Slog
News & ArtsMonday, October 12, 2009
Politics / Homo But It Sure Was a Nice Speech, Huh?
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:02 AM
For anyone who caught the president's speech on Saturday and was elated by the president renewing his campaign promise to ending DADT...
CBS News Chief Political Correspondent John Dickerson says the message from the administration is: Don't hold your breath."The indication from the White House is they want to show the president is still committed to this, but that it's further down on the list of priorities," Dickerson told "Early Show" anchor Harry Smith. "He's got a lot in front of him, and the big question is how much political capital he'll put behind this. Will he pressure Congress? Will he pressure the Pentagon?
"There's just no indication right now that he's going to spend his political capital in that way."
The fierce urgency of... don't hold your breath.
2
Ok, fine then. Obama doesn't want to do things on your timeline-it's quite clear, so focus on the local level. That's what's really behind his words anyway. "Create a groundswell from the bottom-up so that I'm forced to fulfill my campaign promises immediately and it won't damage me politically." If the groundswell were present, he'd do it in a heartbeat. But it's not. He's got a bunch of advisors who's sole job it is to measure the pulse of the American people on these things.
Maybe you consider his behavior cowardly, but none of us have any idea about what it's like to be president - you always have to walk a careful tightrope if you want to achieve your ultimate objectives and be successful. It's not like you just go in there and do whatever you personally feel is right all the time, whenever you want. Or, you can do that, and you become the worst president in this country's history - George W. Bush, who drummed this country into the ground and managed to make the entire world *hate* us at the same time (as evidenced by the Nobel this week).
So go local, people. Bottom-up is the only way you're going to jumpstart Obama into action. And I know that's your preference anyway ;-)
Maybe you consider his behavior cowardly, but none of us have any idea about what it's like to be president - you always have to walk a careful tightrope if you want to achieve your ultimate objectives and be successful. It's not like you just go in there and do whatever you personally feel is right all the time, whenever you want. Or, you can do that, and you become the worst president in this country's history - George W. Bush, who drummed this country into the ground and managed to make the entire world *hate* us at the same time (as evidenced by the Nobel this week).
So go local, people. Bottom-up is the only way you're going to jumpstart Obama into action. And I know that's your preference anyway ;-)
6
As I read on another blog: remember that DADT was a great improvement over the previous policy, which was no gays in the military, at all, ever.
7
You watch, the repubs will come to thier senses and put up a candidate in 2012 who isn't bat-shit crazy and then Obama will regret that he alienated all the gays and progressives when we don't feel compelled to thwart her appointment. (And by "her" I don't mean Palin.)
8
Come on Dan-
don't be such a pussy.
I tell you what;
I'll hold this football here and you run up and kick the hell out of it.
Now be sure to get a big running start and give it all you've got...
don't be such a pussy.
I tell you what;
I'll hold this football here and you run up and kick the hell out of it.
Now be sure to get a big running start and give it all you've got...
9
@6,
Actually, DADT increased the number of homosexual ousters. I'm not sure why. But it increased dramatically.
Actually, DADT increased the number of homosexual ousters. I'm not sure why. But it increased dramatically.
10
It's idiotic to say that a policy of "no gays allowed (if we find out)" is somehow worthier than a policy of "no gays allowed (period)." DADT was an affront to our honor and human dignity from day one, and an improvement only to those who profited from its dishonesty.
11
Man, can't you be the least bit understanding about this? He can't just waive his pen and make this law go away and expect that to be the end of it. It doesn't work like that. As soon as he signs away DADT the issue explodes and he finds himself fighting off yet another slew of unwarranted attacks further diminishing his power to incite change (which he HAS done, although people are so pissy about their personal issues du jour that they refuse to see it). Obama is asking for a little support and a little patience while he works out some other shit (failing economy, two wars, nuclear proliferation). He's not saying it's not going to happen, he's saying CALM DOWN AND WAIT before you start pulling support and saying he's no better than republicans.
OVERTURNING DADT IS NOT FEASIBLE NOW. Simple. Accept it. Continue supporting the president and it WILL be feasible, and he does over turn it. If that doesn't happen, well, don't vote for him next election, but right now, there's no sense shooting yourself in the foot and trying to defeat Obama, who is on yourside, and who is your best hope of getting the law momentarily suspended (which is all he has the ability to do right now anyways). Calm the fuck down, or you'll start losing more support than you're gaining.
OVERTURNING DADT IS NOT FEASIBLE NOW. Simple. Accept it. Continue supporting the president and it WILL be feasible, and he does over turn it. If that doesn't happen, well, don't vote for him next election, but right now, there's no sense shooting yourself in the foot and trying to defeat Obama, who is on yourside, and who is your best hope of getting the law momentarily suspended (which is all he has the ability to do right now anyways). Calm the fuck down, or you'll start losing more support than you're gaining.
12
Things useta - don't believe cheap talking points, because that's not how things ended up. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was suppose to be a compromise, to allow gays to serve, but just be "closeted." In practice, the "Don't Ask" has NEVER been inforced, and the "Don't Tell" has been interpreted so widely that any private behavior becomes grounds for dismissal. The military investigates at the slightest bit of evidence, even if a soldier didn't tell.
