BREAKING: Obama To Delay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Action
Thanks to GP reader Sean A for this hat tip, worthy of a lead post today….
EXCLUSIVE: Obama to delay repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ – Washington Times
President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military’s decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.
“I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.
Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held “informal discussions” with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.
Once again, the lilly-livered Gay Left gets punched in the face while their tongues are firmly up the backside of the Democrat Party Establishment.
High-larious politics…. yet very disappointing, however predictable, from a gay rights policy perspective.
Just HOW many issues does the Hypocrite Rights Campaign and their fellow gay comrades have to lose before they are just laughed at and completely ignored??
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from Dan): Uncanny, yet again. I had seen this news as well and intended to blog on it to show Obama’s pusillanimity and his indifference to gay issues despite the enthusiasm the gay groups offered for his candidacy and campaign. Not just that, this is probably the one issue facing gays where the tide has clearly turned in our favor. If handled properly, we could repeal this discriminatory and gratuitous legislation. Looks like I’ve have to do a followup on that last point. 
73 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Must be those pesky Evangelicals that all vote Democrat that are scaring Obama off from keeping yet another campaign promise.
Repealing DADT would do so much more to mainstream gays and start breaking all the awful stereotypes out there. Unfortunately, any time I happen to turn on the TV, the gay issue is right there front and center. But it is always the worst stereotypes of gays I see.
Having honorable men and women willing to fight for our country would do so much more good for the community.
Remind me again why the Democrats are so much better for gays?
Comment by Leah — November 21, 2008 @ 1:03 pm - November 21, 2008
I’m a devout hetero, but I’m with y’all on this one. All you have to do is look at the percentage of women in the Navy who leave their ship on account of pregnancy.
The homo thing might have made sense in a male-only military some decades ago, but right now (on the basis of evidence and relative numbers) there’s a stronger case to be made for excluding women than for excluding gays.
Neither is a particularly good idea. It will, however, take a conservative President and a conservative Congress to be successful in removing this particularly ludicrous restriction.
Given the fight we’re in, gays (ought to) have a greater stake in all this than just about anybody else. Damned straight I want y’all on board!
Comment by Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) — November 21, 2008 @ 1:08 pm - November 21, 2008
Straight guy here. Is there any issue that is not above this man’s pay grade? His advisors need to explain what “President” means so he understands he has to actually make decisions now, and most of them will be tough decisions that will upset many people. I hope we have not elected a coward.
Comment by Steve-o — November 21, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - November 21, 2008
After 22 years in the Army, I can tell you that there are plenty of gays serving in the Army. There always has been, always will be, no matter what policy is enacted by a president or Congress.
I also say many gays that were serving openly in the Army. I saw no reaction to those gays good or bad except as appropriate to their soldiering. The reactions were the same as those shown to non-gay soldiers; based entirely on their soldiering.
If Obama is too scared to support lifting the ban on openly gay soldiers, with as much public support he has on this issue, then he is a coward. He should take a lesson in courage from each and ever soldier, gay or straight. But he won’t because he has no courage and no honor and no beliefs except those designed to get himself elected.
I have no sympathy for those of you who thought different…this was all out there to see, you just chose not to.
Comment by Diggs — November 21, 2008 @ 1:24 pm - November 21, 2008
Once again proving my point that I’m not going to vote for Socialists because they tell gays what they want to hear then don’t do it.
Comment by Dark Eden — November 21, 2008 @ 1:26 pm - November 21, 2008
#3: “His advisors need to explain what “President†means so he understands he has to actually make decisions now, and most of them will be tough decisions that will upset many people.”
Sorry. Obama’s going to spend his first day in office looking high and low in the oval office for the “present” button. He will avoid making decisions whenever possible until cornered and call it “building a consensus.” And if things go bad due to his failure to take action, he’ll blame Republicans. Hmmmm…sounds like our previous “first black President.”
Comment by Sean A — November 21, 2008 @ 1:29 pm - November 21, 2008
I think Obama is trying to avoid pushing any hot button topics early in his presidency. He wants to avoid the disaster that befell Clinton we he decided to start his policy push with socialized medicine.
I think that long term, this argument for gays in the military is a winner. Based on my conversations young people I know serving in the military today, I don’t think most of the people coming up in the military have strong objections to serving along side gay people even if they have personal objections. After all, most people under 30 grew up with openly gay people and did things like sharing showers so they have little objection to sharing close military quarters.
