Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Bitter Setbacks for the Foes of ‘Don’t Ask’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 14, 2010
AP / Manuel Balce Ceneta

President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, left, meets with military leaders in 2009.

By Jarrod Chlapowski

Jarrod Chlapowski is an Army veteran, activist and field director at Servicemembers United, the nation’s largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans and their supporters. He has been a key figure in the movement to repeal DADT since 2005.

In a late development Thursday night, The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon says it will comply with a court order to stop enforcing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” even though the Obama administration is seeking a stay of the ruling. The Post writes: “Despite the Pentagon’s announcement, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, a group that supports ending the ban, has encouraged gay military members not to disclose their sexual orientation. ‘It is clear there is confusion, and this interim period is dangerous for service members,’ Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement. ‘Our service members need finality.’ ”

Almost a month has passed since that devastating moment in September.

So many hurdles had been overcome in 2010, each one met after we nibbled our fingernails down to their nubs: expanding the list of co-sponsors on the proposed Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA) to 200. Earning a mention in the State of the Union address. Witnessing both the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense testify in support of repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT). Placing an MREA equivalent in the Senate. Scheduling the first Senate hearings on DADT in 17 years. Voting on DADT repeal in the House. Passing a vote on DADT repeal in the House. Pushing out of the Senate Armed Services Committee a modified MREA attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2011.

The only set of hurdles that remained involved the introduction of NDAA on the floor and subsequent votes on modifications to the bill. All we needed was for Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, to schedule the bill for a vote on the Senate floor. This was in May.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Then June came and went, as did July. Immediately before Congress’ August recess, a push was made to schedule the bill for a September vote, which failed. Midterm election predictions became more and more dire for the Democrats as election season really took off during August. By the time the Senate returned for its September meeting days, the fate of NDAA was still unknown.

With the possibility of an uncertain lame-duck vote looming in December, Reid was pressured to put the bill up for a vote before it was too late.

Reid set the vote, but because of the short time before Congress members were to return home to campaign he chose to use a procedure that limited amendments to the bill. This effectively alienated the entire Republican Party.

When we discovered this was the intended procedure, we knew we would not be able to achieve cloture, and would probably lose a few wavering Democrats as well. On Sept. 20, with the White House notably absent from the process, the vote came out exactly as we expected. We lost.

The day before the vote, many of our active-duty members were beginning to allow themselves to feel optimistic, and some were, for the first time, considering re-enlisting in the military. “How soon do you think this will go into effect?” I was asked by a friend, who continued, “Because my re-enlistment window just opened up, and I have a pretty sweet deal if I make a decision in the next week or so.”

“Wait until tomorrow before you make your decision, man,” I responded. I didn’t have the heart to tell him we had very little chance of winning the vote the next day. He is not re-enlisting.

With all the momentum we had worked so hard to build up over the past year, it’s hard to believe we’re at the point we’re at now. Many have thrown in the towel on DADT and have chosen instead to direct their resources to other needs of 2010—pet bills or midterm campaign plans that had been in the works for months with the expectation that DADT would be out of Congress’ hands by now.

The White House has been vague about pushing for a lame-duck vote, and, though we’ve been promised one last try at legislative repeal after the elections, it’s very difficult to predict congressional scheduling in lame-duck sessions. Though we at Servicemembers United continue to push for a lame-duck vote, we are also looking at the prospect of pushing next year as a contingency plan. This is not a place we expected to be even two months ago.

It should not be surprising to the administration that its LGBT supporters are not motivated to vote Democrat this year. Repealing DADT should have been easy—we had surpassed most of the significant hurdles by May and, according to polling, we had the support of 78 percent of the population. To fumble such an easy play does not instill confidence in the base, particularly since the prospects of any LGBT bill passing Congress during the next two or so years look very, very dim.

