"Comment Left Elsewhere" of the Day
In non-breaking news, Barack Obama continues to balk on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
QUESTION: If White House counsel advised you that you could end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by attaching a signing order to a military appropriations bill, would you?
Ignore for the moment the pesky fact that the question is constitutionally asinine. More on that below.
OBAMA: I would not do it that way. The reason is because I want to make sure that when we revert “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it’s gone through a process and we’ve built a consensus or at least a clarity of that, of what my expectations are, so that it works.
My first obligation as the president is to make sure that I keep the American people safe and that our military is functioning effectively. Although I have consistently said I would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be. That’s how we were able to integrate the armed services to get women more actively involved in the armed services. At some point, you got to make a decision that that’s the right thing to do, but you always want to make sure that you are doing it in a way that maintains our core mission in our military.
The whole interview, apart from the uninformed sloppiness of the questions asked, reeks of Obama “revving up the bus” under which gays will yet again be thrown.
As I commented over at Good As You, where I first saw this story:
Are we reinventing this wheel yet again?
Apparently we are: DADT is a statute, an act of Congress. All that is needed is for Congress — you know, that overwhelmingly Democratic yet underwhelmingly only-semi-gay-sympathetic body — to pass a new act repealing it, with a president willing to sign it.
Is he therefore saying that he wouldn’t sign such a bill even if Congress passes it, or would only sign it after “consensus” is achieved in the military — you know, that same military that he would be “commander-in-chief” of?
Not exactly reminiscent of Harry Truman pursuing the racial integration of the military in 1948 — “consensus” be damned — is it? Curious also that Obama sidestepped racial integration and prattled instead about gender integration. Which do you think is more relevant to the question of gays in the military?
Previously:
–Obama Steals Clinton’s DADT Hypocrisy
–Gay Democrats: Donkeys or Jackasses?
Filed under: Gay Rights and Issues, Law, Politics
It's just awesome how determined he was to appeal to majoritarianism over principle. The ethics of the issue aren't nearly as important as making sure we please everyone according to their own method of decision-making. So, if a general thinks God is against it, bam, that hurts military readiness. This is no different from the appeal for the FMA.
This race is incredibly close. It's literally split-tied.
Gay voters who vote, or stay home, will literally determine the outcome.
It's time that gay voters told the Democrats that this ridiculous lack of action on their part, which has been going on for SIXTEEN YEARS, ends today — or we stay home in November and they LOSE.
They're not the only people who can "do nothing."
It's time that gay voters told the Democrats that this ridiculous lack of action on their part, which has been going on for SIXTEEN YEARS, ends today — or we stay home in November and they LOSE.
I've criticized Obama for not introducing legislation to repeal DADT (and for other gay-related issues) before, and will likely do so again, but frankly, I'd rather have inaction on gay issues than Republican action on gay issues.
Treading water is better than drowning.
Obama might want our money and our votes, but I haven't seen any actions yet that justify his receiving them. Nice rhetoric at times, but sometimes I feel that the rhetoric's only purpose is to drown out the noise of the approaching bus.
I won't vote for McCain but don't see a reason to vote for Obama either. Screw 'em both.
I'd rather have inaction on gay issues than Republican action on gay issues.
As if Democrat spineless lazy inaction has stopped the Republicans from doing any of their anti-gay stuff?
Last I checked, the GOPers needed no prodding to do anti-gay laws, but "pro-gay" Democrats have been quisling indeed, to put it mildly. With "friends" like them, we don't need enemies.
Obama might want our money and our votes, but I haven't seen any actions yet that justify his receiving them.
Exactly. Votes should be earned, and Democrats have an annoying and arrogant habit of assuming they "own" LGBT votes. They get downright abusive if you actually expect them to take substantive steps to earn your vote.