Comment by Shannnon Love — November 21, 2008 @ 1:34 pm - November 21, 2008
Just one minor clarification–Obama and Bill Clinton differ in one respect. Clinton at least waited until AFTER his inauguration to start reneging on his campaign promises.
Comment by Sean A — November 21, 2008 @ 1:34 pm - November 21, 2008
He took the gay community’s money and their help (the gay left) to get elected and the only thing he has given them is tire tracks across their backs of the bus he ran them over with. I gotta hand it to him, he works fast.
Change we can believe in………….
Comment by LCRW — November 21, 2008 @ 1:35 pm - November 21, 2008
Reminds me of when Wellstone voted for the Defense Of Marriage Act. Bastard. Why do gays and blacks keep voting Left when they should know – by long experience – that they will get thrown under the bus before it even leaves the station?
Comment by Ellen — November 21, 2008 @ 1:40 pm - November 21, 2008
Does it honestly surprise anyone that someone who is that sympathetic to muslim cultures would screw over gays? Seriously?
Furthermore, did you people even pay attention to what he was saying about these issues all along? He hasn’t even paid lip service to rights for gays – and that after looking the other way while his supporters beat on Hilary and Palin with the sexist-bat.
Comment by Tim — November 21, 2008 @ 1:49 pm - November 21, 2008
Obama is essentially an ideologue… he’s NOT a big fan of gay rights.
He’s a fan of discipline and morality, HIS kind, but all the same, they’re important to him. He’s NOT a typical wacko leftist.
He may not be a Muslim, but he’s more likely to endorse their view of the world (morality, discipline, unity) than that anarchic, never ending party kind of life the gays seem to want.
He’s not going to be a fan of legal dope or gays or anything else in the arena of personal dissolution.
Hate to break it to ya.
Comment by DAVE — November 21, 2008 @ 2:07 pm - November 21, 2008
Who knows. Obama may yet combine the worst of Carter *and* Clinton.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2008 @ 2:21 pm - November 21, 2008
As much as I dislike Obama and as much as I’d like to try to pull apart the coalition that elected him, I’d have to say that the gay community contributed to this one with the great prop 8 temper tantrum since the election. Obama is not stupid. He built a coalition of competing interest groups by using identity politics. Every one of those groups believes that they are first in line now Obama has won.
Large percentages of Black and Latino voters supported prop 8. And although the venom has now settled on a safe constituency that Obama doesn’t care about ( Mormons ), the initial outburst at what he considers his core constituency made it an us or them thing. There are more Blacks and there are more Latinos than gays. You lose. Obama won’t risk what he considers important to please what he considers a marginal part of the coalition. Under the bus you go.
Disclaimer: I am not gay, so maybe I cannot understand the anger and frustration. So be it. Whether the anger is righteous or not, it was a tactical mistake to pit gays against people Obama needs. He cannot give you what you want without offending the ACORN votes.
Comment by Ken Hahn — November 21, 2008 @ 2:25 pm - November 21, 2008
It continues to amaze me that large numbers of people are only now figuring out that Obama is a serial liar.
Comment by doug — November 21, 2008 @ 2:30 pm - November 21, 2008
I’ve wanted to admit something so I’m doing this here. I’m all for gay marriage but I voted Yes on Prop 8 because of what I saw as the mandatory teaching of “tolerance” for the gay lifestyle. I put tolerance in quotes because I’ve read of too many examples of using this as an excuse to indoctrinate, proselytize and identify possible gay children for a different learning track. I’m against sexualizing children, and while I’m not looking for anyone to be taught to be anti-gay I don’t want sexual activism forced on them either.
Comment by Al — November 21, 2008 @ 2:32 pm - November 21, 2008
Kevin, Erik, Jack Allen… how’s the Kool-Aid this morning?
Comment by V the K — November 21, 2008 @ 2:35 pm - November 21, 2008
I told you The One would not be some gay messiah.
This is what party loyalty gets you, GayLefties. You can play Tammy Wynette all you want and Stand By Your Man or you can stand up to him.
Comment by Attmay — November 21, 2008 @ 2:36 pm - November 21, 2008
#13: “Kevin, Erik, Jack Allen… how’s the Kool-Aid this morning?”
cricket…cricket…cricket
Comment by Sean A — November 21, 2008 @ 2:44 pm - November 21, 2008
“2010″ means “never”.
2010 means not 2009.