Even so, a gift was handed to the Democrats by Judge Virginia Phillips in California, who announced Tuesday an immediate injunction against implementing DADT on both fresh and pending cases. She gave the Democrats an easy way out of this mess. All the administration had to do was ask the Department of Justice to not file a stay on the injunction and not appeal the case. This would have been unusual, to be sure, but not unprecedented. Such an option would have been preferable by far to the alternatives on repealing DADT, and could have mobilized a significant portion of the base going into the midterm elections.

However, on Thursday the Department of Justice filed for a stay on the injunctions to be placed by the Ninth Circuit and formally appealed the ruling. But at least we got a motivating tweet, from President Barack Obama himself: “Anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces and make sacrifices on our behalf should be able to. DADT will end & it will end on my watch.”

Somehow I think my friend who had hoped to re-enlist will find that tweet lacking.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Matzpen, October 20, 2010 at 7:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As long as the legal discrimination of LGBT people is allowed, we will see bullies, taking their cue from the Justice system of the United States, persecuting LGBT youth.
http://sherrytalksback.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/does-it-really-get-better-for-lgbt-people/

Report this

By mdgr, October 18, 2010 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Ardee,

We’re together on this, but there’s a lot to be said for ignoring certain people whose names we need not mention.

I should certainly have taken my own advice much earlier in this thread—which has devolved into one that has not really elucidated the issues but progressively became more suffused with name-calling, insults and finger-pointing.

Not content with elucidating their unique perspective and explaining how it will affect their decision in November, certain people seem to feel compelled to tell others how they should vote, and how they should feel—and if these others don’t agree, bash them with demeaning terms or, alternately, superciliously SHOUT at them, telling them to “shut up.”

You can find a lot of these people on the Huff’s blogs—I have stopped posting there—and a reasonable person could indeed ask whether they are paid for each post they make of a certain kind.

My regret is that I just got caught up in a time-consuming exchange with one of them. I’ve subsequently concluded that ignoring that sort of respondent and just moving on is undoubtedly the sanest and least destructive thing to do.

Report this

By ardee, October 18, 2010 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

RAE, October 17 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

Hey FiftyGigs… don’t waste electrons arguing with the likes of ardee and mdgr… they consider stupidity a virtue.

Gee, thanks ever so much for clearing that whole matter up. Debate? exchange ideas? Post truths or opinions? hell no, just ignore those with whom we disagree.

Were I more combative I might note that you behave like an asshole, but Im not so I wont.

Nor will I note that, if I really considered stupidity a virtue I would have a very high opinion of your “virtues”.

Please note that, despite your acting like a middle school brat I will continue to post responses to what you offer here. You are certainly free to ignore them as you wish. By the by, are you really ITW in drag?

Report this

By mdgr, October 18, 2010 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

50 Bits:

What you seem mostly into, fighting aside, is contentiousness, hallucination and projection.

Then there’s your polemical hat, wherein not being for Vichy is equated to siding with Berlin, and where holding Obama in contempt for the disparity between his walk and his talk (gay rights included) turns into a litany of inflammatory and unsubstantiated accusations.

I still have a very clear sense that I dealing with a DNC shill, though your creative freedom with the narrative (Log Cabin Republicans?????) suggest you might be a protege of Rove. In any event, you are really quite a piece of work, and I will not be responding to you again.

If you wish to have the last word—throwing something at the wall and seeing if it sticks—go for it. The thread is winding down anyway.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, October 18, 2010 at 5:09 am Link to this comment

Oh, and in the same spirit of camaraderie, good luck in your faith that the Log Cabin Republicans and the conservative judiciary just happened to hand the President “an easy one” two weeks before the election.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, October 18, 2010 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

I never fight unless attacked, and I never agree to disagree. Somebody’s right and somebody’s wrong.

It is reported today that John McCain, who would be President now had progressives “sat out” 2008 to “teach the Democrats a lesson”, has again reiterated his intention to filibuster the repeal of DADT.

Those of you who are truly interested in gay rights should, in my humble opinion, consider the fact that Republicans will never do it, but Democrats will. The overwhelming majority of Democrats are already on the record. President Obama has maneuvered the military to accept it.

