic Congress can muster up only 76 supporters, and then they act as if Obama not swooping in to suspend enforcement of the extremely unpopular law Congress passed 16 years ago is a problem of leadership at the fucking executive branch?!?

Truly unbelievable nerve these people have.

[No Elephants]

95. Congress passed that law 16 years ago because Clinton made certain campaign promises, but

then did not want to take the heat for them. He and Dick Morris cooked up something they thought would be least objectionable to the right, then had Powell front it.

And now, Obama campaigined on ending DADT and DOMA and he is also throwing it to Congress.

IMO, both the CIC and Congress have some nerve batting this issue back and forth between them. Plenty of shame to go around.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. That doesn't mean you'd only get 76 votes.

It just means that 76 of them want to lead the charge, which is a rather significant number, frankly.

[24601]

75. Because if they voted, it would not pass. None of the Blue Dogs

would support it, not would anyone in a marginal district. If party discipline were enforced in the vote to achieve passage (and ultimately it's unenforcable - no member can order another member to vote a certain way), the House of Representative likely would be lost in 2010.

[No Elephants]

101. That's why Obama should have signed an Executive Order suspending

DADT discharges on Inauguration Day.

[24601]

125. He doesn't even need an EO. All he has to do is reserve

exclusive original jurisdiction in all DADT cases. I can't envision too many company commanders wanting to put together the documentation to be reviewed and forwarded by all the echelons of command up to the President.

[bluestateguy]

2. That's fine, but why don't they pass the repeal themselves in the House

They have the votes in the House. Not sure about the Senate, but the House passing the repeal would at least get the issue on the radar screen.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. All they have to do is add a revision to the public law in the next bill

It's their goddamn job, after all.

And supposedly, there's 70+% approval for repeal of DADT. So fucking do it already, Congress. It's not the President's job to nullify the enforcement of public law. It's your fucking job.

What fucking chutzpah.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Exactly - tack it onto the Defense supplemental.

And tell Republicans "good luck" if they want to be against our troops.

[Zenlitened]

69. If you're going to proclaim which tactics should be employed...

... you really ought to do a better job of keeping up with the news:

The 226-202 House vote on the war spending bill was unusual in that Republicans, strong supporters of military spending, were almost unanimous in opposing the bill.

The minority party objected to the inclusion in the final House-Senate compromise bill of $5 billion to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the International Monetary Fund for loans to poorer countries hit by the economic downturn.

Link:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1DBB8JA46mzegcVniqdGeQYASwQD98S9F7G0

If they're willing to toss their pals at the IMF overboard...

[No Elephants]

98. Yet, Obama campaigned on repeal of DADT and DOMA. If there was

really nothing at all he could do, not even use his "bully pulpit," wasn't that dishonest?

It was Obama who decided to take this to the military instead of directly to Congress. And, with a Republican Secretary of Defense and a mostly Republican military, what answer did he think he'd get?

That move on Obama's part made it harder for this Congress to pass legislation than it would have been if he had just stayed out of it.

He should issue an Executive Order pursuant to his Constitutional powers as CIC and pursuant to U.S.C. 12305, then work aggressively with Congress on DADT to get the law changed. That's what they are asking and nothing is wrong with that, especially since, thanks to Obama, passing the law is more risky for those up for election soon than it would have been if he had not gone to the military and publicized the "not yet" response.

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. All ONE member of Congress has to do is attach a rider

Supposedly, there's 70% support, so it would sail through, right?

One member. One rider. Next bill,. And DADT is GONE. All your points are there to cover over this basic fact.

We've all read the Palm Center study. Naming the provision doesn't make you sound like any more of an expert. And I voted for Obama because he would self-reduce the power of the executive. If that means not unilaterally suspending laws he doesn't like and screaming "military necessity," then that makes me comfortable. Congress makes the fucking laws. In this case, it would be very very easy for it to do so. Not hard. Easy. They just don't seem to want to. But one thing is clear. A lot of people really really want to be angry at Obama about it. And so they will. Even if any one member of the Democratic Congress could begin the process TODAY that would have DADT gone in under two months. Without inflating the power of the executive around made-up military necessity. Don't pretend that people who disagree with you don't have a strong argument. I recognize the strength of your case. There ARE real issues at stake.