Congressional elections in 2010 will mean “next year”.
Democratic losses in the 2010 Congress will mean, “we need to concentrate our limited resources on other things” in 2011.
2012 is an election year.
And that finishes out Obama’s term.
Hey, maybe, if he manages to get re-elected, he’ll consider it for 2013?
Comment by New Frontiersman — November 21, 2008 @ 2:52 pm - November 21, 2008
OMG … what a shock!
What promise will be the next to fall … “universal health care” or another top promise.
Next up … “Change”, oh, wait, it depends on what your definition of “Change” is. Does that mean “change” from GWB’s cabinet or “change” from Clinton’s cabinet!? Because if it’s the later, I don’t see much “change”.
Typical … promise the world and deliver diddly.
Comment by Walter J. Murphsky — November 21, 2008 @ 2:54 pm - November 21, 2008
#14: “I told you The One would not be some gay messiah. This is what party loyalty gets you, GayLefties. You can play Tammy Wynette all you want and Stand By Your Man or you can stand up to him.”
Ummmm, you need to got on down off this bandwagon, Attmay. We don’t have the space for people who voted for this loser.
Comment by Sean A — November 21, 2008 @ 2:57 pm - November 21, 2008
You do realize that DADT was an Executive Order by the President, and not a policy OF the military, but TO and FOR the military (i.e., not their idea). And that President was Clinton. You could look it up.
Comment by Sam L. — November 21, 2008 @ 3:28 pm - November 21, 2008
I said this at Box Turtle Bulletin (and actually got Tim Kincaid to agree with me!) and I’ll say it here:
If DADT isn’t gone by this time next year, all the gays who voted for the Democrats got used.
Comment by Dave — November 21, 2008 @ 3:37 pm - November 21, 2008
I have a couple of thoughts and a pet peeve with this issue. As Diggs said, there are and always have been gay military members serving with honor and distinction and, today, very few of their fellow members have any problem with it. One big benefit of the ban is actually not having to deal with the “gay, loud and proud” type that is always wanting to make a political/civil rights issue of everything, something that is contrary to good order and discipline. One big benefit of repealing the ban is removing the “get out of jail free” card that some use to avoid an undesired assignment/deployment (“I’m gay, now you’ve got to kick me out.”) The fact is that 90%+ of separations for being gay now are either self referrals (i.e. violations of “don’t tell”) or discovery in the course of investigating unrelated discipline matters and using the gay card is the quickest and easiest way to get rid of someone you were trying to get rid of anyway. I am generally against the ban, but believe there are legitimate privacy concerns that are often too off-handedly dismissed.
Now on to my peeve. If, as the headline asserted, Obama repealed “don’t ask; don’t tell” it wouldn’t open the military to gays at all. Actually, it would make military service less friendly to gay members. The first sentence, however, tells the truth, that it would take Congress changing the law, since the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to make laws governing the armed forces. The only reason Clinton came up with DADT was as a weasel way to avoid proposing such as change to Congress because he didn’t want to spend political capital to make it happen when he had HillaryCare on his agenda. I get sick and tired of everyone trying to finger military leaders or Bush or (now) Obama as anti-gay for upholding the ban when they don’t and can’t make the real rules. Today the military discharges open gay members because they are legally obliged to do so. Change the law and they’ll stop. It’s as simple as that, but I guess many on the left are too wedded into believing the military is always the bad guy and not believe that it’s their dear leaders Pelosi and Reid who could really make a change if they wanted.
Comment by submandave — November 21, 2008 @ 3:47 pm - November 21, 2008
Like I said, Dave, getting rid of DADT will only return the military to the same rules they operated under during Reagan/Bush I. Now, most of our service members are not as anti-gay as they were in the ’70s and ’80s simply because society isn’t, so I wouldn’t expect any big changes, but a repeal of DADT would allow an occasional witch (or rather queen) hunt, should the CO desire.
Comment by submandave — November 21, 2008 @ 3:51 pm - November 21, 2008
Aside from an “exclusive” from the cult paper Washington Times, has this bee reported anywhere else?
Comment by a different Dave — November 21, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - November 21, 2008
[...] Gay Patriot takes note: Once again, the lilly-livered Gay Left gets punched in the face while their tongues are firmly up [...]
Pingback by Blogs For Victory » Obama Backs Off on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” — November 21, 2008 @ 4:14 pm - November 21, 2008
As a senior officer with 23 years who is retiring, this will happen. I’m in intel and we have everything imaginable in service. I’m sorry it takes so long for liberty to flourish but your point about the left is spot on. Run from the leftists, it is freedom and liberty that are real. Unfortunately, neither party believes in either anymore. The young ones get this, it will just take strong leaders to rein over the troglodytes.
Comment by SoldierRenter — November 21, 2008 @ 4:32 pm - November 21, 2008
Wow, there’s actually an issue on which I’m to the left of Obama? Scary.
Actually, I do think it’s good to thoughtfully repeal DADT. As a former submariner, I totally support allowing openly gay Americans to serve in our armed forces. However, I do think that the concerns that have kept gay Americans from serving in the past do need to be addressed rather than dismissed out of hand. For instance, on a submarine, where about 120 men share VERY close quarters with each other, it is helpful that sailors have virtually no expectation that they will be viewed as the object of someone else’s affection. Given that a submarine is just a step up from a locker room as far as personal privacy goes, it may make one uncomfortable to think another sailor might have the hots for oneself. This same concern would also apply to co-ed submarines. I didn’t know anyone in the Navy who thought that women or gay men couldn’t be great submariners; the concern was pretty much just about privacy and how it relates to possible attraction between sailors. (Such is a fair concern, isn’t it?) Ultimately, I do hope that gay Americans are able to serve proudly on submarines and in every other capacity within our military, but I do think we first need to address concerns about changing the current policies so that we might be able to change these policies without disrupting unit cohesion within the many varied types of military units (e.g., submarines, Marine platoons, special forces, etc.)
Comment by cme — November 21, 2008 @ 4:41 pm - November 21, 2008
I can support the idea that he would want to consult with the military leadership to discuss the issue and come up with a good plan for repeal. I am not sure why it should take two years to do so. This won’t even cost any money (and honestly could probably save a ton of it, given that there won’t be prosecutions or discharges for men and women who have had thousands of dollars spent to train them)-so that isn’t an excuse.
I can’t for the life of me figure out how this would be a two year process. So my guess is that he wants to wait until after the 2010 elections just in case there is an anti gay rebellion among his own and democratic supporters that are anti gay.
Comment by just me — November 21, 2008 @ 4:47 pm - November 21, 2008
a different Dave questions:
Is the Washington Times a “cult paper” because its readers are duped and pathetic or is the Washington Times carrying the water for a “cult?”
I ask, because this does not seem be a neutral question by a disinterested party. If it were, this would be the question:
In the question as posed, a different Dave casts scorn on the source, and in the question as rephrased, a different Dave would be asking if there is more than one source for this claim. The original question is both a message and a conclusion.
Comment by heliotrope — November 21, 2008 @ 4:48 pm - November 21, 2008
1. As already mentioned, per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, military law is the authority of the legislative branch. It’s Congress’ law. It’s there because of the history of the writers of the Constitution and their English heritage derived from the experience with Charles I and Cromwell. You really don’t want to tell the military to ignore the laws of the legislative branch. History hasn’t been kind to the liberties of the people in countries who miss that one.
2. Straights are routinely kicked out for sexual conduct be it adultery, improper relationships [superior/subordinate] or sexual harassment. You can not have one set of standards for one group and then exempt another. It goes to the heart of military discipline and unit effectiveness. Anyone who has been in a unit that had straights engaged in such activity know how it effects good order and discipline. Ending DADT will not end discharges for sexual conduct.
Comment by Don51 — November 21, 2008 @ 5:10 pm - November 21, 2008
Shorter GayPatriot: “Darn it, I wanted Obama to ignore the financial crisis facing the country and ram this through, so I could criticize him for *that* instead!”
Comment by torrentprime — November 21, 2008 @ 5:53 pm - November 21, 2008
Ummmm, you need to got on down off this bandwagon, Attmay. We don’t have the space for people who voted for this loser.
Of which I am not one. I wouldn’t vote for him if you redistributed all the money Oprah made in 23 seasons of emotional manipulation, weight fluctuations, and shilling for mediocre literature and gave it to me.
Comment by Attmay — November 21, 2008 @ 6:00 pm - November 21, 2008
We can only hope so, that would actually be good for the country.
Comment by Leah — November 21, 2008 @ 6:08 pm - November 21, 2008
shiorter TP “I daren’t critize the One, so I’ll attack instead.”