There’s only one obstacle. Republicans. That’s a fact.

We don’t want temporary Presidential gimmickry. We want FULL equality under the law.

If you want to get this done, vote for Democrats. If you don’t, then I very humbly suggest, you don’t really care about gay rights.

The choice is yours.

PUNISH REPUBLICANS. Vote.

Report this

By mdgr, October 17, 2010 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

FiftyGigs:

My objection is with faux progressives who are quick on the trigger with bombast, ad hominem attacks and who SHOUT and diminish other people to bolster their own argument.

Hardly a homophobe, I just picked up on Rae’s suggestion that you guys use a little mutual sand. Sorry to burst your bubble but that doesn’t hit the sweet spot for the GLBT community.

This is getting old, however. Let’s agree to disagree.

Good luck with your continuing faith in Obama and the Democratic establishment.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, October 17, 2010 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

Hey FiftyGigs… don’t waste electrons arguing with the likes of ardee and mdgr… they consider stupidity a virtue.

Remember: “Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Report this

By FiftyGigs, October 17, 2010 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

mdgr, sorry to rankle your delicate conservative sensibilities. Allow me to respond with the same respect and grace you have twice aimed at me.


“How much is the DNC paying you.”
Nothing. That you think so proves you’re an idiot.


“... Rather than shouting at other people who post here to ‘SHUT UP’... “
I’m shouting at people to VOTE AGAINST REPUBLICANS. Got it? Evidently, that bothers your conservative sensibilities, and I understand why.


“... presumably with the covert threat of an AK-47 standing by ...”
You’re paranoid, mdgr. See a doctor. President Obama and the Democratic Congress have made it affordable for even you.


“... you two so-called “progressives” ...”
Ouch, now THAT hurt.


“... using that “vaseline with the sand in it” on one another?”
You’re a homophobic conservative too, I see. That makes me curious about your faux distress over DADT. (On second thought, no it doesn’t. Nevermind.)


This is way above your intellectual capacity, mdgr, but for the more thoughtful skeptics of the political strategy of complacency out there, I recommend Robert Parry’s article at ConsortiumNews.com entitled “The Teach-the-Dems-a-Lesson Myth”.

Going back to 1968, Parry argues that the same attitude of payback many are making now gave rise to more vehement and lethal conservatism. He poses the arguement that those who do not fight conservatives are themselves responsible for the outcome of conservative policies. It’s a disturbing thought, that simply blaming Bush might not be enough to get you off the hook at the Pearly Gates.

Which I know mdgr devoutly believes in.

PUNISH REPUBLICANS. Vote.

mdgr, the more you reply, the more opportunity you’ll give me to fight conservatives. Let’s see just how bright you really are.

Report this

By ardee, October 17, 2010 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

RAE, October 17 at 11:03 am Link to this comment

ardee…

Perhaps I was too subtle for you to get my point which was, in a nutshell, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, SHUT UP

Speaking of not getting the point…...I think your opinion of “facts” boils down to what you believe, while that offered by others in opposition to your own opinions simply cannot be labeled as “fact”.

Silly really, and far from conducive to the point of this forum, the sharing of opinion,hopefully conjoined with the citing of fact, and the attempt to find a common ground.

You should try it sometime.

Report this

By mdgr, October 17, 2010 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5740

Nice well-rounded link on DADT that at least addresses the question that our two DNC boyz (grrls?) wish to deflect with a lot of (1) pompoms for Obama; (2) bombast about “America’s being a Republic” and (3) how most people (their saying, not mine) on TD are brain dead.

DADT, however, is just one example however one spins the story. Most of the posters here have indeed been following current events, and most of them understand exactly what Obama is and what his political party represents. No need to repeat that lengthy list five hundred times for those who have different opinions.

When I hear phrases like “Vote the Party of Kucinich,” however, I do get slighty nauseous.

