The Pentagon has decided to start processing gay recruits as the DADT overturn works its way through appellate courts. Consider the source, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he got this pretty much right:
R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, applauded the Pentagon decision as “a huge deal.” […]
Mr. Cooper, a member of the Army Reserve, said that he was taking part in training last week at Fort Huachuca in Arizona when the injunction was issued, and that he was surprised by the lack of visible opposition or outcry.
He likened it to a “giant shoulder shrug of ‘so what?’ ”
Most of the people he was with, he added, were younger members of the service, and “a few people actually thought repeal had already occurred.”
Part of the reason that Congress has such a low approval rating is that issues like repealing DADT are the subject of drawn-out, high-drama debates for years after the majority of the population considers them settled. Debating whether DADT is a good policy is like debating whether we should go back on the gold standard or fluoridate water. It’s a subject for discussion among fringe nutcases, not members of the House and Senate.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Feature, not bug old chap. Witness how long it took to racially integrate the military.
(Witness also how today’s dire warnings echo yesterday’s. More proof, not that we need it, that as a species, homo sapiens isn’t too sapient.)
Still, this is excellent news. But not for McCain.
While I think on many levels this is a great piece of news, I wonder about the giant clusterfuck that they are setting themselves up for if DADT is reinstated, even temporarily.
Like Israel and many other things, it is a subject for heated discussion only among teh greys. it is sample bias, because one out of four households in America is cell only and dont get polled accurately.
Hey @matoko_chan, folks have been wondering where you’ve been.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
I would strongly suspect that the DoD knows this is the end, and doesn’t expect the courts to actually reinstate, even on a temporary basis. The world’s largest bureaucracy doesn’t turn on a dime like this without a really, really good set of predictions on what’s coming next.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@Ron: In addition to W”A”JH’s comment, I’d add that the word on the street is keep mum, just in case.
That’s a personal call. However, part of my malfunctioning little brain wonders what would happen if everyone performed a Reverse Alice’s Restaurant: If everyone tells, the DoD might realize discharging everyone would be too disruptive and keep everyone.
Of course, it would take a long assed time (and a lot of lawyering) for people who did get discharged to sort all that out, so clearly my stratergery skillz rank below G Dubya Bush’s.
@Ron: I think what this does is serve as a warning to the brain-dead Republicans et al. who would reinstate DADT. It’s a fait accompli that says, “Now think of how badly you’d fuck things up if you went back to your old homophobic ways — and think of how many people would notice this time around.” I know, I know. This hasn’t stopped them in the past. There’s a price to be paid in this case, though.
As a gay married Californian, I can attest that rights do get rolled back.
But when the window opened in 2008, my partner and I leapt through it, because we knew Prop 8 was on the ballot in November and assumed it would pass.
We knew when we wed that the lying liars who were promoting Prop 8 were lying when they lied that they had no intention of coming after the marriage licenses of those who had already wed.
But we married anyway.
I suspect any openly gay person who avails themselves of this window does so with a full appreciation of the possibility of a roll-back.
So be happy for them.
The sad thing is that we have Congressmen who want to go back to the gold standard. (Which would mean that gold miners control our money supply, but they seem not to notice that.)
@Ron: Actually, I think the lack of reaction will be helpful in getting legislative repeal to pass. The fact that the military seems to be handling it with aplomb could be that little push over the cliff that legislators with doubts need to vote for repeal.
So, notice how all stories state that Obama was appealing the DADT injunction, and it’s the Pentagon that’s started to process gay recruits. I’d think as commander-in-chief he prolly had something to do with that move as well, but I’ve yet to see a single story mentioning that. Is it because the story line still has to be that Obama is fighting its repeal in any way other than through legislation? Or maybe it’s just too complex an idea that the Obama admin can simultaneously do both (appeal and start allowing gay recruits)?
Or maybe I’m missing something — is there any reason that the Pentagon’s actions aren’t Obama’s?
This was a ginormous missed opportunity for Obama. He could have easily made this a nonissue from the get go. He could have made DADT go away (effectively if not technically). He would have, correctly, been viewed as a leader and nobody apart from fringe dipshits would make a stink. Big wins all around. But he got trumped by a group of Republicans and now looks , correctly, like a wishy-washy, kick-it-down-the-road non-leader. Heckofajob, Baracky.
The reason DADT is such a big, problematic issue to get through congress is that although the majority of the population is ready to see it repealed and move on to other important issues, that’s not the way the demographics of elections work for a disproportionate number of members.