Comment by The_Livewire — November 21, 2008 @ 6:24 pm - November 21, 2008
“Darn it, I wanted Obama to ignore the financial crisis facing the country”
I thought that’s what he had been doing. So far, in terms of presenting an economic policy, Dear Leader has been voting “present.”
Comment by V the K — November 21, 2008 @ 6:39 pm - November 21, 2008
I will be thrilled if the universal healthcare promise goes down the tubes, but I expect that to be a promise he actually tries to follow through with. I even bet we will get a cost estimate a good bit below the real cost with tons of updates on just how much it costs afterwards.
Honestly if we really want to go the universal route, I would much prefer the Fed’s provide block grants to various states to let them come up with a plan that works through small scale expirementation before deciding to make everyone in the US follow suit.
2. Straights are routinely kicked out for sexual conduct be it adultery, improper relationships [superior/subordinate] or sexual harassment. You can not have one set of standards for one group and then exempt another. It goes to the heart of military discipline and unit effectiveness. Anyone who has been in a unit that had straights engaged in such activity know how it effects good order and discipline. Ending DADT will not end discharges for sexual conduct.
I actually have no problem with kicking people out for this kind of conduct, but that doesn’t mean every gay that serves in the military will engage in these behaviors anymore than every straight member of the service engages in it. There are and should be rules with regards to fraternization and sexual conduct while deployed, but I can’t see a justification for a blanket prohibition on gays serving in general.
Comment by just me — November 21, 2008 @ 7:04 pm - November 21, 2008
As a former communications officer in Saigon, I can tell you that while I was stationed there, many many gays served during Vietnam. In fact, my late life partner was also stationed there, and that is when we first met. Whle we did not become personally involved until we were both out of the military, we both were very open about our orientation. From my experience, the US Army simple chose to close their eyes because they needed us at the time.
Even then, most of the other guys never really seemed to care very much; it was a simple matter of respecting your fellow soldiers and not coming on someone you knew was straight. Considering the number of gay sailors, marines and soldiers available, that seldom happened as I recall.
“cme” in comment #30 makes a very good point about men serving in very close quarters and not feeling as if they were someone else’s sexual interest. But I never knew another gay soldier who didn’t know to keep it to themselves under the circumstances “cme” refers too. We could, and did, conduct ourselves honorably, as we swore to do.
Now, that said, off duty was a VERY different matter.
Comment by John in Dublin California — November 21, 2008 @ 7:32 pm - November 21, 2008
This is the lack of leadership we’ve been waiting for. Not that I have a stake in this game, but c’mon. Do what you promised already.
Comment by Peg C. — November 21, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - November 21, 2008
It is in my opinion that the move to allow all people of different sexual orientations to serve their country is a respectable one. I believe it will stregnthen our country do to the old restrictions there were less americans in the armed forces due to that complication. If there it was removed then the armed forces, i believe would have many more volunteering to the ranks. I hope the choice is made to strengthen our country by allowing this to happen. Its in my opinion that anybody to think differently of our armed forces or General Colin Powell becuase of the act to allow more volunteers in needs to understand more about the armed forces. All people should be able to obtain a chance to serve their loved country.
With all do respect, i hope soon the military will be open to all people regardless of orientation.
Comment by Max Lea — November 21, 2008 @ 7:44 pm - November 21, 2008
CME, studies have been done on the issue and in fact, it is heterosexual men who tend to behave badly and not Gays. In fact, for example, there are many more cases of str8 men raping women in the military, then Gays going after str8 men.
Beyond, that once again the Messiah throws us under the bus and runs us over and where is the Gay Community and its so called leadership? Helping the Messiah drive the bus…..why is the Servicemen Defense League (forgive me if I haven’t got their entire acroynm down, I do contribute to them since I believe in ending DADT) I cannot believe they are willing to be thrown under the bus and happily.
The excuse the Democrat Congress used was GWB wouldn’t sign the repeal of DADT and now there is no excuse..but once again, our community keeps getting thrown under the bus and run over……well at least 30 percent of us had sanity and voted McCain/Palin (from what I read 30 percent of the GLBT Community voted for McCain/Palin)
The Dear Chosen One will continue to make Carter/Clinton look like geniuses…so nothing surprises me.
As the country and the world’s economy goes down the tubes and The Dear Leader promised to name the Treasury Secretary the day after the election…we still await word from him as the financial health of the country slides deeper into hell.
