DADT: Courts do what Obama is afraid to
A judge, ruling on a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, has ruled the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy unconstitutional, stating that the policy violates both the First and Fifth amendments.
I'm glad to see that this decision has come down from the courts. But it would have been a lot more impressive had President Obama himself had the strength of character and the balls to make this an executive decision, followed by an act of Congress, over a year ago.
Labels: Barack Obama, DADT, gay
Recommend this Post
posted by Matt @ 9:56 pm
8 comments
8 Comments:
Agreed, Obama's inaction on his promises to the LGBT community have made many on the left in the community quite annoyed. Dan Savage is one outspoken example and a powerful voice at that. His podcast regularly mentions ( or at least did for some time) Obama's lack of action on the LGBT file.
Came across this today, it doesn't apply really but I thought you might be interested. Follow the links via my blog...http://randomunistudent.blogspot.com/2010/09/curing-gays-isnt-charity.html
Maybe Obama came to the conclusion that a) the courts would eventually find this and b) he doesn't have to pander to the LGBT community... I mean... who else are they going to vote for if they want to be treated like human beings? The GOP?
Eamon,
Obama is a gutless wonder, although your assessment is not far off. But while gays and lesbians will probably still vote for them, I imagine they'll be a heck of a lot less likely to bend over backwards to help his campaign with the almighty pink dollar.
Matt,
I didn't really consider the fundraising consequences.
I'm not trying to defend the guy... but "gutless wonder"? You know, governing the USA is not an easy thing to do, especially when the Republicans filibuster everything they don't like (which is everything), and half the country (the southern half) hates you for being an intelligent, black democrat.
Choosing his actions carefully limits the likelihood of swing voters changing sides. I'd rather have a ridiculously careful Democrat President (or "gutless wonder", if you will) than anything that resembles George W. Bush or Sarah Palin...
Eamon,
He's got a supermajority right now, and he has dragged his heels on all the major policy planks that got him elected (even his health care bill was a farce), for fear of alienating people who will never vote for him. He has squandered a great opportunity to get meaningful change enacted, largely because he's bought into his own rhetoric as the "great uniter". The Democrats can break a filibuster, but don't have the will to do so.
I'd rather have a Democratic president with the strength of his convictions to force through legislation (even LBJ was better for this) than one who does nothing when he holds the levers of power, and then ends up powerless once the midterm elections are over.
Matt,
You've got me there... all I've got less is your point about the will of the Democrats... you can only work with what you have, and many of his supermajority will not vote for his policies... mostly because they are afraid of alienating people who may or may not vote for them...
I agree with Eamon's earlier take on things. DADT is a stupid, silly, and mean-spirited policy that should have been done away with long ago. And with more than 70% of the American people in agreement, it will happen soon. But doing it this year would not have been a good move. It would have meant another heated political debate and one, more importantly, on a subject other than the economy in an election year in which most Americans already think the administration took its eye off the economy while pushing a healthcare reform that hasn't changed much for the average person just yet. (The justice of the charge is arguable, but let's focus on the politics.)
Instead of focusing on jobs for average Americans, opponents would argue, Obama had taken up the relatively unimportant cause of the tiny percentage of the U.S. which is gay and seeking to serve openly in the military. It would have been a needless diversion from an already floundering agenda.
In the end, you can't legislate if you don't get elected, and we need these guys to be savvy about doing that.
Post a Comment
<< Home