Keith Olbermann and Dan Savage dissect DADT

The problem with those who expect immediate action on DADT is that they really are fooling themselves it is the best thing to do at this time. If he did suspend DADT at this time it would make his economic and health care plans a lot harder to pass. He's being smart about it. Get them passed and then do it.  It's all about what is best for the majority of the country. As a retired military man I support him in how he's doing it. That does not mean I wish it was different. I certainly do.

The GLBT community seems to think everything is done instantly. Instantly is not always the smart way to do things. The man's not even into his 6th month and everyone wants the world ... NOW.

 When DADT is repealled - and it will be. There will certainly be a clause that will allow any member discharged under the old DADT to re-enlist. Til then we can support those that are publicly fighting the fight.  

...for covering this coverage!  You guys are not giving Obama a free pass and I really appreciate it. 

He may be more liberal than most past Presidents (though his actions seem just as liberal so far as Bill Clinton), he still has a long way to go before he actually becomes the "fiece advocate" he promised to be for the gay community.

Like LBJ with black civil rights, Obama will need constant pressure from the citizenry before he actually puts any energy into fighting for gay civil rights.  The worst thing we can do is let up. 

Insulting and attacking him is not the same as coherent and reasonable criticism.  I am happy Rachel and Dan are voicing that criticism.  Hopefully it will yield some tangible results.

 is at the very end when Keith says "Goddamned" and Dan gets this wonderfully suprised look on his face !

Great interview! He is slowly turning into my hero

Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn't "special" to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship."

I too loved Keith-O's dramatic "God Damned wrong" comment at the very end! He's feisty! Can you even say that on basic cable?

Savage came off well here. I suggested him as our new gay rights leader a couple of weeks ago, but everyone seemed to like those penguins better. Perhaps if you put a bow-tie on Savage? If it wasn't for his naughty (gasp) sex column he could be a great force for LGBT rights on a larger scale. I still think he should be!

There is a reality that the Commander-in-Chief can suspend discharges from the military during a time of war. This is historically so that they can prevent soldiers from trying to avoid going into combat by deliberately engaging in acts that would normally merit discharge. But this authority can also be used to simply retain personnel that are deemed necessary to a war effort. This is the infamous "stop-loss order".

Avoidance of this seems to stem from Obama's desire not to antagonize the military leadership, which as Keith and Dan note is heavily influenced by evangelical Christianity. My uncle converted from Roman Catholicism to some strange non-denominational evangelical thing during his lengthy stint with the Air Force.

So I can easily imagine some of these guys whining, and not quietly, in the halls of the Pentagon. But Obama, as we have seen, is much more prone to an appeasement strategy when it comes to these types of people.

The pending legislation that is hanging in Limbo could technically be released and voted on at any time. It's not as if this is a budget issue, as we're talking about people that are already on the military's payroll. Indeed, it's discharging and replacing them that costs extra money!

I'm glad we've got allies like Keith pushing this issue out into the light. And I'm glad he's interviewing Dan, because Dan as a rule is a lot less diplomatic about these things then the professional lobbyists in D.C.

For someone who once served in the military, Obviously , this hit closer to home for you than most. However, I am not affliated with any military branch. This is to me a simple case of human right issue. As the world celebrate pride, especially in North America, it did not start off with  corporate sponsor floats flaunting muscles youth as eye candies. There were a lot of grassroots organizations with simple home made signs shouting protest slogans. But I digress. Dan Savage sum it up best, this administration is long on speech and short in action. U.S being the world military might if intent to stay that way, they better start treating the very people who make them great in the first place. Since when DADT policy is mutually exclusive from other issues such as health care and economy downturn? I had the same argument with someone back in the 90's during the last recession. If we keep putting human right issues at the back burner, it will never see the light of day due to other more "urgent" issues. Please do not bring in George W Bush for comparison. If we use him as a bench mark on how head of state should perform, we got a serious problem. The bottom line is soldiers like Lt. Dan Choi and Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach and many others served distinctively through out their career to be told because they are gay therefore they are  worthless? The celebration of pride also mean we continue to push forward for total equality, not rest on our laurels on how far we have come. There's no excuse and taking a backseat to any other issues. With the pool of talents they got in the white house, they are capable of of multi tasking not multi stonewalling. It's a matter of political will.