Of course while we are at it, instead of letting free markets take over and letting the Big 3 automakers go into Chapter 11, The Chosen One will continue to make “present” votes (he counts on it like the “Easy Button” the Staples commercials) and watch as the rest of the country slides deeper into hell and of course no one told The Chosen One that he lost the election since he has The Clintons beginning their Third Term in Power….
and its still nearly 2 months before The Chosen One is sworn in…….we have just begun in the Land of Nobama. In the case of Nobama, to paraphrase President Ford, Nobama is no Ford and certainly no Lincoln…..more like James Buchanan to me…I still say Jimmy Carter is going to look like a genius compared to 4 or yikes 8 years of the Marxist in Chief…..and the economy will look worse then the Hell Carter put us through…..can anyone channel Ronnie Reagan when we need him?
Comment by Rocket — November 21, 2008 @ 7:59 pm - November 21, 2008
I’m not surprised at all. I also agree that if Congress doesn’t tackle this next year it will be 2011 at the earliest.
Comment by John — November 21, 2008 @ 8:06 pm - November 21, 2008
#34: I thought he could do two things at once. Or at least he claimed to when he condemned McCain for suspending his campaign to deal with the subprime mortgage fiasco.
Comment by Attmay — November 21, 2008 @ 8:15 pm - November 21, 2008
Universal health care is a non-starter. A friend of mine is a very senior exec at a large health insurance company who met with both Obama and McCain and their campaign staff back in late Sept. both campaigns assured him that they had no plan to for universal health care.
Comment by el duderino — November 21, 2008 @ 9:57 pm - November 21, 2008
I disagree with the commenters who doubt Pres O will never revoke the act.But I think it will be done sometime in 2012 to mobilize votes.It’s disappointing,but not surprising if he does it this way.
Comment by corwin — November 21, 2008 @ 9:59 pm - November 21, 2008
As a gay man in the military, I don’t expect to see DADT come up for discussion until after all the hubbub of the exit-strategy for Iraq and restabilizing Afghanistan.
Which means well after my deployment.
2010 seems to be a good turn-around with how slow Congress acts on things that affect the everyday man and not some corporate interest or pressing security issue.
Comment by JT in the Army — November 21, 2008 @ 10:05 pm - November 21, 2008
Good points, Rocket (#43). Frankly, I don’t understand the fear that CME refers to that straight men are supposedly afraid of being the object of some other man’s interest or desire. I would think that most straight men who were secure in their sexual orientation would be flattered but not disturbed by it. Now it would be a different matter of their was inappropriate behavior, but that’s why the military has rules about sexual harassment and such things already.
Comment by Kurt — November 21, 2008 @ 10:11 pm - November 21, 2008
So, guys, when do the protest marches start?
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 21, 2008 @ 10:21 pm - November 21, 2008
I don’t think it shows indifference toward gays, I think it shows a continuing policy of triangulation and avoiding controversial issues. During the campaign, he said he would delay tax increases and flip flopped on nearly every other issue.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — November 21, 2008 @ 10:29 pm - November 21, 2008
This gets funnier all the time. The more some of you use your cute little names for Obama the more it becomes obvious that it is you who truly view him as a force of nature, or something equally as ridiculous, while many, if not most, of us who voted for him know that he was just one more politician running for office and now he’s just one more soon to be President facing reality. You who now kneel and pray in the direction of Alaska look pretty silly being sarcastic about Obama. I haven’t decided yet whether the continued juvenile claims that millions of us were duped into voting for Obama comes from ignorance or arrogance. Either way, it’s going to be a long 4 years if you can’t find something better to do. Reading various “conservative” blogs I can see that Bush-hatred is going to look like a love fest before very long.
Comment by a different Dave — November 21, 2008 @ 11:11 pm - November 21, 2008
Wouldn’t want a good crisis to go to waste, now would we?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 22, 2008 @ 12:34 am - November 22, 2008
And there’s the rub (“HAHAHA! Rub!”). I don’t think Comrade Barack Milhouse Hussein Obama Carter has any interest in strengthening the military and/or our country.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 22, 2008 @ 12:59 am - November 22, 2008
#49: I have asked a few hetero guys in my age group (people in their 20s) how they would feel if they got hit on by another guy (it wasn’t me, this was just theoretical). They said they’d be flattered.
Comment by Attmay — November 22, 2008 @ 3:50 am - November 22, 2008
Torrentprime,
Nice to see you admit Obama is too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. The dawn breaks.