For GOP legislators, failure to visibly resist repeal of DADT risks adding volatile fuel for a hard-right primary challenger.
Many GOP and Dem legislators come from districts where regressive attitudes toward gays and DADT are still the norm.
…and so, the negative side of this issue has disproportionate leverage relative to the overall population.
This is in addition to the fact that some legislators are simply dickheads to begin with.
@Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill
Not to mention that one of the best arguments from the Public Service’s viewpoint against any change back to banning the gays will be the giant clusterfuck of unwinding it all.
Humphrey Appleby would be proud.
@Another Nick: How ironic that ed’s comment appears immediately below yours. QED, and all that.
@Another Nick: Of course, there is a reason to assume Obama had nothing to do with it. As president, he controls the smallest actions with respect to hiring and firing in the Department of Agriculture and personally directs litigation policy in the DOJ, but, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he has no control at all over policy. I would think that was obvious.
Because shut up. Homophobe.
Eta: I see ed beat me to it.
Wait, that was snark right?
Sadly, I doubt it.
If Obama was directly responsible for the Pentagon’s stance, then kudos to him. But a real leader would take ownership of decision. As it is, the decision appears to have come from the judge who decided against a stay.
Happy to be wrong.
So every time Obama or one of his people has a chat with someone from the Pentagon or the AG’s department about what policy they should follow he’s supposed to call a press conference?
I agree with you that many people will think that he’s a wishy-washy, kick-it-down-the-road non-leader. Part of me badly wants him to step up to a microphone and say “We’re changing DADT. Fuck you all. And marriage, we’re giving them that too. What are you going to do about it, fuckers?”
However, I’m prepared to consider the possibility that he may have a more subtle strategy – not ten dimensional chess – but maybe, just maybe at least a clue what he’s doing on this one.
ex-Lt. Dan Choi, who was ousted under DADT, reenlisted yesterday. Here’s a video of him before and after the process (which he handled at the enlistment station in Times Square). How many ex-officers would have the cojones to re-up as an enlisted soldier, just because they thought it was the right thing to do to serve their country?
Pet peeve, people who say “happy to be wrong”!! It’s up there with “i’m just saying” and “not to be mean/disrespectful/rude (etc), because it usually means, that you are gonna believe you are right anyway, and you’re those of us who see it differently a bone…
A real leader knows when to use the bully pulpit and when to hang back and let his actions speak for themselves. On a sensitive issue, it’s sometimes better to have a leader who does the right thing quietly than one who galvanizes the forces of wrong by trumpeting his actions.
No. The Administration could simply release a non-anonymous statement. Even for Big Issues such as DADT.
Worked for Truman. And in the case of DADT, everyone knows it’s going away. Getting ahead of it is real and perceived leadership. That is, Obama had a chance to create good policy (i.e., Teh Gheys aren’t discriminated against) and good politics (i.e., nobody apart from fringe really cares, leaders get rewarded come election time). Doing it early in the term would have made whatever initial backlash fade by November 2010 (and, I think, pave the way for other legislation).
Could be, I guess. One is e’er hopeful. What is the simplest explanation in this instance?
The goold standard? Fluoridation? You do realize, of course, that we’re about to elect senators who care deeply about both of those issues, right?
@JasonF: On that note, suppose for a moment that Congress comes back after the election and passes the Defense bill containing DADT repeal. I don’t think anyone believes that Obama would not sign it, especially since he has stated that it is his preferred method of ending DADT. The repeal would be passed before any briefs were due in the appeal. The appeal would be moot. How is this a problem?
@ed: Legislative repeal has always been Obama’s view on ending DADT. How are the Administration’s actions inconsistent with that?
I’m finding it hard to respond because I agree with most of your responses there, thus making it difficult to put my finger on exactly where we disagree.
I’m conflicted about Obama, apparently.
ETA: Or it could just be because it’s midnight and I really should be asleep.
ETA: Blockquote semi fail
Then perhaps you shouldn’t write shit like
I have a post that’s still in moderation (probably because of a word I used) that has a video of ex-Lt. Dan Choi reenlisting in NYC. One thing he mentions is that the recruiters had some logistical and paperwork issues because he was previously discharged, but he successfully reupped as an enlisted man, because he wants to serve his country.
It’s likely that if he, as a high profile case, had trouble with the enlistment, many others will, too. I hope (and expect) that those issues will be cleared up quickly.