[No Elephants]

103. First, I don't agree with your unsupported premise that it would

sail through. There is no proof of that and quite a few indications to the contrary, especially since Obama's own actions have made it more difficult, per my prior post.

And, I have posted more than once on this threadthat both branches are not doing the right thing. So, if my alleged desire to be mad at Obama is your best argument against Reply #98, lots of luck. Oh, and Obama was the one who campaigned on repeal. If he is so helpless in all this, that was dishonest. At whom should I be angry for failure to keep Obama's campaign promises? At whom should I be angry about Obama's dishonesty?

Besides, turn it around. All you want to do is defend Obama. To do that, you've had to ignore facts and law and resort to personal attacks when you cannot address a poster's substantive points.

I notice that getting personally nasty is your style, especially whenever you have nothing else. While it may intimidate some, it doesn't intimidate me. And it certainly not persuasive or impressive to me or anyone else. Try again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

111. Oh, my hero

Is your personal style self-aggrandizement? Sure seems like it.

The notion that it would sail through is the reasoning that I've seen supporting the whole law-suspending act. It goes like this: Obama suspends the law, and then Congress is forced to act. I say, well, what if it fails in Congress? And I get the response: Impossible. Repeal has 70% support. If you're not in the "sail through" crowd, then you'd have to at least contemplate the idea that it may currently go down in flames in Congress, which would make it even HARDER to repeal if Obama forces Congress' hand by openly suspending the public law. So, would it be easy to pass or hard? If it would be easy, then Congress should do it. If it would be hard, then forcing the issue now may hamstring actual repeal. So, which do you prefer?

And you have yourself now shifted to personal attack rather than face the substantive argument: suspending the public law on the basis of military exigency is precisely the sort of shit that we don't need. REather than deal with that, you've turned to some biographical account, which is odd, since I have no idea who you are, and can't remember ever seeing your posts before, but you've apparently been tracking mine.

I'm not in the support Obama for whatever crowd. I'm in the reduce executive power as much as possible crowd. Since the only basis on which Obama could legitimately suspend this standing and explicitly stated and duly passed public law would be to claim military exigency and emergency, I don't like that option, since I don't think we should ever have given the executive the power to do any such thing outside a formal declaration by Congress of a state of war. PERIOD.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. I thought Hastings was a Rep from Florida?

Also, why only 76 Democratic lawmakers?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. There are two Hastings. Alcee is (D-FL). Doc is from (R-WA)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. Right, which means that Rep. Alcee Hastings is not a Democrat of California

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Oh, good call - I missed that error in the OP. (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. And yet none of them have introduced legislation to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Zenlitened]

24. H.R. 1283

http://www.sldn.org/pages/in-congress

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1283)

On March 3, 2009, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act as lead sponsor, and is joined by 146 bipartisan cosponsors and counting. SLDN is working with key allies to introduce parallel legislation in the U.S. Senate.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act would repeal the federal law banning military service by openly lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The bill would replace this ban with new provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in the armed forces. Current regulations regarding the personal conduct of military members would remain unchanged as long as they are written and enforced in a sexual orientation neutral manner. Persons previously discharged on the basis of sexual orientation would be eligible to apply to rejoin the military. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act would not create a right to benefits for same-sex partners or spouses, because under current federal law such benefits would violate the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would strengthen military readiness, retention and recruitment across the board.

Repeal would enable the military to attract and retain critical personnel. Nearly 13,000 service members have been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since 1993, and strong evidence suggests that countless others have made the choice not to join the military or have left military service at the end of their commitments rather than serve under this discriminatory law. According to a 2005 GAO report, almost 800 persons discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” had skills deemed "mission critical” by the military. Discharging linguists, doctors, nurses, mechanics, infantrymen and intelligence analysts for no other reason than because of their sexual orientation weakens readiness and undermines unit cohesion. Allowing all qualified Americans to serve regardless of sexual orientation will make every branch of our military stronger.

Repeal will also save millions of taxpayer dollars every year. According to the GAO report, it has cost more than $200 million to replace service members fired under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” GAO admits that this is an incomplete estimate; the true cost is even higher.

Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” reflects American values. Polling shows that at least 75 percent of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly in our nation’s military. And Americans care deeply about treating our service members and veterans with the respect and thanks they deserve, not as second class citizens. It is estimated that more than 65,000 gay Americans serve in the military now, and that our country is home to more than 1,000,000 gay veterans.

[Zenlitened]

25. List of Cosponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1283)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01283:@@@P

Rep Abercrombie, Neil (HI-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. (NY-5) - 3/3/2009
Rep Andrews, Robert E. (NJ-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. (NY-24) - 3/17/2009
Rep Baird, Brian (WA-3) - 3/12/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy (WI-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Becerra, Xavier (CA-31) - 6/16/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley (NV-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Berman, Howard L. (CA-28) - 3/3/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. (NY-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl (OR-3) - 3/3/2009
Rep Brady, Robert A. (PA-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. (IA-1) - 6/8/2009
Rep Capps, Lois (CA-23) - 3/3/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. (MA-8) - 3/3/2009
Rep Carnahan, Russ (MO-3) - 4/27/2009
Rep Carson, Andre (IN-7) - 3/3/2009
Rep Castor, Kathy (FL-11) - 3/3/2009
Rep Christensen, Donna M. (VI) - 3/3/2009
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. (NY-11) - 3/3/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy (MO-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel (MO-5) - 3/3/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve (TN-9) - 3/3/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (MI-14) - 3/3/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe (CT-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Crowley, Joseph (NY-7) - 3/3/2009
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. (MD-7) - 3/3/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. (IL-7) - 4/27/2009
Rep Davis, Susan A. (CA-53) - 3/3/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. (OR-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep DeGette, Diana (CO-1) - 3/6/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. (MA-10) - 3/3/2009
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. (CT-3) - 3/3/2009
Rep Dicks, Norman D. (WA-6) - 3/9/2009
Rep Dingell, John D. (MI-15) - 3/3/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd (TX-25) - 4/2/2009
Rep Doyle, Michael F. (PA-14) - 3/3/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. (MD-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith (MN-5) - 3/3/2009
Rep Engel, Eliot L. (NY-17) - 3/3/2009
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. (CA-14) - 3/3/2009
Rep Farr, Sam (CA-17) - 3/3/2009
Rep Fattah, Chaka (PA-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Filner, Bob (CA-51) - 3/3/2009
Rep Frank, Barney (MA-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. (TX-20) - 3/6/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. (AZ-7) - 3/3/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. (IL-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep Hall, John J. (NY-19) - 3/3/2009
Rep Hare, Phil (IL-17) - 3/3/2009
Rep Harman, Jane (CA-36) - 3/3/2009
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23) - 3/3/2009
Rep Higgins, Brian (NY-27) - 4/29/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. (NY-22) - 3/3/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. (HI-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. (NJ-12) - 3/3/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. (CA-15) - 3/3/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay (WA-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Israel, Steve (NY-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. (IL-2) - 3/9/2009
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX-18) - 3/9/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX-30) - 3/3/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. (GA-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. (RI-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. (MI-13) - 3/5/2009
Rep Kilroy, Mary Jo (OH-15) - 3/5/2009
Rep Klein, Ron (FL-22) - 6/9/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (OH-10) - 3/3/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. (RI-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Larsen, Rick (WA-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara (CA-9) - 3/3/2009
Rep Lewis, John (GA-5) - 3/3/2009
Rep Loebsack, David (IA-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe (CA-16) - 3/3/2009
Rep Lowey, Nita M. (NY-18) - 3/3/2009
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. (MA-9) - 3/3/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. (NY-14) - 3/3/2009
Rep Markey, Edward J. (MA-7) - 3/3/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. (NY-29) - 3/23/2009
Rep Matsui, Doris O. (CA-5) - 3/3/2009
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn (NY-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep McCollum, Betty (MN-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim (WA-7) - 3/3/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. (MA-3) - 3/3/2009
Rep McMahon, Michael E. (NY-13) - 6/9/2009
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. (FL-17) - 3/3/2009
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. (NY-6) - 3/3/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. (ME-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Miller, Brad (NC-13) - 3/23/2009
Rep Miller, George (CA-7) - 3/3/2009
Rep Moore, Gwen (WI-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep Moran, James P. (VA-8) - 3/3/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. (CT-5) - 3/3/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. (PA-8) - 3/3/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold (NY-8) - 3/3/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. (CA-38) - 3/3/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes (DC) - 3/3/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. (MN-8) - 3/3/2009
Rep Olver, John W. (MA-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. (NJ-6) - 3/3/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. (NJ-8) - 3/3/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed (AZ-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. (NJ-10) - 3/3/2009
Rep Peters, Gary C. (MI-9) - 5/13/2009
Rep Pingree, Chellie (ME-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Polis, Jared (CO-2) - 3/3/2009
Rep Price, David E. (NC-4) - 3/3/2009
Rep Quigley, Mike (IL-5) - 6/2/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura (CA-37) - 3/17/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (FL-18) - 3/3/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. (NJ-9) - 3/3/2009
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille (CA-34) - 3/3/2009
Rep Rush, Bobby L. (IL-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. (CA-39) - 3/3/2009
Rep Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47) - 3/3/2009
Rep Sarbanes, John P. (MD-3) - 3/3/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. (IL-9) - 3/3/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. (CA-29) - 3/3/2009
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. (PA-13) - 3/3/2009
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" (VA-3) - 3/17/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. (NY-16) - 3/3/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe (PA-7) - 3/3/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol (NH-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad (CA-27) - 3/3/2009
Rep Sires, Albio (NJ-13) - 3/3/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (NY-28) - 3/3/2009
Rep Smith, Adam (WA-9) - 3/3/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic (AR-2) - 3/12/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie (CA-12) - 3/3/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete (CA-13) - 3/3/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty (OH-13) - 3/3/2009
Rep Thompson, Mike (CA-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. (MA-6) - 3/3/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. (NY-21) - 3/17/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus (NY-10) - 3/3/2009
Rep Tsongas, Niki (MA-5) - 3/3/2009
Rep Van Hollen, Chris (MD-8) - 3/3/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. (NY-12) - 3/3/2009
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie (FL-20) - 3/3/2009
Rep Watson, Diane E. (CA-33) - 3/3/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. (CA-30) - 3/3/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. (NY-9) - 3/3/2009
Rep Welch, Peter (VT) - 3/3/2009
Rep Wexler, Robert (FL-19) - 3/3/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. (CA-6) - 3/3/2009
Rep Wu, David (OR-1) - 3/3/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. (KY-3) - 6/9/2009

[Lone_Star_Dem]

37. I wonder if the 71 who support taking legislative action but are missing from Hastings letter above

Also support Obama discontinuing the policy on his own? The more lawmakers in support of repealing DADT the better, but frankly it needs to be done sooner rather than later. Reid said he can't get sponsors in the Senate, so no joint resolution is about to take place, and this looks as if we may still be short a few (what about 32?) in the House as well.

Frankly, I see it as a civil rights issue and am sick of all these people playing politics with something which should be an innate right of all Americans. On those grounds I support Obama discontinuing the policy until the majority of congress drags their bigoted heads out of the sand and wakes the hell up.

[Zenlitened]

47. I think Pres. Obama suspending DADT could MOTIVATE them...

... to drag their bigoted heads out of the sand and wake the hell up.

He has an important role to play in the process, though some on DU want to deny it.

They want to pretend that his role -- on this or any issue -- is merely to sit quietly at his desk in the Oval Office, waiting to sign whatever legislation Congress decides to send him.

It's a puzzler. :D

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. You know what? I wish Hastings had just said that.

"We can't do it. I have no ability to move this piece of legislation or change the minds of my peers. We need you to do what we 77 cannot get done."

Instead, he's making it look like Obama's the bad guy for not doing something when he damn well knows Congress has the power. He's passing the buck without acknowledging Congress' own problems. That's just flat out wrong.

[No Elephants]

104. Isn't the letter saying that? Oh, and he is not

passing the buck. Obama is the one saying there is absolutely nothing the President can do: "It needs Congress." A false statement, made in a letter to a troop, no less. Congress is saying, do what you can do with an executive order, then help us get a law passed." That is not passing the buck. It is asking the President to do what Presidents do--and what Obama campaigned on.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Yes they have introduced a bill.