Comment by American Elephant — November 22, 2008 @ 6:39 am - November 22, 2008
A Differently-Abled Dave,
Its ignorance: yours and other Obama supporters — and we have the polls to prove it.
By the way, Dave, do YOU know who controls congress right now? Cus nearly 6 in 10 of your fellow Obama supporters don’t, and half of those who got it right were probably guessing.
And, hate to point out the obvious, but you’re the only one talking about Sarah Palin here.
The kind of change I am hoping for is for one of the lib trolls to say something intelligent for once. Alas, I am again disappointed.
Comment by American Elephant — November 22, 2008 @ 6:53 am - November 22, 2008
#14 Ken Hahn makes a good point, that the gay protests have something to do with this decision, but it was a boneheaded move to announce dates. Should have just said, we’ve got to have the joint chiefs look into it, and not sure when it will happen. He risks getting homos all riled up and creating an issue out of it until he is forced to deal with it.
But whether it happens or not depends entirely on whether or not it can be used to Obamas advantage. Its just as much at the bottom of his to do list as Bush’s or anyone else.
Sorry libs. You’ve been duped again. Don’t say you weren’t warned, ‘cus I know you were.
Comment by American Elephant — November 22, 2008 @ 7:02 am - November 22, 2008
CME, studies have been done on the issue and in fact, it is heterosexual men who tend to behave badly and not Gays. In fact, for example, there are many more cases of str8 men raping women in the military, then Gays going after str8 men.
This wouldn’t surprise me given the numbers of straight men in the military as compared to gay men. Not to mention-I just don’t think too may gay men go around taking the risks involved with asking out straight men. From what I know about the gay men I know, they generally wait until they have a pretty good sense of orientation before asking a guy out.
I think the other issue is that most gay men who serve in the military aren’t the kinds of guys who want to pull out the victim card and play that role. This could change somewhat if there is no longer any prohibition against openly being gay in the military, but I really doubt the professional victims in the gay community are going to run right out to sign up for an 8 year commitment to serve.
Comment by just me — November 22, 2008 @ 8:49 am - November 22, 2008
July 13, 2008, Barack Obama: “We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”
Comment by V the K — November 22, 2008 @ 9:56 am - November 22, 2008
November 21, 2008: Barack Obama throws up his hands and walks away from the public schools.
Comment by V the K — November 22, 2008 @ 9:56 am - November 22, 2008
i believe I said before, it will be a Republican Vet who will, as president, lead the charge that will get DADT repealed.
Viewpoints do change with time, for better, and for worse. DADT is an example of that. The current leadership in Congress (and future leadership in the White house) is poll driven, doing what’s expedient while consolidating power. Unfortunately, there is such a high percentage of gays who are ‘yellow dog democrats’ that like blacks, the Democrats don’t worry about where they go, except to smite those who wonder off the ‘reservation’ see Condi Rice, (formerly) Colin Powel, Michael Steele and JC Watts to name a few.
I was/am still honestly surprised that the first black president was a democrat, to be honest. Apparently it was too much for Bobbie “Sheets” Byrd though.
V the K, I’ll cut Pres Obama some slack on the school thing. The security logistics of having FkotUS in a public school, let alone the hellholes that are DC public schools pretty much mean rhetoric aside, that they’re going to be in private schools.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 22, 2008 @ 10:44 am - November 22, 2008
I hope no one misunderstands my earlier point—I’m not saying I don’t think gay men should be able to serve on submarines. I knew of at least one guy on the submarine whom a lot of people suspected to be gay (although, honestly, I don’t think he was really harassed on account of it—most people liked him and respected him, including myself) and after he retired from the Navy at the end of his submarine tour, he admitted that he was. There were other guys who may or may not have been but were in case suspected to be. I don’t think there was a lot of harassment of anyone, but there was plenty of gossip. (And the thing is, ANYONE who wants to serve on a submarine better have a thick skin or develop one pretty quickly after coming aboard. Every submariner can expect a fairly healthy dose of mistreatment from their shipmates on a daily basis. The only one who might be immune is the chief cook. You don’t really want to mess with him if you care about what’s in your food.)
So yes, I do believe that openly gay Americans should be allowed to serve on subs, so long as everyone, gay or straight, is held to certain standards of conduct. But can’t we at least admit that it is a big change when you have someone on board who is attracted to the gender of the majority of the crew? I think there’s a right way and a wrong way to enact change, even appropriate changes. There is a lot to be said about the misconduct of straight people in the military, not just heterosexual misconduct but also homoerotic joking around on the part of straight guys that can cross the lines of what is appropriate. But for the military culture to change in such a way that it accepts openly gay Americans in a functional and welcoming way, I think it’s essential to at least understand the concerns of those opposed to such a change, whose concerns are a lot more sophisticated and thoughtful than mere gay-bashing and homophobia.
Comment by cme — November 22, 2008 @ 1:42 pm - November 22, 2008
If this was a Republican President saying he was going to wait to years to do anything about this policy teh SLDN and the left would be all up in arms. They would be demanding that something be done now and there is no reason to wait to 2010. Because it is a democrat the SLDN is going to side with him and give him a pass. We all know come 2010 Obama will have another reason for not taking up this issue. There is no reason for this discrimatory policy to go any further. It was a Democrat President that gave us this bad policy and appears it will continue to stay under this Democrat President. We should not wait till 2010. Everyone should be contacting thier Senators and Represenatives and demanded that the repeal of this awful policy happen as soon as possible. People who wish to serve and defend this great nation should be allowed to .
Comment by James — November 22, 2008 @ 2:33 pm - November 22, 2008
Imagine if liberal gay activists had put as much time and energy into fighting Prop 8 and the other amendments as they did in trying to get The One elected. Would that have made a difference? Perhaps. Rather difficult to say for sure but we’ll never know now because they are so wrapped up in worshipping celebrity and whoring for the Dems that they took their eyes off of what should have been their main focus. Ah well. Gee, didn’t Prop 8 get a helluva boost by robocalls featuring unfortunate comments by The One? Yet still gay libs want to tell us that He’s The Man. Yeah, okay. Tell me again why I should give a shit about HRC and the rest of them?
Comment by John — November 22, 2008 @ 3:07 pm - November 22, 2008
I’ll cut Pres Obama some slack on the school thing.
I would too, if he supported vouchers to get kids out of failing public schools.
Comment by V the K — November 22, 2008 @ 4:00 pm - November 22, 2008
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Gay Left is shocked that they’ve been thrown under the bus so-soon? The Gay Left is always thrown under the bus by the Annointed One in the White House; Clinton and now Obama.
Four years from now NOTHING will have changed…DOMA, ENDA and DADT nor Prop-8…and the Dhimmicrats will be making the same excuses now, while counting the million of gay dollars they collected from their non-critical gay sheep. All the while the “leaders” of the HRC, NGLTF and others will be preaching patience and blind obeisance to their Party.
Suckers…..
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 22, 2008 @ 4:50 pm - November 22, 2008
This is what party loyalty gets you. Gays learned it with their blind loyalty to the Democrats. Fiscal conservatives learned it with their blind loyalty to Republicans. All you get is lip service. If they know they’ll get your vote anyway, you don’t have to do anything.
Comment by Attmay — November 22, 2008 @ 10:32 pm - November 22, 2008
In Florida news this week, it was reported that our graduation rate had climbed to 73%. What I didn’t hear reported was that it was thanks to JEB and holding teachers accountable and the much bemoaned FCAT. We haven’t haven’t had a democrat governor in 10 years and McKay can’t lay claim to it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 23, 2008 @ 1:32 am - November 23, 2008
while many, if not most, of us who voted for him know that he was just one more politician running for office and now he’s just one more soon to be President facing reality
Those who don’t want to remember history because it makes them look like idiots are doomed to deny it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 23, 2008 @ 2:17 am - November 23, 2008
I told my lefty friend about this and he said “Well I think the economy is more important than gay issues”. What a spin!! I pointed out that I feel the economy and national security are important to me and that’s why I generally vote right. Suddenly now that the messiah is putting off gay issues, it’s okay.
Comment by OutliciousTV — November 23, 2008 @ 3:40 pm - November 23, 2008
Outlicious: Excellent point. I faced criticism from gay libs because I voted for McCain mainly because defense is my number one issue. The hypocrisy here is truly amazing. Perhaps a catalog of postings by gay libs should be made to throw back at them when they try the same schtick later on in condemning gay conservatives and moderates.
Comment by John — November 23, 2008 @ 5:56 pm - November 23, 2008
#72,
You’re assuming a) they’d accept it was their own words, b) they’d admit their falibiliy, and 3) they’d read it.
Comment by The Livewire — November 24, 2008 @ 7:01 am - November 24, 2008