Dennis sees the big picture, yes, but only up to a point. He has always wanted to save the soul of the Democratic Party but has never had the courage to resign from that party and run as an independent (like Bernie Sanders did). There’s an almost self-conscious staging in Dennis’ utterances.  He tends to come across as a quasi-religious figure wherein he is the Democratic Party’s self-styled martyr and savior.

Actually, the notion of a progressive-indie third party that could plausibly capture a plurality of voters in 2012 was very recently addressed by Thomas Friedman. He said he thought it was probable, not pie in the sky. Same for Naomi Klein, even if FiftyGigs superciliously dismisses these writers as airheads. Many of my posts also address it at length—they are archived on Truthdig under my moniker.

I agree that substance is more impressive than ad hominem attacks, but when I hear people loudly being told to “SHUT UP”—almost threateningly, actually—it calls for a response.

Diversity exists here, however, and that has to include Vichy (Democratic Party) shills, alas.

Be it so.

Report this

By mdgr, October 17, 2010 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

FiftyGigs and RAE:

How much is the DNC paying you to lurk here and say these things? They do retain their shills, of course.

Rather than shouting at other people who post here to “SHUT UP”—presumably with the covert threat of an AK-47 standing by—have you two so-called “progressives” (sic) considered using that “vaseline with the sand in it” on one another?

Report this

By FiftyGigs, October 17, 2010 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

Thank you, RAE. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

“Obama has shown unrelenting contempt for his base…”

Any observer with “half a mind” knows that Obama has delivered results more progressive than any President since Johnson.

“it is the President’s responsibility to protect MINORITIES as well”

Which he’s doing, but you can’t see that.

“There may yet be a third party of progressives and indies that hasn’t yet been born and that is even now waiting in the wings.”

Ah, yes, the tiresome progressive cavalry. They’re the bunch that enabled the most radical conservative agenda in history, which mucked things up so badly that the current President hasn’t been able to fix it all in a mere two years, which is why you’re ticked at him, so your plan is to enable more conservatives.

Here’s the dirty little secret your “impartial eyes” don’t want to see: you don’t have enough power to get a progressive agenda through now, much less empower a third party in the future.

The degree to which the progressive agenda HAS become reality in the last two years is BECAUSE of Obama and BECAUSE of DEMOCRATS in Congress. It sure isn’t because of your impressive political leverage, and it damn sure isn’t because of Republicans.

The sad part of this that there are people who share many/most/all the same values you do, who are fighting to make those values happen for real and right now.

And all those people need from you is for you to get off your lazy behind, drive to the voting booth, and pull the lever for the party of Kucinich, and Dean, and Weiner, and Grayson, and a whole lot of other progressives.

“Change” means you. You have to change. You have to stop giving up. Messiahs are for Republicans. We need you.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, October 17, 2010 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

ardee…

Perhaps I was too subtle for you to get my point which was, in a nutshell, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, SHUT UP. And by “know what you’re talking about” I mean to be in possession of FACTS. By way of definition: the untested assumptions, glib opinions and biased interpretations which flood this forum are NOT FACTS.

In America there is “free speech” - well, up to a point anyway. There are plenty of security agencies opening mail, intercepting emails & phone calls and otherwise eavesdropping on the communications of private citizens to make seem prudent to perhaps warn “free speech… but watch what you say.”

JFK: “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” If this view is even partly valid, America is in BIG trouble. Ignorance outstrips informed by 1000:1, IMHO.

If heard it said that America is not a democracy as you assume. It’s a Republic which means the people elect representatives and invest supreme power in them to make the decisions that affect all. If so, it seems to me quite counterproductive to go through all the hoopla to elect people to look after your affairs and then impede their ability to do the job. Of course, if those you elect are basically corrupt, corrupted or corruptible then who’s to blame when you get what you get?

John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was democracy that didn’t commit suicide.”

So you still want to be a democracy?

Report this

By ardee, October 17, 2010 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

RAE, October 16 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

Excuse me.

The elephant in this room is not DADT, President Obama, Republicans or Democrats.