Yeah, Gibbs isn’t rally filling me with confidence there.
sorry ed, you have committed a thought crime. this must be punished.
Real Democrats know that things like “leadership” are all about fee-fees and that means Real Democrats don’t care about them and that anyone who does is WrongWrongWrong.
I’m with ed on this one. There was a time I’d have given Obama/WH some credit on this, but they’re too busy appealing DADT and DOMA in the courts to come across as actually, you know, leading on the implementation of DADT repeal.
Yeah, my original comment wasn’t directed at you, then I made an edit to mention you, then deleted it, then noticed Omnes Omnibus had already commented on it, so I put it back. It was a frantic five minutes.
Sorry – I apologise. It was unfair to link that comment to yours.
Flouridated water is mostly flushed down my toilet. Its a waste of money.
This would be good, if belated, news. Should that happen, Obama et al really ought to give a Saaa-loot! to the Log Cabin Republicans who have done a shitload of work to help make it politically feasible.
@Paris: It strengthens the enamel in your toilet. You don’t want it to collapse while someone is using it, do you?
Paris: Funny, I could say the same thing about a great deal of defense spending.
No, not like that.
I have yet to read a plausible theory of why Obama’s cherished legislative repeal has a greater chance with 5 to 7 more Republican Senators than it did the last time. [With Grandpa Walnuts already promising a filibuster.]
The greys? Those the guys who do the cattle mutilations?
There’s also the fact that the situation with DADT is different than with racial or gender integration. For the latter two, it takes active work to undo them. Gotta change facilities, transfer people and units, all that crap. For undoing DADT, all you have to do is stop filling out the paperwork. Obviously there’s more to it than that as far as changing the culture to be accepting of out servicepeeps, but the basic change is really pretty simple (at least on paper).
The Pentagon wouldn’t be doing this w/out the blessing of the CIC.
@Joe Beese: The defense bill needs to be passed by the end of this legislative session.
The Pentagon wouldn’t be doing this w/out the blessing of the CIC.
Seems to me like the CIC was/is hoping to kick this down the road and that Judge Phillips made the call. Are you suggesting that the CIC gave the Pentagon the incredibly daring order to obey The Rule of Law?
I agree with your viewpoint, but this country DOES need to debate the use of fluoride in water. Fluoride is an obsolete medical treatment for overactive thyroid. The number of people with low thyroid function is skyrocketing in this country. Since the thyroid controls metabolism, this also plays into the obesity epidemic in this country.
@Ash Can: Look, I hope you and others are right that the DoD isn’t doing this without some reason to expect that DADT is DOA , but the DoJ IS appealing it so I am concerned (and apparently that concern causes me to use a lot of abbreviations)
@Zaftig Amazon: Um, what? Flouride is used to prevent tooth decay, and I think it’s pretty much settled science that it works quite well for that.
flouride does suppress thyroid function. but obviously that’s not the reason for it being in our water.
@cleek: Right, that was sort of my point.
I see the firebaggers are out in strength to give us the new meme: “Oh, sure, Obama is ending DADT, but he’s not doing it the exact way we wanted and he’s not using the exact words we wanted him to use, so it doesn’t count and he’s still an evil homophobe doing everything he can to block the repeal.”
I’m pretty sure the the DOD is doing this because that’s how the Judge Phillips ruled.
Obama is not leading on this issue. He had every opportunity to get out in front of this issue. Log Cabin Republicans beat him to it. I am happy that Judge Phillips ruled the way she did and will be happy when DADT is dead and buried for good. That will indeed count. But Obama could have done better for Teh Gheys and better for himself politically. One would hope that it would be OK to have high expectations of the President.
@ed: I would think it was just because of the ruling too, but that brings back the point that it becomes a huge mess if the injunction against DADT is stayed by a circuit court say, next week.
Well of course it would. Who is suggesting otherwise?
I get the impression that Obama is the anti-Bush when it comes to following process.
Therefore since the duty of the DoJ is to defend the laws that are in the books, that’s what the DoJ is doing. Obama’s opinion on the merits of the law notwithstanding.
Still, it makes for endless frustration, especially by those affected by it.
My point about putting fluoride in water is that you are causing a disease by treating the entire population for another disease. Water fluoridation is not a substitute for proper dental care. Also, there are other methods for giving fluoride to people who need it, such as a direct contact procedure done at the dentist’s office.
Wait a sec!
There was at least one post last week on DADT and many people weighed in sagely with “Obama CAN’T do anything about this because there are other laws that prevent gays explicitly from serving in the military.”
Evidently those people were full o’shit, no?
I think there is probably strong opposition among many members of the military toward integration.
I also think that opposition will largely disappear among most (with a few incorrigible exceptions) once integration occurs.
These are people with very specific jobs to do who are on call 24-7. They will fret about gay people until their job requires them to not fret about gay people, and then they will not do it. It will be then, as now, mainly the retired and bored who whine – just as they whined about blacks, and women, and teaching methods at West Point, and so on.
I’m sure a few trouble-makers on duty will continue to push the issue after integration, many in inappropriate or even violent ways. They will be discharged after helpfully identifying themselves as people unfit to serve. No soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine wants to depend on someone who can’t follow orders and who sows dissension among brothers and sisters.
The question of morale is not synonymous with the question of wide-scale approval. The question is whether proper behavior for the military should emphasize witch-hunting or unit cohesiveness, and which one will be considered part of the pursuit of morale.
How about the debate NOT to flouridate water?
@Nathanael: Well, they’d point to the global market in gold and say, no, that market value gives paper/digital money some sort of magic real element that doesn’t exist right now, and the market value isn’t dictated by gold miners, who act rationally(!) based on the value of gold.
Except the gold market actually involves trade in a widely-used industrial commodity that also functions as a speculative market, so yeah, you’re right, they effectively want to put our money supply in the hands of BP.
Gold dollars are, in effect, a different kind of petrodollars. Soon we’ll be talking about aquadollars, and I don’t look forward to that.
Maybe before that, we’ll get back to rationally (in the real sense of ‘rationally’) discussing how actors in the market manipulate supply for their own profit, and that won’t be considered crazed conspiracy theory.
Paul Krugman and Matt Taibbi both consider THAT recent development – the bizarre idea that people who control resources won’t ever collude to fix prices – one of the defining problems of the last decade. I agree.
Oh my God. Stop this glib bullshit about Truman:
“At the end of June 1950, the Korean War broke out. The U.S. Army had accomplished little desegregation in peacetime and sent the segregated Eighth Army to defend South Korea. Most black soldiers served in segregated support units in the rear. The remainder served in segregated combat units, most notably the 24th Infantry Regiment. The first months of the Korean War were some of the most disastrous in U.S. military history. The North Korean People’s Army nearly drove the American-led United Nations forces off the Korean peninsula. Faced with staggering losses in white units, commanders on the ground began accepting black replacements, thus integrating their units. The practice occurred all over the Korean battle lines and proved that integrated combat units could perform under fire. The Army high command took notice. On July 26, 1951, the US Army formally announced its plans to desegregate, exactly three years after Truman issued Executive Order 9981.”
Desegregation in the military
Well from this juicebagger’s POV, Obama still ain’t doing anything and it should stay that way. It’s the fucking military brass getting ahead of the courts to show good faith on their promise to end DADT, and that the Dec 1st deadline for the implementation report isn’t just a stall tactic. I don’t even see where Obama needs to step in here and make it all about him. It’s about the military and their fucking business and Obama’s presence would just make it yet another partisan football. I have no fucking clue why anyone would even want that.
Paula’s quote of Wikipedia says:
Looks like Truman’s the good guy here. What’s your beef?
Yeah, why ever take a stand? It might be perceived as being “partisan.” And “partisan” is icky.
And the military should operate completely separate from the public and the civilian Commander in Chief. What could go wrong?
No. The laws that prevented him from doing anything were just overturned by a court. In fact, this court ruling just proved that Obama could not have done anything.
To the many, many people who seem to think that the DOJ appealing this ruling means that Obama is against it, the White House does not actually control the DOJ very closely. There are many levels of lawyers and decision-makers in the way. Some of those decision-makers were installed by Bush deliberately to fuck with future administrations. Do you remember the stink when that got out? I do.
Although I think Obama would challenge it anyway. From the perspective of a constitutional lawyer, you don’t want to leave loopholes that someone else might use to challenge the verdict later.
It has absolutely zero to do with Obama’s desire to overturn DADT.
The rest of the complaints I’m hearing seem to be ‘I wanted him to cheerlead about this louder’.
Fluroidation? Yeah, there are High Court hearings about it in progress in the UK. The health authorities want to do it in Southampton, but most people, when asked, don’t want it, and pretty much all local politicians, from all major parties, oppose it.
Seriously, mistermix, which way did you think this had been settled?
If that’s the case (can’t remember where else I read this), then I’d like to hear more about it and see more about it in the medias. There’s a story there. Elections can have shitty consequences.
Likewise, if this is the case, someone needs to step up and clearly say so.
Not asking a whole lot here.
My beef is mainly that you’re reducing a piece of complicated history to a bullshit talking point.
My beef is that the process of desegregation was something that was initiated by the courts but in reality took years (and possibly decades) for full implementation.
My beef is that you’re being a dishonest asshat when you throw out Truman’s EO like it’s supposed to shut down the conversation.
My beef is that you misrepresent the battle for civil rights and you’re taking liberties with other people’s fights to stroke your own self-righteousness.
Is that enough beef for you? Is it enough that Truman was a “good guy” in this respect and ignore the rest?
You remember 2004 when gay marriage became politicized because of Karl Rove? When 11 states passed anti-gay marriage initiatives? No you don’t, because that was soooo long ago, right?
It’s understandable that you may have a shallow understanding of the era post-Brown v. Board, but that you should forget 2004 is pretty laughable.
Who’s ignoring the rest? When did that happen? Also, too: I’m asking for more fight, ’cause it’s, like, a long hard slog, ya dig? Did you miss that part?
Well, my bad: I thought the phrase “long, protracted fight” actually meant specific things that happened, and that can be documented history.
Now I see that the words “long, protracted fight” don’t actually mean anything historical — it just means whatever you deem as “fighting” at any given moment that sets itself up right in front of your face.
Yeah: if there any living members of the Little Rock Nine around (there may not be anymore), ask ’em how easy it was to desegregate schools because of the Warren Court. For that matter, go to the south sometime and ask ’em how “desegregated” their schools are now.
What the fuck are you talking about? Here’s what you wrote:
So Obama shouldn’t do the, dare I write, “Truman-esque,” thing as Commander in Chief and take a stand here? Are you serious? Are you afraid it would hurt Karl Rove’s fee-fees or something? And you really don’t see the problem with “It’s about the military and their fucking business”? Yipes!
Yeah, good thing President Eisenhower didn’t take an icky “partisan” stand with that political football. I have no clue why anyone would want to get involved with that. It was about Arkansas and their fucking business.
Ed: keep on keepin’ on with whatever you feel is best for supporting all gay rights initiatives, but from what I can see all you have to present to this particular argument is a bunch of names and dates without any clue as to how events actually unfolded.
Actually, scratch that. I’m the one actually mentioning historical examples and you’re mostly regurgitating it back in snark form like it’s supposed to be some kind of rebuttal. And one can’t really argue with non-argumentative, free-form snark.
@daveNYC: teh greys.
old white christian ‘conservatives.’
Taibbi’s Scooter Nation.
And one can’t really argue with non-argumentative, free-form snark.
You certainly can’t.
Perhaps you shouldn’t write nonsense like
and you wouldn’t get the well-deserved snark-down. Ya dig?
The more I think about this response the more ridiculous it seems.
To draw the parallel, you’re saying that if Obama has to use force (symbolic or literal) to protect gay enlistees against a possibly recalcitrant military he should do it, regardless of how damaging it is to all parties, and regardless of how successful it actually proved to be in the past.
You’re saying that credit for desegregating goes to Truman for “standing up” for desegregation, without consideration for the historically documented fact that actual soldiers of color were still relegated to being support units until the Korean war forced them to be integrated. To draw the parallel, gay enlistees should go into the military without guarantees about how they will be accepted and protected by Pentagon-enforced protocol and allowed into leadership positions regardless of whatever prejudices others might hold.
The obvious conclusion here is that you want a show, regardless of effectiveness or the well-being and full integration of gay recruits. A show — appropriate to your shallow history, I suppose.
Interesting how you focus on that like its some kind of faux pas. Mostly because a lot of anti-DADT arguments make good use of the separation between the public’s (or rather Congress’) perceived “discomfort” of gays in the military and the military brass’ admission that DADT is bad for enlisted troops and that it’s time to end it.
Keep posting in bits and pieces. Hopefully you’ll get to a whole coherent idea.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely pointing out that I wanted Obama more involved with DADT and you didn’t. Then you compared DADT to the Little Rock Nine, and I noted that that particular issue had a President who got involved. That’s all. Apparently that wasn’t as obvious as I thought. And are you suggesting that because the Arkansas and the South still have problems with racism that Ike should not have sent the Guard to Arkansas?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying Obama could have been more involved from the get go and that Truman was right to sign the EO. That’s it, that’s all.
You suppose incorrectly.
Wait, this is all the public’s (or rather Congress’) fault? The military brass admitted that DADT was bad for enlisted troops and that it’s time to end it? Who knew? If only the military brass had some sort of power within the military. So when, say, Major Mike Almy’s superiors go through his email to determine he was gay and get him tossed based on DADT, that was the fault of whom? The public (or rather Congress)? Was the Log Cabin Republican’s lawsuit totally unnecessary? Should the public (or rather Congress) just leeeeaaaaavvvvveee Teh Military alloooonnneee??? Would the military have just make DADT on their own? When? This year? Next year? 2090?
I realize this is nitpicky and futile of me but shouldn’t “overturning DADT” mean returning to the old rules, i.e., a ban on gays in the military and active investigations into soldiers’ sexual orientation. I feel like the catchiness of the phrase and its acronym has created a situation where it sounds like Clinton invented discrimination against gays. Now I think DADT was a shitty compromise—a half-assed decriminalization where there should have been a clear affirmation of equal rights—but seeing the issue framed that way bugs me. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is problematic but it’s not the problem that we’re trying to solve.
Or is there actually a feeling that DADT is worse than the outright ban that existed before?
So, apparently I daydreamed that whole congressional hearing earlier this year?
A piece of even more recent history you forgot! Awesome.
Somebody should alert Major Mike Almy! And possibly other people.
You keep saying “that’s all” like it’s supposed to mean something that you “want” [abstract political ideal x] and that you’re right to feel righteous in wanting [abstract political ideal x] even though “x” is mostly problematic in — what’s that they call it — “history”, especially without the support of the institution in which social change is being introduced. Hey, it was all well and good that Eisenhower sent in the Nat’l Guard and those kids were brave to be the first, but @ that point there were no options. (And again, I would ask schools in underfunded districts whether they think public ed has truly been “desegregated”.) I’m sure people would have rather not needed the National Guard to accompany school kids to protect them from their fellow citizens.
DADT repeal, at this point, has options in the way its going to be enforced. And a lot of it is self-motivated courtesy the military brass which — conveniently enough — are going to be the ones to enforce the desegregation.
But keep posting. I’m sure there’s some coherent idea that you can get to in the process of banging out ad hoc responses to words and phrases I happen to use.
And I am, in fact, arguing that Obama would not only disturb this process, but that he would DAMAGE AND PARALYZE IT. So, no. I don’t agree with you, but I’m not actually trying to change your mind. I am not, however, going to let you get away with pretending that your opinion is somehow the moral high ground that should be met.
Gee, and all this time I thought I was just trying to make clear what I said so as to avoid some jackass making wild assumptions about my intentions.
(Who the fuck is suggesting something different?)
And what would those be?
And all I’m asking for is a bigger boost form the Commander in Chief (and anywhere else) because I’m not convinced the military would get there as fast otherwise–as “history” would suggest. (Perhaps you could ask Major Mike Almy how self-motivated his superiors are.) That’s all.
Oddly enough, I thought that the point of the various lawsuits was to get the military moving (which did happen, judging from their announcements today) or at least get them to reinstate their commitment to the promises that they made at the hearing, which was that the process of dismantling DADT would begin after a full report of its effects on military would be produced. Then, the report that would probably confirm the idea that the majority of the military supports (or don’t care about) gays within the ranks would come out and give Congress enough political cover to go for repeal not just of DADT but the full ban on gays in the military.
And from that POV, Obama (with his tendency to attract negative attention from Republicans and independents) would not in any way be helpful.
Heh, didn’t take long for what I was worried about happening to happen. 3-judge panel issued a stay of the injunction against enforcing DADT.
Obama wanted it to be done through Congress, legislation. Otherwise when the new people move into Congress, something even stronger than DADT will be implemented. It’s a political football, if Congress had legislated it, it might have worked. But Congress is scared shitless of the Tea Party and had to prove who was a bigger fan of the Bible they were so it would never happen from GOP or Democrats. Go ahead and call Obama whatever you want but if you’re leaving out Congress and not blaming them at all, you’re delusional.