Are you unaware of that fact or are you just playing the fool?

[Zenlitened]

21. So... this would be the sort of small, incremental step...

... that the "gotta-take-it-slow" crowd favors, right?

Respectful request from lawmakers for help in building consensus? Check.

Polite appeal for the President to wield only as much authority as the law permits? Check.

Argument addresses a pressing need on behalf of all Americans, not just a low-priority "identity" group? Check.

Just what the "Patience, Not Ponies" spokespersons advise.

So this must be a very positive development.

Right?

Apparently not, based upon the number of "Leave Barack Alone!!!11" replies in the thread so far.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. ...except the part where Congress is asking Obama to do something they themselves can do.

They're playing you for a fool by passing the buck to Obama. If they repeal the law, Obama needs only sign the bill. They don't need to ask him to skirt the law - they can just end it.

Can you not see the game of political expediency on Congress' part?

[Zenlitened]

28. I'm not all convinced...

... you have the credibility to determine who is and is not being played for a fool.

Then again, maybe I'm just a fucking scumbag (if I may quote your words from upthread) like the representatives who wrote the letter to Pres. Obama?

In any event, it's awfully disingenuous of you to dismiss this as mere political expediency... when in fact it is exactly the sort of deliberate, incremental, message-shaping, case-making, consensus-shaping "chess" that the Patience-Not-Ponies advocates here on DU claim to favor.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. You have got to be kidding me.

Congress = power to repeal a law.
President = can make temporary changes to a law's enforcement.

You tell me which side has the real power to make this change happen. Then you tell me why you're not a fool for buying into the idea that Congress asking the President to do something that they can do far more effectively is a good idea.

Finally, you seem to have a penchant for twisting words. I didn't call YOU a scumbag. I called Congressmen like Hastings scumbags for not doing the right thing and pushing Pelosi (aka the person that can put a DADT repeal on the agenda to be voted upon) and instead choose to go with the current flow of blaming Obama when they damn well know that they can and should be doing something themselves.

Further, there is no incremental change involved with DADT - there either is DADT or there isn't. This isn't like gay marriage vs. civil unions. This isn't like adoption. This is an issue that has had studies conducted, officers questioned, has been attempted by prior Presidents, etc. The increments have already come and gone. If you are unable to see nuance and understand difference between different points within an issue, don't blame other DUers.

[Zenlitened]

34. Not kidding... just questioning the logic of your arguments.

I find it lacking.

I also get the impression that you tend to confuse your own opinion with facts.

And that you seem to know very little about the political process, despite your blustering claims to the contrary.

And, while I'm pleased on some level that you don't consider me a fucking scumbag, I'd urge you re-read my previous post, and note that I merely raised the possibility. Hardly a twisting of your precious, if mercurial, words.

:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. Then tell me - how does this make sense.

Really, tell why it makes more sense for Obama to make a temporary change than it does for Congress to make the change permanent. Tell me why it's not disingenuous for Congressmen to tell Obama to do something that they can do themselves. If my logic is so flawed, tell me why.

[Zenlitened]

41. Because it's not a matter of "or." It's a matter of "and."

Pres. Obama orders halt to discharges AND Congress repeals DADT.

Hope that helps you begin to develop some understanding of the issue. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Okay, but...

This isn't really two competing strategies, despite the bait being offered. One strategy is a temporary fix. The other is a permanent one. They do the same thing, only differing in length of efficacy. There is no reason for an "and". Congress should just do it. Slip it into a defense supplemental and force Republicans to justify voting against the troops. It's really that simple.

[Zenlitened]

48. But but but but but but...

Now would be a good point in the discussion to admit that you really don't know what you're talking about.

'Cause those goalposts must be getting heavy by now.

:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. The goalpost hasn't moved.

I haven't changed my comments one iota. You just keep adding on ad hominems and making yourself look foolish.

[Zenlitened]

53. When in doubt, resort to Projection.

Well-played! :rofl:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You know what? You win. You are supreme master of this argument. You are an infinitely better human being than I am. <Insert superlative here> Are you happy? Good.