You hit this one right on, Snicks!  As a former member of the military, I know firsthand the sacrifices one makes.  It's about time we quit asking them to sacrifice the core of their being, too.  Plus, the repeal was PROMISED TO US. 

Highly qualified servicemembers are being discharged everyday for no logical reason.  It's infuriating to think this could stop with just the swipe of a pen, but our President refuses to do so.

What's so pathetic about all this DADT is that in ancient Sparta homosexuality was not only accepted but encouraged since they felt lovers would fight better in a war since they would fight to protect each other.

This DADT nonsense is a stone age law and has no business in this time and age. Clinton should be brought on charges of criminal injustice for enforcing this. Lest anyone forget this man showed how hetrosexual he is by bedding a female intern and has the audacity to ban gay men and women from expressing their love.

I feel Obama got the short end of the stick and now has to clean up the mess made by George and Bill.

I'm Canadian and still feel angered by this DADT policy. I was just reading an article in the canadian gay magazine abOUT and there was an article on DADT.

In Toronto Pride Parade there were service men and women, police and firemen in the parade. I wish that one day Pride Parades in the States will have this too, where proud gay service men can march down the street in a Pride Parade and not have to worry about an inane backwoods policy. 

Live Long and Prosper

All you anti-Obama people have made very good points about these things being promised to us, but still you keep on forgetting that Obama never promised a time frame here. Also about him being Commander-in-Chief...I am sure that there is a very good reason why he isn't using (or can't use) his powers to prevent service-members being fired under DADT, and so I think that we have to just trust him on this. He said is working on it for god's sake but it seems like you are calling him a liar here. You can see by his words every time he speaks about these issues that he is being 100% genuine. You can't expect miracles with only 6 months in office. And before anyone makes a point that I am British and therefore I don't understand the situation, may I remind you that we had to wait patiently for all our rights too. Stonewall was founded in 1989 and it took them over 15 years to pressure our government enough to make the changes needed. I'm sorry if I'm only trying to give you a more realistic perspective here.

America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. All that is required is leadership."

http://bloggernista.com/2007/11/29/obama-pledges-to-repeal-ban-on-gay-soldiers/

if Obama is not able to do the executive order, then okay.....but after all the criticism, i just know someone has brought this issue up to him.

now, can someone tell me if he brought the executive order up when he met with the lgbt "leaders"? - if he did, then alright, he said something, but i cant find anything on google about him saying anything about it

if he hasn't said anything about it, i think he needs to. everyone keeps mentioning it. his staff isn't dumb. someone keeps him updated on whats being said around the country about him on issues.

if he cant do an executive order, then he can hold a press conference explaining why he can't or like i said before, he can send out a memo or letter to lgbt organizations or news media explaining. i love the guy and have faith in him, but that doesnt mean i can't call him out.

Silly? or both? Your statement doesn't make sense to me.

5. Obama is renege in his duties to keep the country safe, he has admitted as much in his recent comments. The only reasons for not writing the executive order must be personal or political, and while those may be good enough reasons for the President and for the Democratic Party, they are not good enough for the security of the nation.

Let me clear something up for everybody: Obama did not make promises "to" the gay community, and please stop saying that he did. Get that out of your heads! NOW!. He made the promises to the electorate. There is a huge difference, especially in the numbers of people he has let down.

A much larger number of people who vote Democrat are in favor of GLBT rights. "In favor of," does not mean willing to do anything about. Civil rights has always been the "feel good" issue that the Dems love to taut. But few outside of the gay community are willing to hold Obama's feet to the fire over this one promise (ending DADT) that he could fulfill with a pen-stroke.

And Obama is right, when he infers that the gay community needs to do more to push for civil rights, we need to fire up our allies on this issue, so that Obama is forced to sign the Executive Order. He seems to be begging us for that. And yes, if our allies in the general electorate weren't just talking talk but are truly concerned about LGBT rights (and I believe that they are with us on this), then they would be willing to push for the legislation now, as much as we are. It could become a welcomed mid-term, election issue for the Democrates who voted to pass legislation to make America safer.

