On DADT Repeal, Obama Kicks Can Even Further Down the Road
Something strange has been happening in the blogosphere. I chance upon another post by John Aravosis with which I agree almost entirely. During the course of the 2008 campaign, John beat the drum as hard as any left-wing blogger for Barack Obama.
And now he pulls no punches in faulting the Administration for further putting off a decision on the time-frame for repealing the ban on gays in the military:
Apparently, General Jones would have us believe that President Obama wasn’t aware that we were fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he promised to lift the gay ban during the campaign in exchange for our votes. So, Jones tells us today, Obama can’t get to that particular promise right now because he’s busy fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Uh huh.
I don’t agree with Aravosis much, but do agree with him that the Administration should make it a priority to repeal the ban which serves no military purpose. After all, Obama did promise us he was going to do it. And gay Obama supporters cited that promise as one reason they backed the Democrat.
But, that erstwhile Obama supporter finds the administration of man he back last fall “is doing next to nothing – and perhaps nothing altogether – to move the ball forward on repealing DADT.”
So, what gives, with a majority of conservatives favoring repeal, why won’t Obama act?
And let me give major props to John Aravosis for sticking to his principles on this one even if it means criticizing a man whom he once so enthusiastically supported.
17 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
When is the gay community* going to realize, ‘he’s just not that into you’?
*disclaimer: Yes there’s no ‘gay community, but it’s a good short hand for ‘the vast majority of gays who vote democrat no matter how much they’re kicked.’
Comment by The_Livewire — October 5, 2009 @ 9:31 am - October 5, 2009
How can Obama do anything since he doesn’t make time to see his generals?
Comment by anon2273892 — October 5, 2009 @ 10:48 am - October 5, 2009
Kudos to Avarosis, he may be upset with the president on this one. But will vote for him again, because he is pro abortion or some other leftie shibboleth.
Comment by Leah — October 5, 2009 @ 10:58 am - October 5, 2009
As was said so well on SNL, Jack Squat.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 5, 2009 @ 12:01 pm - October 5, 2009
That old addage… Buyer beware comes to mind.
Anyone who honestly thought Obama had any interest in repealing this hot potato does not have a lick of sense and was not paying close enough attention to the man during the election.
Will he repeal it? Possibly… My guess is it will need to wait 4 years. If he feels like his term is done he will do it, just so he has something in the history books to prove he was the “great progressive hope”. If some how he pulls out another 4 years then you may have to wait 7 more years.
But I still have a gut feeling he will “forget” to repeal it… leaving it for the next guy (or girl).
Comment by Stone K — October 5, 2009 @ 12:31 pm - October 5, 2009
The professional politicians and their nearly-permanent staffs have no incentive to repeal or modify DADT since it raises considerable campaign cash each election cycle making empty-promises to the (Democratic) G/L community. Come mid-Summer in an even-numbered year and they trot-out the earnestness…and each Spring of an odd-numbered year throw the Gays back under the bus.
The GOP does the same to the Anti-Abortionist and the Anti-Evolutionist fanatics.
Comment by Ted B. — October 5, 2009 @ 2:01 pm - October 5, 2009
So Ted, do you feel it’s an issue like Amnesty? It’s been said “Only a Republican can pass amnesty” (c.f. Reagan) but does this mean only a Republican could repeal DADT?
Comment by The_Livewire — October 5, 2009 @ 2:04 pm - October 5, 2009
Ask not what Obama can do for you, ask what you can do for Obama. The way I read it, 93.265% of the small gay population of the United States are slobbering liberals who will never abandon The Obamessiah or the Democraps. So, what is there to be gained from messing around with the rest of the electorate? Gay liberals are fully entrenched in the fields of the plantation, so why worry about their ration of attention? All The Won has to do is blow a passing kiss at them every now and then and their hearts flutter and they vow to vote for him several times in 2012.
Tano, gillie and Ohio Bucknaked Nut are clear examples of stewed in their own juices toadies of anything liberal and beyond. They are the least of Obama’s concerns.
Comment by heliotrope — October 5, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - October 5, 2009
Heck, I’m a straight male conservative Republican and I think that Obama and the Dems just need to kill this absurd policy.
Comment by Rhymes With Right — October 5, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - October 5, 2009
From Twitter earlier today: “Attention Gay Activists…Please Report to Under Barack Obama’s Bus. http://bit.ly/12jz8e“
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — October 5, 2009 @ 7:13 pm - October 5, 2009
LOL! #8…
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — October 5, 2009 @ 8:09 pm - October 5, 2009
Its not that Obama ever does anything for the “gay community” but that he mentions them, the “I see the future and you are in it” spiel.
Remember, its all about feelings and intentions
Comment by TrulyScrumptious — October 5, 2009 @ 8:49 pm - October 5, 2009
I call them gay lefties, or the Gay Left. Some here in the past, when they were seeing better days, called it the Gay Left Borg.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 5, 2009 @ 9:04 pm - October 5, 2009
Remember the swine who spit on the troops returning home from Vietnam? And we all said ‘never again.’ When they say gays are morally unfit to serve, they spit on the likes of Eric Alva and thousands more. McCain, Peters, Bush, Clinton, Obama, and all the rest. In this generation, these are the folks spitting on the troops. Not all the troops, just the gay ones.
If I had my legs blown off in Iraq, only to be told I was unfit to serve by some back office general … I’d have a problem with that. For Obama and the rest, just a big shrug. History won’t be kind.
Comment by Joe — October 5, 2009 @ 11:34 pm - October 5, 2009
As to Comment #7… Yes, I think for it to culturally “stick” in both the civilian and military spheres, ending DADT ( and ENDA) will require a Republican POTUS…or a Republican-lead bill in a Republican-controlled Congress to be truly accepted and effective. It’s the “…only Nixon can go to China”-rule of controversial politics. Just as I think that only a Republican POTUS can negotiate an end to the US-Cuba estrangement and discontinue the Embargo. Neither requires a socially ‘conservative’ Republican POTUS like a Palin, Romney or Huckebee. It could just as easily be a more centrist-moderate from the East Coast/Midwestern small-business-Republican wing who’s won in the primary elections via the disincanted Obama independents in 2012 or 2016.
Comment by Ted B. — October 6, 2009 @ 1:52 pm - October 6, 2009
When they say gays are morally unfit to serve, they spit on the likes of Eric Alva and thousands more.
Probably because Eric Alva and his ilk choose to ally themselves with those who spit on the troops and denigrate the military.
Those gays deserve spitting upon. Alva and his leftist ilk are just like John Kerry, trying to invoke their veteran’s status while simultaneously badmouthing and tearing down their comrades.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2009 @ 2:58 pm - October 6, 2009
1: And we have a thread winner!!!
8: More like 75% since about a quarter of the gay vote regularly goes to the GOP. Top points for the “ask not…” opener though!
16: A new low even for you, NDT. When those like Alva join in attempts to ban JROTC or the Blue Angels, perhaps you’ll be correct. Until then, I doubt they were even fully aware of all this. More likely they’ve adopted the old proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, something quite common in politics on both the left and the right.
Comment by John — October 6, 2009 @ 7:57 pm - October 6, 2009