[Zenlitened]

No, not very happy.

It's always sad to see someone miss an opportunity to learn. Oh well, maybe some of the facts, the reality, of this issue will sink in over time. Good luck! :hi:

[No Elephants]

105. Saying over and over that suspending DADT discharges would be temporary does not make it true. And,

please see Reply #98.

[No Elephants]

100. First, suspending discharges under 10 USC 12305 would not need to

be temporary. Second, they are asking him to sign an executive order then work with Congress to get legislation passed. What is inappropriate about that, especially since he was the one who campaigned on repeal of DADT, then made said repeal harder?

[Bluenorthwest]

36. You get all mean and personal when shown to be wrong

And now I have to tell you that the administration's main excuse for inaction is that they are conducting studies and talking to officers, which you say has been done. The article says they are doing more of it, and that it might take years.
The Congress is attempting to change the law. The are asking the President to do what he said he would do and lead on this issue. He said he would lead. Now he is not leading at all, and you are screaming that he should not have to, and that others should. But still, Obama said he would. And he's not.
Instead they are doing more studies and the like. Lord knows we can afford endless studies!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. So Pelosi's put the DADT repeal on the agenda for debate or a vote?

Has the bill gone to full committee yet? What as the vote there?

You say Congress is "attempting to change the law". Show me.

[Zenlitened]

43. Are you familiar with thomas.loc.gov?

http://thomas.loc.gov/

It's a resource many people use to inform themselves BEFORE shrieking their ridiculous opinions all over th' internet. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. Then you should've used it!

HR 1283 is referred to subcommittee. Do you know what that means? It means it's in purgatory, where it will likely linger until Congress adjourns, when it will die. It is not scheduled for hearings. It is not scheduled for a committee vote. It is not scheduled for a full House vote. There is not even an accompanying Senate bill.

I admit, that was a nice try at making me look like an ass. It must suck that it backfired so badly.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Which is why the Fierce Advocate

needs to mount that Bully Pulpit and lead as he said he would do. He said he would lead the Congress. So he should keep his word.
The President needs to keep his word. He should do as they requested to minimize further harm until the law can be changed. And he should lead on changing the law. Like he said he would.

[Zenlitened]

51. I promise, I am not trying to make you look like an ass.

There is no need for additional effort on my part.

But consider... what tactics might possibly move HR 1283 out of subcommittee and back onto the legislative agenda? Hmmmm...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. Pushing Pelosi to do it might be a start!

Pushing Obama instead simply takes the heat off of Pelosi or the committee chairman. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Zenlitened]

55. Great idea! I'll bet those Congressmen and women wish they'd thought of that!

If only, if only they'd thought to consult with the House leadership.

But it's obvious, since they didn't e-mail you with their Weekly Activity Log, that they haven't.

Oh, well. Such an opportunity wasted. If only they'd had access to your nimble, nuanced insights. :(

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. And do you know with your infinite wisdom that Obama hasn't?

Or do you not have access to his phone and meeting transcripts?

[Zenlitened]

61. He told them to issue the letter that has you so upset in this thread.

He gave the word to Pelosi, and she gave the word to the 76 reps to issue the letter.



Wheeeeeeee! If I say it with conviction, it's a FACT!

[No Elephants]

108. Hell, if he and Buscho have their way, we won't even have access to the White House

visitors' log.

[No Elephants]

107. Sure, and maybe they are trying that, too, but Pelosi did not campaign on

repeal of DADT. Obama did.

[No Elephants]

106. All the more reason for members of Congress to ask Obama to keep his campaign promise and

work "aggressively" with Congress to get this done(instead of, oh, I don't know, getting the military to make it harder for them).

[No Elephants]

102. Yes, I see what Congress is doing. Can you not see the political game on Obama's part?

[closeupready]

23. Enough with these games. Get back to me when DADT is repealed. Til then, my pocket stays closed.

n/t

[GodlessBiker]

54. +1

[mtnester]

62. +2

[bluedawg12]

65. Snap!

Wallets shutting.

[struggle4progress]

66. Let me suggest you never directly tell any public officials you won't contribute unless they do XYZ

because they will naturally understand your remark as a claim that they can be bribed, in violation of Federal law, and if they have any integrity you will have zilch influence with them henceforth

[GodlessBiker]

68. So Democrats only do things for constituents if the constituents pay them?

[struggle4progress]

71. Cute. But I bet you can read better than you pretend

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

79. Don't count on it.

[closeupready]

72. Thanks for the head's up.

n/t

[No Elephants]

110. Telling politicians you are not going to contribute again unless they start keeping campaign

promises and/or see to it that gays get human rights is not illegal under any stretch of the imagination.

[struggle4progress]

117. See 18 USC 201 and remember all the noise about Blagojevich's brother's phone call to Burris

If you want honest public officials to work with you, don't do anything that can be construed as conditioning a contribution on an official act

[No Elephants]

109. At this point, it's going to take more than that for me. DADT, DOMA , real

transparency (instead of making a big show about telling us what you want us to know while fighting the ACLU's FOIA requests, etc.), prosecuting, as required by the UN Convention Against Torture, admitting indefinite detention is wrong, whether you do it in GITMO or Bagram, etc. I want all those slippery campaign statements made honest.

Until then, my donations are going to ACLU, Amnesty International, HRC and PBS.

[keepCAblue]

63. Zen: 12 ... NDW: O

:rofl:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

80. If you don't want a pemanent end to DADT, sure, Zen's winning.

Personally, I'd like to see it repealed, not have a band-aid put over it. Maybe you don't support GLBT rights though.

[No Elephants]

112. Suspending DADT discharges is a fine first step, and working "aggressively" with

Congress to get DADT repealed is a fine second step. Not only are they fine first and second steps, but they would help Obama keep his specific campaign promise as to repeal of DADT. The first should have been done on Inaguration Day.

People can support GLBT rights without being blind to what Obama OR Congress is doing. And people who support gay rights understand that real lives and careers are involved here. A post on this thread says 265 have had to resign or been forced out only in the few months since Obama took office. Incredibly sad.

[Zenlitened]

120. "Maybe you don't support GLBT rights though."

Are you the same guy whimpering about having his words twisted, upthread?

Face it, the argument you've put forth all over this thread just doesn't hold up. No amount of squawking, shrieking or sulking -- not to mention word-twisting and goalpost-moving -- can change that fact.

:hi:

[newinnm]

74. Tell them that according to many law experts at

http://www.democraticunderground.com he cant. And if thats not good enough tell them that its not in his three dimensional chess game strategy.


-NM

[No Elephants]

113. Then mutter about a pony. That tells 'em! (Or maybe it just makes 'em yawn.)

[David__77]

119. Obama can certainly CLARIFY DADT so as to render it meaningless.

"Don't ask" could be interpreted very broadly, to rule out people being able to rat others out, and "don't tell" could be interpreted such that discharge would require that a service member take independent initiative to state his or her sexual orientation. That would bring discharges down to next to nothing. Being seen in a gay bar or seem holding hands with a guy does not mean someone is gay in the strictest sense. OBAMA has that power, right now.

[fascisthunter]

122. just send all those straight republicans to war

[maglatinavi]

126. house representatives ask president to act on gay don't ask don't tell

i have been so disappointed with the potus not following
through on his "avant garde" campaign promises.  i
am a hillary person, but once the people made a choice i am
with whoever is the democrat president.  i liked his ideas,
specially the one to eliminate the don't ask don't tell
policy.  he has failed the hundreds and hundreds multiplied by
hundreds of homosexuals who have given their lives for the
nation, who are being separated from the military unjustly and
those that silently remain in the forces making sacrifices and
exposing their lives. i hope that congress will put pressure
on the president.

[alcibiades_mystery]

130. Impersonation fail

Note to "maglatinavi." Democrats don't refer to the Democratic president as a "democrat president." Only dumb ass Republicans mistake the forms of the noun and the adjective. That's how you gave yourself away, stupid.

[Politicub]

131. The buck always stops at the top - Pres. Obama is comander in chief

I remember everyone on this site complaining about Bush not taking responsibility for anything.

I refuse to hold President Obama to a lower standard than Bush.

President Obama has a moral obligation to halt these unjust discharges from the military. To abscond this responsibility on a technicality is a dog that don't hunt.