We need to push our allies on the grounds of national security and completely drop the civil rights argument. We need to find groups out side of the gay community that can come out in favor of the ending of DADT, right now the media is framing this as a gay issue, we need veterans groups, ROTC groups, wives of soldiers, think tanks, unions, defense contractors, anyone who doesn't represent "gay" to speak out on this on the grounds of National Security and budjet loss and we need to make sure those voices are heard in the media.

.

Wikipedia Listing for President Clinton First Term Of Office:

Legislative agenda

Shortly after taking office, Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which required large employers to allow employees to take unpaid leave for pregnancy or a serious medical condition. While this action was popular, Clinton's attempt to fulfill another campaign promise of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the armed forces garnered criticism from the left (for being too tentative in promoting gay rights) and from the right (who opposed any effort to allow homosexuals to serve). After much debate, Congress implemented the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, stating as long as homosexuals keep their sexuality secret, they may serve in the military. Some gay rights advocates criticized Clinton for not going far enough and accused him of making his campaign promise to get votes and contributions.^[31][32] These advocates feel Clinton should have integrated the military by executive order, noting President Harry Truman used executive order to racially desegregate the armed forces. Clinton's defenders argue an executive order might have prompted the Democratic Senate to write the exclusion of homosexuals into law, potentially making it harder to integrate the military in the future.^[3] Later in his presidency, in 1999, Clinton said he did not think any serious person could say the way the policy was being implemented was not "out of whack."^[33]

"Don't ask, don't tell" has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could withhold funding in order to force universities to accept military recruiters in spite of their nondiscrimination policies.^[13]

 -----------

So now there are calls by some gay activits to issue an executive order to "repeal" DADT, as if a sitting president can repeal an act of Congress. As if a sitting president can simply repeal five federal court decisions, or a Supreme Court decision. Or to issue an executive order to stop removing gay men from service, in a war that most liberal activist folk claim that they didn't like or want.

In my way of thinking, Congress created, voted on - and passed the DADT law. And if we gay folk want DADT gone, then Congress has to do it. Badgering Obama is mis-guided because a sitting president can not repeal an act of Congress, and whatever executive order that his signs, can always be undone by the next president. Congress needs to be pressured into repealing an act that it created - that provides the broad appeal to withstand the challenges that will surely change. Badgering Congress to repeal DADT is not easy, it does not fit in a sound bite, it requires a lot of effort and action, and requires backbone. 77 Congress-persons badgering President Obama to issue an executive order upon an act Congress created is spineless and cowardly. Congress needs to get its act together and repeal DADT - the bottom line.

The gay folk who keep talking about President Truman's executive order about blacks in the military, have to understand that issue in the long context of civil rights, and climate of the country then. That is not to say that there was not racial problems in the military for a long time.  No I am not saying that gay folk who want a military career should not serve, or be discriminated against. Yes, I also believe that DADT should be repealed by Congress, in fact it should never have been voted on.  And while many folks claim that gay folk openly in the military is alright with them, there are quarters that are not so sure, or even against.  There still are many places where gay rights are even voted down - witness California on the gay marriage issue. When gay folk pushed first-term President Clinton to follow up on a campaign pledge - gays in the military - Congress reactived and created Don't Ask - Don't Tell - a much worse law than what existed before.  Now how did that action help gay folk? - My basic point - understand the history of want happened before, use it as a guide to what happens, try not to make the same mistakes as before, while advancing our interests.

Mike

And also just enough constitutional knowledge to make me dangerous.

DADT, was a crappy compromise that made no one happy, except the right wingers who went on a crusade in our military to brain wash new recruits and weaken our defense by getting as many gays discharged as possible. DADT is the pock mark after the zit that existed before it.

Clinton's reasoning, as you point out, for not using executive order at the time, is because congress would have written a law to forbid and overrule his order (if that's even possible?) but, fair enough, he didn't want to step into that.

Today, for Obama, an attempt by congress to write and pass a law to overrule an Executive Ordrer on this issue is unlikely to happen, so it seems, and I am still uncertain how that would be done, an Executive Order is a fiat and the Supreme Court has always given the President leaway in running our defence, espically in these kinds of spats between branches of government.