The elephant is that there are far too many cooks at the broth. EVERYBODY is shooting off their mouths as if they were some sort of authority on the subject and NOT ONE OF YOU FOLKS could do any better running the kitchen.

What you call,“shooting off their mouths” others might see as democracy and free speech in action. What you suggest, stripped of all pretense, is a docile and uninvolved electorate, sorry RAE, but that is a solution only to those blindly loyal and those who refuse to see the last two years with impartial eyes.

The American people are hysterically running madly off in all directions in the psychotic delusion that something coherent will be accomplished with this approach to problem solving.

Unless and until Americans decide to get behind the person they elect and all pull together in one direction or another AT A TIME the chances are slim and none any of their goals will be reached. If that person’s ideas don’t pan out then elect someone else next time around and try again. This might not be the brightest or most original notion on the planet but at its worst it’s a hell of a lot better than what you’ve got going now.

“All directions” seems a bit of poetic license when what I see happening is a lot of people unhappy with our government willingly being led by the nose (Tea Party) by forces and money they are unaware is manipulating them.

To think that, once elected, a politican should be beyond reproach for his/her actions is just silly, more than silly it is fatally so.

To elect a leader only to spend his/her entire term throwing sand in his/her vaseline is most retarded.

The way you seem to blame the voter for the lies and refusals to act of the elected candidate may have some merit in that many, here and elsewhere, warned that Obama was an empty suit and his brilliant appearing rhetoric was more hot air than substance. But to think that our nation should only express its opinions and desires every two years at the ballot box seems more retarded than your blatant admonishment of those exercising their right to speak freely.

Report this

By garth, October 16, 2010 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

With Obama and the rest of us, I think the term is, ‘cluster-fuck.’

Report this

By mdgr, October 16, 2010 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

“Sand in the vaseline” is a pretty good metaphor for what’s been going on for the past several years, DADT notwithstanding. While it’s definitely a gang-bang, Obama himself has managed to screw just about everyone except, of course, the pimps who have the most ties to Wall Street.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, October 16, 2010 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Excuse me.

The elephant in this room is not DADT, President Obama, Republicans or Democrats.

The elephant is that there are far too many cooks at the broth. EVERYBODY is shooting off their mouths as if they were some sort of authority on the subject and NOT ONE OF YOU FOLKS could do any better running the kitchen.

The American people are hysterically running madly off in all directions in the psychotic delusion that something coherent will be accomplished with this approach to problem solving.

Unless and until Americans decide to get behind the person they elect and all pull together in one direction or another AT A TIME the chances are slim and none any of their goals will be reached. If that person’s ideas don’t pan out then elect someone else next time around and try again. This might not be the brightest or most original notion on the planet but at its worst it’s a hell of a lot better than what you’ve got going now.

To elect a leader only to spend his/her entire term throwing sand in his/her vaseline is most retarded.

Report this

By mdgr, October 16, 2010 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

FiftyGigs wrote:

>the President did the right thing, trusting his base would be adult enough to educate itself, organize, fight, and form an overwhelming coalition that would FORCE MAJORITY RULE and establish LAW that would definitely and, for a damn longer time than a judge’s decree, establish the right of gays to live freely in the United States of America. But you would rather elect Republicans.

How does one respond to this kind of argument without breaking the rules of civility?

It’s founded on several flawed arguments.

First off, Obama has shown unrelenting contempt for his base—not just recently but ever since his first political appointments. Any political observer with half a brain on either side of the aisle knows that.

That business about FORCING MAJORITY rule isn’t worth dignifying with a response except to note that in our country, it is the President’s responsibility to protect MINORITIES as well, not to stab them in the back.

Finally, when a poster references “the United States of America,” as Fifty Gigs did—I cannot help but wonder. Does the poster also display an American Flag outside their home? Do they also wear a lapel pin displaying the American flag?

The only good news coming from Obama’s DADT decision is that it will further alienate sexual minorities and progressives. In throwing GLBTs to the wolves (along with all marijuana smokers, etc.), this “whorish thing” called Obama (I can’t even call him the President anymore) clearly hoped to curry favor with those who get their news from Glenn Beck. That won’t work, however, and it is backfiring.

