Don't ask don't tell

[Hazir]

Probs will avoid saying much of anything to avoid culture clash.

His actions will speak loud enough; if there is an appeal then we know this guy and his policy advisors deserve to be thrown out on the dungheap of history at the next elections.

Putting form over substance to the extent that it counters your proclaimed policy goals would be too ridiculous for words. There would be no defending it. Especially not with a president who pushed through the biggest - and much more controversial - change in Healthcare Insurance legislation by bypassing normal Congressional procedure.

[EyeKhan]

--- a president who pushed through the biggest - and much more controversial - change in Healthcare Insurance legislation by bypassing normal Congressional procedure.

Note the bypass wasn't as outside congressional normalcy as conservatives would like voters to believe. Propaganda....

[Hazir]

Note the bypass wasn't as outside congressional normalcy as conservatives would like voters to believe. Propaganda....

I know, but it was substance over form. And I think people would have every right to be mad as hell if for this non-controversial change he would insist on form over substance.

[LittleFuzzy]

Well, now I am very curious what is Obama's real position on DADT. After today's ruling he can either be good for his word or fight to re-instate what he promised to abolish.

Tough political spot. A majority of the country wants the policy gone, but it's not a major issue for most. But for those are really interested in the topic, on both sides, it will be a major GOTV issue. The social conservatives will respond particularly well to no attempt at appeal, but I'm not certain how our side will react, considering it is a mid-term election. On the one hand, an appeal should discourage voters, but on the other hand it more firmly puts the issue in the hands of Congress which means we really want to minimize conservative mid-term gains there.

[Loki]

Was just reading a book that had a poll showing that gay marriage was the 14th out of 14 priorities for people in the 2004 election (abortion was 13th).

[Hazir]

Gay marriage isn't really what don't ask don't tell is about.

[Loki]

Gay marriage isn't really what don't ask don't tell is about.

The point is that a vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about gays, one way or the other. They might not support gay rights, but it's not something that they will base their vote on.

[Hazir]

I know, and Obama is just another fag-hating nigger.

[Veldan Rath]

I know, and Obama is just another fag-hating nigger.

???

I was going to say apathetic...and politically calculating (real hope and changy!)...but I wasn't gonna got that far.

[Dreadnaught]

Wow...he really wants to neutralize this politically, doesn't he?

[GGT]

Wow...he really wants to neutralize this politically, doesn't he?

How could he not want to pawn this off any way possible.....either as a lawyer, Constitutional scholar, "community organizer", Democrat (and leader of the party), Senator, or President? They are all at conflicting odds, with different power groups and constituents, and competing opinions of where the power should lie. Congress won't act, when they should/could. Why aren't they being criticized for pawning off the hard decisions to the supreme court or the President's cabinet?

[Dreadnaught]

Because the President could have:

A) Not appealed

B) Not pursued DADT cases while this was sorted.

He's the commander in chief. He has almost full discretion on this issue.

[GGT]

So you want the DoJ to act as the President dictates? Shouldn't they have some autonomy? Sure, I suppose Obama could just tell them what to do, but wouldn't that just be more fodder for conservatives yelping about too much "intervention"?

Really, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Congress should be getting the heat, IMO. DADT was a congressional mandate (right?)

[Loki]

Eh? The Attorney General does what the president tells him to do...This is a public policy issue. Why exactly should an unelected justice department be deciding what it's in the public's good? Congress can't get this repealed now because of disagreements between the two parties. Obama doesn't really have that excuse.

[GGT]

Eh? The Attorney General does what the president tells him to do...This is a public policy issue. Why exactly should an unelected justice department be deciding what it's in the public's good? Congress can't get this repealed now because of disagreements between the two parties. Obama doesn't really have that excuse.

That's my point---most people would want this to be decided by an elected congress. Not an official appointed by the executive branch. If our senators can't get their act together because their politicking is too polarizing, it's hardly the President's fault.

[Loki]

That's my point---most people would want this to be decided by an elected congress. Not an official appointed by the executive branch. If our senators can't get their act together because their politicking is too polarizing, it's hardly the President's fault.

Or an elected President...the point is that Republicans ran on a platform of opposing this, so they can hardly be faulted for opposing it now. Obama ran on a platform of repealing this policy.

[GGT]

Or an elected President...the point is that Republicans ran on a platform of opposing this, so they can hardly be faulted for opposing it now. Obama ran on a platform of repealing this policy.

And Republicans ran on a platform of Love for our Holy Constitution, with Equal Rights for All, protected by law. Congress could repeal DADT in a heartbeat, if they had any guts.

[Dreadnaught]

So you want the DoJ to act as the President dictates? Shouldn't they have some autonomy? Sure, I suppose Obama could just tell them what to do, but wouldn't that just be more fodder for conservatives yelping about too much "intervention"?

Really, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Congress should be getting the heat, IMO. DADT was a congressional mandate (right?)

That's my point---most people would want this to be decided by an elected congress. Not an official appointed by the executive branch. If our senators can't get their act together because their politicking is too polarizing, it's hardly the President's fault.

The DoJ is subordinate to the president. So is the military. That's why these issues reflect on the President.

[Loki]

And Republicans ran on a platform of Love for our Holy Constitution, with Equal Rights for All, protected by law. Congress could repeal DADT in a heartbeat, if they had any guts.

Both parties support policies that aren't fully consistent with the constitution. It's nothing new. What is new is having a president who has the ability to change a promised policy but refuses to do so.

[GGT]

Both parties support policies that aren't fully consistent with the constitution. It's nothing new. What is new is having a president who has the ability to change a promised policy but refuses to do so.

Bush had the same ability. DADT didn't just pop up the last couple of weeks.

[Loki]

Bush had the same ability. DADT didn't just pop up the last couple of weeks.

Except Bush supported it...Why would he repeal it?

[GGT]

The DoJ is subordinate to the president. So is the military. That's why these issues reflect on the President.

Sure, but POTUS isn't like a dictator. He may be the "commander in chief" for the military, and leader of the executive branch, but he doesn't control the whole country. We have a legislative branch that's expected to do their jobs, too. They're supposed to weigh their constituent's demands (populism could probably vote in all sorts of unconstitutional things like segregation or slavery.....or, oops! banning gay marriage) with our US constitution.

How's that working out?

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, but Don't Ask Dont Tell is a strictly military policy. It's not gay marriage, it's part of the military code of conduct that the President has full discretion over (unless told otherwise by a court, which is what happened).

[GGT]

Except Bush supported it...Why would he repeal it?

It's all politicking, ya know. Politicians support something, until they're against it.

DADT exceeds politicking. It's a civil rights issue. It's almost embarrassing that our country can't manage to do what other nations have already done.

This reminds me of the "debate" of women being active military. Opponents said women would be disruptive to esprit de corps, too many issues, too messy, too new, too confusing! Red herrings, all around.

[GGT]

Yes, but Don't Ask Dont Tell is a strictly military policy. It's not gay marriage, it's part of the military code of conduct that the President has full discretion over (unless told otherwise by a court, which is what happened).

Generals have already said this is no big deal. Gays have always been in our military, serving well and proudly. We don't need a "STUDY" to tell us what's the right thing to do. It's not about who showers with whom, but it may be about who's homophobic. Seems to me we have more homophobic senators or voters, than homophobic military personnel.

[GGT]

My opinions on this matter might sound extreme to some. But I think our policies are backward. Instead of keeping homosexuals from serving military duty, we might do better by keeping homophobes and bigots from serving military duty.

[Nessus]

If it is under the President's power, and Bama did nix it right now, this way, what exactly would stop Palin from having all openly gay soldiers executed/thrown out/painted pink come January 2013?

[GGT]

The only way would be for congress to repeal DADT, and make it law. Then it wouldn't matter much if (yikes) Palin became President.

[Hazir]

That's my point---most people would want this to be decided by an elected congress. Not an official appointed by the executive branch. If our senators can't get their act together because their politicking is too polarizing, it's hardly the President's fault.

Bullcrap, most people want this retracted and don't give a flying shit for how that is done.

Obama is the worst kind of leader you can have, the kind of leader that's affraid of leading. I think you Americans better start thinking about which Republican you want to take over from this douchebag. Or maybe you'll get lucky and you'll have a Democrat who grows a pair and chucks Uncle Tom out so you'll get an actual choice again.

[GGT]

Bullcrap, most people want this retracted and don't give a flying shit for how that is done.

I think you underestimate the power of our social conservatives. They always say they're "representing their constituents".

Obama is the worst kind of leader you can have, the kind of leader that's affraid of leading. I think you Americans better start thinking about which Republican you want to take over from this douchebag.

I don't think he's afraid of leading. I think it's our congress that just can't move, because they're too divided and worried about being re-elected. I think it's a symptom of our political system when it doesn't work very well. The result is stagnation and paralysis. Followed by anger from the populace, that nothing seems to get done either way. We've gone from the senate being the cooling tea saucer, to being ice cold.