Many more people have been fired under Don't Ask, Don't Tell than in the same-length period that proceeded it.
Many more people have been fired under Don't Ask, Don't Tell than in the same-length period that proceeded it.
14
Look, the president can only effectively handle a set number of crises.
How many LGBTs in America Vs how many citizens in desperate need of Health Care (including LGBT's in that mix somewhere)?
Let's take care of the huge forest fire first, then let's definitely stamp out the smaller emergencies.
Trust me, I'm an equal rights supporter flat-out. I want to see DADT GONE.
But we've got a fucking nationwide disaster on our hands (thanks, Bush) and first things first.
How many LGBTs in America Vs how many citizens in desperate need of Health Care (including LGBT's in that mix somewhere)?
Let's take care of the huge forest fire first, then let's definitely stamp out the smaller emergencies.
Trust me, I'm an equal rights supporter flat-out. I want to see DADT GONE.
But we've got a fucking nationwide disaster on our hands (thanks, Bush) and first things first.
15
@9
Could it be that ousters increased because the overall number of gays in the military increased?
Could it be that ousters increased because the overall number of gays in the military increased?
16
Wait, so the administration has quietly made it clear that while ending DADT is a priority, it's not the number one priority, and other legislative and political battles are going to be tackled before he asks Congress to overturn DADT, or even puts a do-not-enforce order on it. (It's worth noting that many of the White House's greater priorities require the assent of Congress, which contains a lot of Congresspeople who might be a little miffed if the president ceases DADT before he asks them for a series of hard votes.)
Why is this a cause for outrage, again? Really, who are the people out there saying "Health care reform is something I support, sure, but not if it means delaying the day that gays can serve openly in the military; same with ending the war in Iraq, getting the green jobs initiative off the ground, starting for the first time to control greenhouse gases that threaten to destroy the very planet, and getting another stimulus package passed before we slide back into Depression territory." Is there a person out there who really would stand up for the proposition that ending DADT should be -higher- on the president's list of priorities than, say, the dozen or so exceedingly difficult things we already know he has on his plate that are very important to accomplish? I mean, seriously, put your hand up if, given the following two possibilities, you would rather risk yet another failure to pass health care legislation than having to wait until after that bill gets signed into law for DADT to be revoked. (You people with your hands in the air? You're what we call "assholes.")
Barack Obama is the president, not a sorcerer. He doesn't get exempted from the laws of gravity or Congressional inertia just because you want him to. Take a step back, breathe, and try to keep your eye on the &%*@# ball, you twerps.
More...
Why is this a cause for outrage, again? Really, who are the people out there saying "Health care reform is something I support, sure, but not if it means delaying the day that gays can serve openly in the military; same with ending the war in Iraq, getting the green jobs initiative off the ground, starting for the first time to control greenhouse gases that threaten to destroy the very planet, and getting another stimulus package passed before we slide back into Depression territory." Is there a person out there who really would stand up for the proposition that ending DADT should be -higher- on the president's list of priorities than, say, the dozen or so exceedingly difficult things we already know he has on his plate that are very important to accomplish? I mean, seriously, put your hand up if, given the following two possibilities, you would rather risk yet another failure to pass health care legislation than having to wait until after that bill gets signed into law for DADT to be revoked. (You people with your hands in the air? You're what we call "assholes.")
Barack Obama is the president, not a sorcerer. He doesn't get exempted from the laws of gravity or Congressional inertia just because you want him to. Take a step back, breathe, and try to keep your eye on the &%*@# ball, you twerps.
18
Did he become President to be popular, or to make the country a better place? I know he wants to have a 2nd term, but he is going to have to earn it by doing good things in the 1st.
19
7: Yeah, gay rights activists would be super progressive voting against health care, the environment, sane foreign policy, etc. over Obama "ignoring" them in his first year in office. Too many gay rights advocates seem like reactionaries who only vote based on gay rights to help themselves and don't give a fuck about helping the rest of the country. Don't call yourself a progressive if you plan on voting for a Republican as a protest vote. Call yourself another arch-conservative douchebag.
20
OVERTURNING DADT IS NOT FEASIBLE NOW?
Why the hell not? It's not feasible to have openness and honesty
in the military? What does that say about us as a society?
If it's not feasible, it's not feasible because our leaders don't have
the courage to take a stand and stick by it!
Why the hell not? It's not feasible to have openness and honesty
in the military? What does that say about us as a society?
If it's not feasible, it's not feasible because our leaders don't have
the courage to take a stand and stick by it!
21
OVERTURNING DADT IS NOT FEASIBLE NOW?
Why the hell not? It's not feasible to have openness and honesty
in the military? What does that say about us as a society?
If it's not feasible, it's not feasible because our leaders don't have
the courage to take a stand and stick by it!
Why the hell not? It's not feasible to have openness and honesty
in the military? What does that say about us as a society?
If it's not feasible, it's not feasible because our leaders don't have
the courage to take a stand and stick by it!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS