Skip to main content

View Diary: Let the President invoke Truman (443 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  None whatsoever. (8+ / 0-)

    It's been within his power since day one, and he's refused to stop discharging qualified LGB servicemembers.  Obama has allowed DADT to continue to ruin the lives and careers of people like Lt. Dan Choi.  

    The president only claims to be opposed to this policy.  By his actions, it's quite clear that he's more than willing to let it continue.

    Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

    by FogCityJohn on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 10:22:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Maddow is calling his bluff if that's what... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OLinda, TomP

      ...it is.

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 10:46:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If he were truly opposed . . . (4+ / 0-)

        he'd have ended the injustice.  He hasn't.  

        And his position on DADT is absolutely ludicrous.  He's sought to justify not issuing an executive order by claiming that he wants "durable" repeal.  That is, a repeal by statute.  So what does he do when a statute repealing the policy is on the table?  He lets the Pentagon muscle Congress into dropping the nondiscrimination provisions and reduces the so-called "repeal" statute to one in which the Pentagon will be given unfettered discretion to make policy on LGB service in the military.  That policy will be made either by regulation or by executive order.  In other words, it will be no more "durable" than an executive order that Obama might issue now.

        This kind of incoherence is what happens when a politician simply mouths words rather than trying to govern based on some set of principles.  Obama has been clueless on LGBT issues since he was elected.  DADT is just the latest example.

        Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

        by FogCityJohn on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 10:58:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  None of which.... (8+ / 0-)

          ...should, in my view, stop us from relentlessly urging him to take the action that will give LGB full civil rights in this matter (and others, of course). I take the same view on every issue on which I think he should take some action he has not taken. Frederick Douglass gave Lincoln excoriating reviews but he never stopped pushing him to take actions that Lincoln finally did take, to his credit.

          Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 11:10:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree fully . . . (4+ / 0-)

            but I view the prospects of success as small at best.  This is an issue on which Obama enjoys the support of a supermajority of the public, and yet he still refuses to act.  Obama's stance is an example of what Alec82 (I believe) has dubbed "political homophobia."  

            Obama obviously has no principles on this issue, and he's acting (or not acting) based purely upon his fears of what the political consequences might be.  The president may not be personally biased against LGBTs (except on marriage equality, where he clearly is), but he's terrified of being seen as too close to us politically.

            Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

            by FogCityJohn on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 11:33:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Obama debunked that argument with his reversal... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn

          He's sought to justify not issuing an executive order by claiming that he wants "durable" repeal.

          ...of the abortion gag rule via executive order, one of his first actions after he was sworn into office.  Nevermind that the next homophobic president will just re-reverse it.

          So he was willing to help women on abortion, but not stop gays from being kicked out of the military (over a thousand since he took office).

          ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

          by Uberbah on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:56:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And why does Rachel or anyone feel they (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jmrichardson

        can call a bluff on the President of the United States.  That's a pretty big ego to think that a person who is NOT in a direct dialogue with the president or playing cards with him can call him out but that is just my thought and opinion on "bluff calling".

        I support PRESIDENT Obama without qualifiers!

        by sankofa on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 12:45:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  we *are* in a direct dialogue .. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          The Pres. has stated, repeatedly, to those that have been discharged, and his constituents/supporters, that he will do what is necessary to end DADT.

          So, yes - we are calling his bluff.

          If he has something up his sleeve and will surprise us all before 11/2/10 (or 12/31/10, I suppose), then more power to him.

          But the ball is coming in right down the center of the plate, and it's looking like he just received a "take" sign.

          Instead, he should be taking a f*!$&#g swing.

          Now, where did I leave my torches and villagers..

          by FrankSpoke on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:38:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site