Vichy (the Dems) is going down hard in November, and if it was crushed in the process, that would be a goodness. I absolutely do not want to see it rise from the dead in 2012. Anyway, gridlock will prevail—Obama will veto the worst that Berlin (the R’s) will pass out of Congress, and people really won’t be thrown under any bus. No worse than they have under a two-chamber Vichy rule, anyway.

Naomi Klein and others have said that there may yet be a third party of progressives and indies that hasn’t yet been born and that is even now waiting in the wings.

No need to get into it now, but I’ve referred to it in many of my posts. So has Thomas Friedman recently, though there are indications that he’s hoping to deflect its momentum.

Report this

By mdgr, October 16, 2010 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

What’s astonishing to me is not that a gutless stooge like Obama did not walk his talk, but that many “liberals” still believe the excuses.

They’re not just his excuses but also the Democratic Party’s. Pelosi and Reid are predictably passive-aggressive on any matter of importance. Dodd is a whore to the Banking Industry. Holder has just announced that if California makes possession of marijuana legal, he’ll continue to bust people and, ipso facto, enforce the Alcohol Lobby’s agenda. AIPAC controls Congress more than ever, and while Hillary appears dangerously high on antidepressants, the evil she has wrought is legendary.

It is the party of Vichy that is asking for another vote of confidence because, it says, “Berlin (the R’s) the greater of two evils.”

Maybe. Berlin is transparently evil while Vichy is predictably evil. It’s a codependent game, however, and they’re very much joined at the hip.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, October 16, 2010 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

“She gave the Democrats an easy way out of this mess. All the administration had to do was ask the Department of Justice to not file a stay on the injunction and not appeal the case. This would have been unusual, to be sure, but not unprecedented. Such an option would have been preferable by far to the alternatives on repealing DADT…”

Have any of you geniuses given this any thought?

It says… Democrats could have taken an easy path to short-term political gain, but instead the President chose to consider the bigger picture, being bright enough to understand that the long-term implications of that course could ultimately be harmful to progressive interests.

(Granted, the judicial system is flush with liberals judges right now… oh wait, no, it isn’t.)

So, instead of acting like a Republican—that is, acting only to crassly manipulate his base into thinking he was doing them good—(read: chamber of commerce and out-sourcing)—the President did the right thing, trusting his base would be adult enough to educate itself, organize, fight, and form an overwhelming coalition that would FORCE MAJORITY RULE and establish LAW that would definitely and, for a damn longer time than a judge’s decree, establish the right of gays to live freely in the United States of America.

But you would rather elect Republicans.

Tell me. How will that accomplish repeal of DADT?

Report this

By garth, October 16, 2010 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

Obama promised to close Gitmo, end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  But he spent a year on Health Insurance reform only to wind up practically right back where we started.  Only now there are about 40 million uninsured and premiums have gone through the roof.  They’re talking about McHealth Insurance.  It’s sort of a Kiddies Meal for McDonals employees.  Medicare Part D is going up with no COLA.  They’ll get everyone.

One IBM retiree I talked to recently might have to start looking for work at the age of 77.

For the Wall Street Reform the only meaningful item is the Consumer Protection and the only realistic head would be Elizabeth Warren.  Do we get that?  Nah, they let her advise in its formation.

A lot of stimulus went to tax breaks.  Now, they are trying to get the Republicans to go for more tax breaks, which happens to be the Republican solution for everything, and they can’t get that through.  Yet, they keep trying.  “They like to bang their heads on the wall cause it feels so good when they stop.”

Obama said during the campaign that Ronald McDonald Reagan, the Brylcreem Bullshit Artist, was the only one with ideas.  I guess cutting taxes as an idea was Obama’s takeaway from his study of Reaganism.

Obama will come back with a new plan.  Instead of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it’ll be something like, Don’t Ask, Just Smell.  If you smell one of the more expensive colognes and not Old Spice or Mennen, then they’re out.

The Army has a uniform look so you can’t tell by looking at them.  Or maybe we could brand them on the forehead with a capital letter ‘G’.  Then those shy recruits who don’t want their pee pees to be seen in the shower will know when to hop in the shower.

Or reverse motivation.  Only declared gays can shower with the women recruits.  And then ask for a show of hands.

Obama can fuck up a free lunch.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, October 16, 2010 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Yes, exactly Ardee, but your being too kind.  I think Gutless wonders, describes, them
much better. The banks control our polichickens, but the banks can’t govern. And in
their attempts to use this crisis as a way of further enriching themselves, they have
made things much worse.

  Now the Dems are so full of excuses, and once again are making promises. Their
here at our door with their hat in their hands, begging for our vote.

But their butts are still up in the air, ready for the next corporate stroke.

It’s come down to this, a competition of lies, and who is the better liar.

Report this

By dieter, October 16, 2010 at 6:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Numerous commentators on other websites have argued that presidents cannot abrogate laws passed by congress and Mr. Obama has made an identical statement recently. I seem to remember that several previous presidents have made written statements to the effect that they would not execute specific portions of a law passed by congress and signed by them without being called “dictators” by congress. Therefore: it seems to be perfectly in tune if Mr. Obama orders that the “dismissal” clause of DADT be frozen as long as he is president.

Report this

By Dennis, October 16, 2010 at 5:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rae, the US is not a sexual nation. A recent survey seems to suggest that the entire country just masterbates (something like 90% of young males). Anyway, a year from now DADT will still be the law of the land. Obama really doesn’t want to change it. In fact, he doesn’t want to change anything vis a vis the military. I am reminded of what Mort Saul once said. He said that he was in a room with a lot of high ranking officers. He said it was very exciting…if you were 12 years old. Obama is that 12 year old.

Report this

By ardee, October 16, 2010 at 4:05 am Link to this comment

Try as I might I cannot find a single issue on which the GOP was in support of a Democratic sponsored bill. Try as I might I cannot find a single issue on which the Democrats displayed an ounce of courage or an inch of competence.

The simple expedient of saying the word “filibuster” causes democrats to run for a new pair of undies and elevates the minority party to a position of power the last election failed to grant them.

My own observation shows me that Obama is far too inexperienced and far less courageous than that office and this nation deserve. When one tries to serve two masters one typically serves no one satisfactorily. The Democrats seem more focused on pleasing a small but vocal minority of extremists and seeking to keep the dollars flowing from corporate coffers as well. Thus we the people are ill served.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, October 15, 2010 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

Yes, Rae exactly,,but castrated proper are so much easier to control…aren’t they..

Report this

By Jonathan Swiftboat, October 15, 2010 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

Beginning with the first Sunday after the elections, and every Sunday thereafter, Barack Obama should meet with religious leaders who believe that those people in favor of DADT and DOMA are the ones who are wrong and who need to examine their souls. Those religious leaders should make statements about their beliefs and should answer questions from the media, as well as preaching to their flocks.

Report this

By rloy, October 15, 2010 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nobody, whether gay or straight, should ever join the military.

Report this

By saturn122777, October 15, 2010 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Vote LIBERTARIAN.  Enough of this BS with Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians’ primary goals are to maintain civil liberties and freedom to keep the government OUT of individuals’ personal lives and personal business… As the founding fathers intended this country to be before decades of politicians mucked it all up.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, October 15, 2010 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

This is all a pile of horseshit. It almost seems as if noo one is even aware that the fundamental problem is the mass arrested development of the population when it comes to sexual relations.

If I was King for a Day, I’d issue an edict that ALL citizens must attend and pass a course on the HUMAN SEXUALITIES before being allowed to open their mouths or even vote on the subject.