If an Executive Order stood for 3 years, Congress may still be loath to ever undo his order (even after Obama) and I would argue that, in 4 or 5 years, the bill to end DADT would become little more than a piece of paper and easy for congress to pass with little fanfare or at least little negative fall out. My point is, once an Executive Order is in place it would be kind of hard for congress to kick out thousands of soldiers who are decorated and have all ready come out. Once you say "come out, come out what ever service you are..." that's the end of DADT. The. End.

You say that there are calls for an Executive Order to "repeal " a law. I have not heard that. Anywhere. Certainly not here. You are right to point out that it's impossible. But an Executive Order can effectively stay a law that concerns the military (think stay of execution) and the president may also pardon a criminal. Even though the Supreme court might have to uphold a law passed by congress that demands all gay people be killed, say, the president can pardon all the accused. That is how the checks and balances are written into our government. I only mention that to remind you that the presidential powers are in place to make sure that no branch of government, namely the judicial and congressional in this case, will overpower the citizens of the union. (Well, that's been the idea for 233 years, anyway.) In this case, Congress has overpowered a weak minority, gay people in the military and the Supreme Court stands beside them, owing to his sated convictions, Obama is remiss to not use an Executive Order to augment the matter.

I agree that Obama can not repeal an act of congress, however it is his duty to use an Executive Order to correct an issue of national security, in what ever way he must, that is if he takes his job seriously.

Again, I contend that an Executive Order will take steam out of the issue and make the job of congressional repeal of the law that much easier. Otherwise, we are as usual, left with very little and close to nothing.

If you say that you have enough constitutional knowledge to be dangerous, then you should know that laws passed by Congress and federal court decisions - beat, trump and over-ride presidential executive orders.  There are no if's or buts about it.

So yes, a law passed by Congress beats a presidential executive order. There has been a movement to make the president an imperial president - Bush and company kept trying to make the president supreme over the other branches of government.  The fallout we see everyday is that the effort did not succeed, it is the checks and balances aspect of the constitution that gets in the way.  At times, Congress really does not mind if the president is the fall guy for the things that happen. Basically Congress can be spineless when it wants to.

Should Obama sign an executive order on gays in the military, a later Congress can always pass a law negating whatever he signed. A much more important point is that a sitting president can not "repeal" an act of Congress, or federal court decisions.  Basically President Clinton was about create an executive order on gays in the military, and Congress re-acted and passed a law that negated what he wanted. Congress had the votes to pass what it wanted over the presidents veto, so he had to compromise. It was face-saving, but DADT was an act passed by Congress, that was worse than what existed before.

Some gay folk believe that when President Truman issued his Executive Order 9981 in July 1948, that somehow suddenly magically the military was integrated.  That was so not the case, in fact during much of the fighting of the Korean War, the military was segregated.  Only three years after issuing the order did the military begin to comply, and the last segregated unit was abolished in 1954.  Of course, the 1957 Supreme Court decision concerning segreated schools, the emerging civil rights movement, and other activities such as the 1964 Civil Right Act, and other laws and activities - had a hand in changing the direction of the country.

Please do not confuse, "a stay of execution" as the same as the repeal of a law - it is so not the same thing.  Such an act is made on a case by case basis - not in mass. It does not change the underlying law that created the executions in the first place, it is a pardon, that is all.  The legislature or the courts would still have to change the underlying law that brought about the executions.

Yes, I know that many gay activists do not like, to say the least DADT. As I said before gay folk willing to serve should be able to serve in the military, and not be discriminated against.  As I said before, the answer is to pressure Congress into repealing the law that Congress created, voted on and passed.  Getting Congress to change a law it passed, will not be easy, it does not fit into a sound bite, it takes effort, and it takes time. It means taking to task your local representatives and senators all over the country - and getting them repeal DADT. However, when Congress does repeal DADT, that provides the broad based appeal to withstand the challenges that will no doubt come about.

Badgering and pressuring President Obama on this issue, by some gay activists is really part of some other agenda, not really an effort to advance gay interests. Do not confuse the two.

Mike