Obama says will end 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

[SlowwHand]

I don't think I deserved that. I didn't really do anything. Sure, a remark about you going to a recruiter. Big whoop. You've had worse than that on your eyeball, Asher.

[Asher]

I don't think I deserved that. I didn't really do anything. Sure, a remark about you going to a recruiter. Big whoop. You've had worse than that on your eyeball, Asher.

Wasn't meant as an insult in any way, Sloww. It's just that I've heard too much from the usual people who are all anti-Obama for the most inane reasons. It stands to reason that the Texans would be some of the worst offenders here.

[SlowwHand]

I don't care about a person's sexual affiliation. If they love their country, come on down.

[DaShi]

Greatest African American President Ever!

[SlowwHand]

I don't think so. This would indicate that Jefferson and Jackson were better.

In 1965, Joel Rogers wrote a book called Five Negro Presidents. Rogers says Jefferson, Harding, Coolidge, Jackson and Lincoln were part black.

[Kuciwalker]

Andrew Sullivan is, as expected, unhappy. I can't say I blame him:

All I can say is: the president gave a speech he could have given at any point in the last three years. No one in that room could disagree with any of the things he said. I sure don't (with the exception of the hate crimes hooey). And he said it well and movingly. Like we didn't know he could do that.

But the point of electing a president who pledged to actually do things is to hold him to account, and to see if he is willing to take any risk of any kind to actually do something. I had a few prior tests of his seriousness or signs that he gets it, a few ways to judge if this speech had anything new or specific or clear. He failed every test.

To wit:

He says he will end Don't Ask Don't Tell but he has done nothing, and he offered no time-line, no deadline for action and no verifiable record that he has done anything, despite his claims that he has.

He says he is ending the HIV ban, but it is still in force, a year and a half after it was signed by George W. Bush and passed by massive majorities in both houses.

He says he favors equality for gay couples but said nothing tonight to support the initiatives in Maine or in Washngton State or the struggle in Washington DC for marriage equality. That's a test of real sincerity on this matter. He failed it.

He says he wants to end discrimination in employment even as he is firing more gay people solely for being gay than any other employer in the country - as commander-in-chief. And if an employer is firing gay people all the time, is it tolerable to accept as a response that he will stop doing it one day - but gives no time-line at all to hold him to?

Look: I didn't expect these issues to be front and center given his appalling inheritance; I know he has many other things on his plate; I didn't expect the moon; I didn't believe he would do any of this immediately; I understand that the real job is for us to do, not him, and that most of the action is in the states. And I remain a strong supporter of him in foreign policy and in the way he is clearly trying to move this country past the ideological divides of the recent past.

But the sad truth is: he is refusing to take any responsibility for his clear refusal to fulfill clear campaign pledges on the core matter of civil rights and has given no substantive, verifiable pledges or deadlines by which he can be held accountable. What that means, I'm afraid, is that this speech was highfalutin bull****. There were no meaningful commitments within a time certain, not even a commitment to fulfilling them in his first term; just meaningless, feel-good commitments that we have no way of holding him to. Once the dust settles, ask yourself. What did he promise to achieve in the next year? Or two years? Or four years? The answer is: nothing.

HRC, of course, is putting no pressure on him; Joe Solmonese's disgraceful email actually took all pressure off him by saying he'd be happy to wait till 2017 for HRC to hold Obama accountable. HRC are putting pressure, as they always have, on gay people to go to the back of the line and be grateful a president attends their fundraising event. The only word for this is a racket. And if gay people do not rise up and demand change from this organization and stop funding a group whose goal has always been to sell the Democrats to gay people rather than secure civil rights, then they will continue to suffer the discrimination they live under day after day.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/much-worse-than-i-expected.html#more

[Jon Miller]

Democrats have homosexuals, Republicans have the pro-lifers. There are others, but both camps basically just use some of their groups for votes.

JM

[Zkribbler]

... while dragging his feet on the issue out of political concerns.

...like concentrating on fixing the economy and health care. Has the man no ability to prioritize?!

[Kuciwalker]

There will always be something more important.

AS is right. Gays should get out of Washington and concentrate their efforts on statewide efforts, because no national Democrats actually care about them.

[Zkribbler]

There are only so many hours in the day, Kuci. Priorities need to be set.

[Kuciwalker]

If you convince gays that economic policy is more important than social policy, what's to keep them from voting Republican?

[Zkribbler]

The Republican Party.

[Guynemer]

Whether you agree with his position or not, he's finally making good on a campaign promise.

How exactly? He offered no specifics on how he would end "don't ask, don't tell" and offered no timeframe on when the policy would be ended. This is just more empty rhetoric from our Nobel Laureate President...

This.

I'll applaud it when it happens, but this was just another campaign speech, more or less.

[Guynemer]

There are only so many hours in the day, Kuci. Priorities need to be set.

As said earlier in the thread, DADT could be ended with a single signature. No national coalition building, not negotitating with Congress, nothing. One signature, done.

[SlowwHand]

Congress would seem to disagree.

The law was passed by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Bill Clinton, who also promised to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military but was blunted by opposition in the military and Congress.