Most humans, at least under the age of 60, have sex of some sort. As long as it’s consensual and with someone of legal age and mental capacity to give consent it is nobody’s business who is doing what with whom. And that “nobody” includes EVERYONE from the President through the other 300+ million Americans.

And nothing… no government agency, no religion, no cultural indoctrinations, no prejudices, bigotry or biases of any kind should be allowed to even try to make it their business.

When will you all GROW UP to understand that what YOU do is YOUR business, and what everyone else does is NOT?

Report this

By omygodnotagain, October 15, 2010 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

It is a confusing situation for me, I’m anti-war I want to see our overseas military adventures end, I don’t want to open new avenues for more troops to sign up. Further complicating the issue is the attitude of enlisted men, a lot are evangelic Christians. Trying to figure out how they would get along.

Report this

By RdV, October 15, 2010 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

“LGBT supporters are not motivated to vote Democrat this year.”

and they aren’t the only ones.

Report this

By freelyb, October 15, 2010 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

I am incredulous at the series of no-brainers that continue to slip through our fingers for various reasons. Doing what’s right is the best guarantee of re-election. Simple.

Report this

By morristhewise, October 15, 2010 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

Men that like to kick xxx join the military for that opportunity, most are
homophobes. Gays that serve openly in the military would have to defend
themselves against those sadists, it will be interesting to see the outcome of that
conflict.

Report this

By glider, October 15, 2010 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Don’t worry the Dems will do all this good stuff they are promising after the election, LOL!

Report this

By lasmog, October 15, 2010 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

Ugh, I am so sick of Obama’s wimpiness. The only people that Obama really represents work on Wall Street.

Report this

By glider, October 15, 2010 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Just how does Obama predict “this will happen on his watch” if the Republicans do pick up more seats due his own spineless performance?  Sounds like more “Hope a Dope” management of his “base”.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, October 15, 2010 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

Guess that makes him a liar, now doesn’t it? Same old lies and misdirection.

Report this

By Hank from Nebraska, October 15, 2010 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

Dear FiftyGigs, get real.  Republicans are no more to blame for the dysfunction than are the Democrats.  On the issue of DADT, all Obama has to do is instruct his Justice Department to not appeal the court ruling.  Also, Democrats could have brought this issue to the Senate floor, but they refused, using all kinds of lame excuses, such as blaming the Republicans.  Democrats conveniently refuse to challenge Republicans to actually filibuster, they simply go along with saying no to everything.  This is the Republicans’ fault?
If you go to the polls this fall, vote only for candidates you trust.  Otherwise, leave the ballot blank.  Few Democrats deserve to be elected any more than Republicans.  And don’t give me this “vote for the lesser evil” line.  That has only left us with nothing but evil in the Congress.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, October 15, 2010 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

Of course they will appeal. It has nothing to do with principles, it’s all about the adversarial court system. They will appeal, simply because they lost. And it’s even worse that they lost to the Log Cabin Republicans.

Gay Democrats are like abused spouses who return to their attackers.

Christ, even Bob Barr says that DOMA was a mistake, and said it should be repealed, and he wrote the fucking Law. What have the Dems done about DOMA???

Report this

By FiftyGigs, October 15, 2010 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

Oh, there’s foes, are there?

NOW you tell us! Oh, wait, Jarrod didn’t say.

So, we have this whole field of Republican candidates and NO MEDIA has bothered to grill even ONE of them on how they’ll vote to repeal?

NOT ONE???

The pundits will beat up Obama over something he can’t do. The pundits have decided Democrats will lose BIG because of what the Senate can’t do. But the pundits NEVER tell you why. Is it because Democrats secretly want to keep discriminating against gays?

No.

It’s because REPUBLICANS VOTE AGAINST REPEAL. Why not grill THEM?

Please? Pretty please? Can media get a little backbone for once and face the REAL problem? Maybe ask one Republican why they support a policy that dishonors the military, that forces people to lie, that damages our defense? Can we see Republicans discuss their own beliefs, instead of reading the media’s apologia for them? Please?

PUNISH REPUBLICANS. Vote.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook