Meanwhile, The Fundies Work Tirelessly To Deny Gays Equal Rights... Oh, Never Mind.

This sort of thing could only happen in George W. Bush's Amerikkka, except that it didn't:

The Supreme Court today declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, a move that could effectively leave it to the Obama administration to resolve the long-controversial issue.

...........

In the "don't ask, don't tell" case, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.

The Obama Administration had to defend that particular policy? Really?

Pending a "review by the Pentagon"? Really?

Bullshit. Bull.Shit.

Had the Obama Administration wanted to, it could have sided with Capt. Pietrangelo and asked the court to declare it unconstitutional.

Or *gasp* Barack Obama could have actually ended DADT months ago, had he actually (a) a real commitment to the issue, and (b) a spine.

And...

The Pentagon began reviewing that policy during Bill Clinton's first term. There's nothing left to review, folks. Nothing! It's been fucking reviewed out the blow hole!

Honest.

And just how much attention did this development get from progressive/liberal/Democratic bloggers? How many of those same bloggers roundly condemned the President for his administration's actions in this case? On both counts, virtually none.

Yeah, I was shocked too.

 

"Hey, there's always next term... I guess."

Comments are open. Let the excuse mongering begin!

Comments

[badanov]

I haven't had enough of a nap to give a care.

That's my excuse...

[TmjUtah]

I wonder if Gays turn out to be just as willing as blacks to be used by the Left and then discarded.

Pretty safe bet, I guess.

After 2010, if the planned destruction of the public's faith in elections via ACORN's and the Democrat party's efforts to fraudulently register and vote millions of illegals, maybe they are comfortable with the thought that the Reality Based Party won't have to depend on their old reliables any more, ya think?

Nothing more reality based than a boot stomping a face. Forever.

Orwell was right.

I've known a few cowards in my time. This Obama dude, though... he's on a special level all by himself.

And I thought the Clintons were responsibility adverse and morally challenged. Lol.

[markg8]

Go piss in your boots Tim. George W. Bush gave millions to ACORN so he evidently didn't have a problem with them. As recently as March 2006 John McCain was the main speaker at an event ACORN sponsored.

You guys don't lose elections because of some plot to register millions of illegals, there is no such plot by ACORN or anyone else. You lose elections because you're moronic ideologues who ran a radical 30 year experiment on America that damned near wrecked the country.

And Dennis if you read more TPM you'd realize we knew this was coming months ago.

Frank: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Will Probably Wait Till Next Year

By Brian Beutler - April 23, 2009, 6:53PM

In news that won't shock regular readers of this site, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)--one of three openly gay House members--says he believes that Democrats will wait until 2010 to attempt a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Not only that, but, according to Roll Call, he thinks that's the right way to go. "I believe we should and will do 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' next year," Frank said. "We haven't done the preliminary work, the preparatory work. It would be a mistake to bring it up without a lot of lobbying and a lot of conversation."

So excuse us if most of us weren't surprised by this and don't share your
outrage. Right now we're busy trying to resurrect the whole damn country. But if you're sincere you can organize a "conservatives for gay marriage" contingent for your nest local gay pride parade.

[Mike C.]

Well, I'm not surprised the court decided not hear this. Two reasons - first, it's kinda hard to find a legitimate constitutional issue here (for the originalist justices.) Secondly, there is the normal judicial deference to government policy, especially as regards something like military policy.

Nor am I surprised the current administration requested the court to deny cert. All that campaign crapola aside, anybody sitting in the big chair is naturally going to be loath to diminish his/her authority.

All in all, the fact that this played out this way is about as surprising as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Mike C.-

Unsurprising yes, but would the response from KOS, Eschaton, Pandagon, Feministing, TPM Cafe, HuffPo been the same had our president been Republican?

[Dennis the Peasant]

Mark-

You're spending a lot of time pulling out George W. Bush as a defense for what Barack Obama is doing these days. Interesting...

[Eric Blair]

Dennis, that appears to be Mark's only tactic anymore.

Mark, nobody even *knew* what ACORN was in March of 2006. Which is over 3 years ago now.

[DonnieDarko]

Does this mean I can go on a Sonia Sotomayer rant?

[markg8]

Dennis you've spent since January practically denying George Bush even existed, let alone bears any responsibility for the mess we're in.

That said in case you missed it I went off on a rant last night on Republicans who remain in congress, most of whom apparently are still wedded to the same crazy Goldwater/Reagan/Bush-Cheney ideology and who think crippling the country even more by opposing everything Obama does is the path to political success.

[markg8]

Eric you still don't know what ACORN "is" or what they do. You've been lied to by people who have a vested interested in excusing their own failures and pointing the blame at someone else.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Donnie-

Just as long as it doesn't cross the line into a Sotomayor rant.

Mark-

I don't deny Bush exists, I don't deny he was a fuck-up as president, and I don't deny Obama is left cleaning up the mess. But Obama wanted that job, so my sympathy and patience is limited.

All I'm doing is noting the gap between what Obama has promised to do and what he is actually doing. On the side, I'm noting to what extent progressives, liberals and Democrats are willing to excuse him for selling out...

Remember, I went through that very phase with W. myself. Look where it got me.

[richard mcenroe]

Why are you surprised that a man who thinks wearing the hijab is a woman's choice (okay, sure, she can choose to be beaten to death by her male relations instead) isn't lifting a finger to help gays? It's in the Book. And the Surahs.

[Geraldo]

I think the disconnect also exists between what Obama promised, what he is "leaving for later" and what he is actively engaged in Working Against.

It is hard to say Obama is leaving for later the business of repealing DADT or honoring America's commitments to International Law when he is actively working against them.

[markg8]

I don't seem to remember you turning on Bush in the first six months of his presidency Dennis. The first time I read anything of yours remotely critical of any Republican is when you called Tom DeLay a greasy sonofabitch back in 2006 or 2007.

Now if you'd ridiculed Bush in writing for pushing his tax cuts, rattling his saber at China and North Korea while ignoring Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and the Hart-Rudman Commission on Terrorism in the spring of 2001 then you'd have a lot more credibility with me on this.

But once again, if you're really serious about gay rights, there's all kinds of things you can do. Write that real estate agent you have for a congressman and tell him you're a staunch conservative who thinks he ought to publicly call for ending DADT. Write letters to the editor. Hang out in public places on Saturdays with a petition supporting gay marriage and get people to sign it, Then send copies to as many politicians as you think ought to see it. Any Republican gives you any lip tell 'em to talk to Cheney.

[David]

"if you're really serious about gay rights"

And why on earth would one be serious about such things? Marriage is to the gays what equal protection and its slutty sister affirmative action are to non-Asian minorities: an issue the Dems use to keep the group in question on the plantation.

Forcing gays on the military is a move calculated to undermine the effectiveness and quality of our military, pure and simple, in the name of political correctness. Advocates of your position care less about national security, and far more about forcing others to conform to a particular worldview. Because diversity (especially of viewpoint) can only be tolerated when the diversity is approved.

The most interesting patterns in your posts are 1) the blame on the past administration addressed by Dennis above, and 2) the personal attacks that follow. I am guessing that that you don't expect to be taken seriously ab initio.

I eagerly await your substantive, Bush-free, non-personal attack post. Don't disappoint me, Mark.

[David]

One more thing, Mark: if YOU are really serious about gay rights, why don't you go to a place that *really* discriminates against gays, and advocate for them there? Like, say, Iran: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/06/04/obama-ignores-plight-of-gays-in-islam-speech/

Why don't you advocate your views to people who really disagree with you? I'll happily pay for a one-way ticket to Iran for you. You'll have to cover your own funeral costs, though.

[Allen]

Why the hell would anyone want to argue for a policy in court they want to abolish? I'm starting to wonder if Obama has a weird self-contradiction thing going on.

He's the fricking CinC he can pretty much do whatever he wants with the military.

[markg8]

And why on earth would one be serious about such things?

Apparently Dennis is, or he wouldn't complain about them so much David. As for the rest of your post, not worth my time.

[David]

"As for the rest of your post, not worth my time."

In other words you've got no rebuttal. Good to know. Oh wait, I already knew that.

The offer of a free one-way ticket to Iran remains open.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Mark-

I swallowed the Bush koolaid all through his first term. I always had an excuse for whatever... be it earmarks, deficits, Republican corruption or whatever. You name it, I had the excuse, which usually centered around the importance of the global war on terror above all else. That was the standard excuse most Republicans used to ignore what Bush and Congressional Republicans were - and weren't - doing.

As I have never swallowed the Obama koolaid, I have no reason to be in denial about what he is and isn't doing. I am simply watching and commenting on the repetition of the Bush Disconnect with Obama and his supporters. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama will be a two term president, the only question in my mind is will he leave with approval ratings above 40% and will the Democrats still control either the senate or the house - i.e., will Obama end up doing to the Dems what Bush did to the GOP.

There is a similarity at work between Bush and Obama: Both promised one thing to their base and did something entirely different when the time came to act.

This seems to have touched a nerve with you, as you rarely show yourself to be this angry with me.

[David]

"he can pretty much do whatever he wants with the military"

Sure, but just because he CAN does not mean he SHOULD.

Instructive for students of history is Bill Clinton's attempt to do this. The revolt he faced among mid- and upper-level officers forced Clinton to (rather embarrassingly) reverse himself for fear of losing literally centuries of officer experience.

Maybe our second black president can do better.

[Allen]

David, my point is not whether he should change it, or not, but he can't have it both ways.

He does this a lot and I think it hurts his credibility. Whether I agree with him or not I prefer to have a credible President over one who is not.

This is especially important in foreign policy.

[David]

Allen,

Agreed and thanks.

David

[richard mcenroe]

Dennis, the Clown-American Community is up in arms about your denigration of them with your choice of graphics...

[brantl]

Dennis, that appears to be Mark's only tactic anymore.

Mark, nobody even *knew* what ACORN was in March of 2006. Which is over 3 years ago now.

Posted by: Eric Blair | June 09, 2009 at 08:42 AM

I knew what ACORN was, and what it's done, and is doing. And there isn't anything underhanded about it.

And the Repubs would have gotten even more of their asses handed to them, if the Repubs hadn't been suppressing legitimate votes. ACORN has had contract employees who have gotten in trouble for forging voter registrations, that's true. ACORN has also, repeatedly, turned those people in. Nobody who worked directly for ACORN (and wasn't a paid by the application worker) has been convicted of anything related to voter fraud, EVER. The GOP, Lou Dobbs, Hannity, Limpballs and O'Lielly trump up shit about ACORN, and then none of it ever materializes as anybody ever getting convicted. Know why? Because they are blowing smoke out of their asses.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Hmmm...

It appears we have picked up a link from the Dark Side, if you know what I mean (and I think you do).

[markg8]

Instructive for students of history is Bill Clinton's attempt to do this. The revolt he faced among mid- and upper-level officers forced Clinton to (rather embarrassingly) reverse himself for fear of losing literally centuries of officer experience.

What prey tell did Clinton do David? Cut the size of the military after the end of the Cold War? Those plans were put in place by the first President Bush, SecDef Cheney, and Chair of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell.
Don't make me go find the quotes.

As for losing literally centuries of officer experience he left that job to Dubya, how's officer corp looking these days after years of reployment to Iraq? Don't make me look that up either.

[jcw]

David, take it easy on Mark, after all he is, "busy trying to resurrect the whole damn country."

*My apologies if this posts twice.

[Dennis the Peasant]

The point is this: The military and the Joint Chiefs have known for well over a decade that at some point DADT was going to be abolished. At this time, they are ready for it... no surprise factor exists. All Obama has to do is give the order...

[pauleky]

Ugh...haters out in force, I see. It's been proven, over and over again, that having gays in the military DOES NOT UNDERMINE said military. You can keep repeating that it does, but it simply ain't so.

Having said that, this President has proven that he's not willing to practice what he preached when it comes to the gay community. He's a disappointment in that respect. However, he's 100 times better than what we had the last eight years in ALL respects.

[markg8]

C'mon Dennis you had more than excuses, you had nothing but vitriol for anybody who dared question any of Bush's policies over at Da Raj's blog and I oughta know.

In a more perfect world there wouldn't be any torture docs or pictures to argue over. There wouldn't be any GBLT discrimination in the military or anywhere else. We don't live in a perfect world. I'm happy with a president who advocates 60% of what I want done and Obama is way above that bar.

Republicans on the other hand seem to have completely flipped out. Mark Kirk who thinks he may run for senator or governor in IL next year just said he had a little private sit down with Chinese government leaders and told them not to believe official US government budget projections.

A Josh Marshall put it:

Or, in other words, that US government debt isn't as good an investment as we say it is.

Think that sort of thing is sort of frowned on by a member of Congress, no? Undermining the federal government with foreign governments?

There's nothing that says you're a patriot quite like badmouthing the US dollar with our biggest foreign creditor.

[David]

"What prey tell did Clinton do David?"

I assume you mean "pray," Mark. HTH.

What Clinton did was attempt to shove DADT down the military's throat. It failed because Colin Powell told Clinton that the policy was untenable and that Clinton would face politically unacceptable consequences for proceeding. Clinton backed down.

As Dennis and others noted, all the president has to do is give the order.
Does Obama hate gays, Mark?

pauleky:

"It's been proven, over and over again, that having gays in the military DOES NOT UNDERMINE said military."

Citations please. Nota bene: calling someone a "hater" does not constitute a citation.

"However, he's 100 times better than what we had the last eight years in ALL respects."

Translation: "It was all about Bush!"

Dennis, you've been proved right again.

[Uncle Fester]

Hmmm...

My takeaway from all this is that both parties are the same except for the names.

[David]

"My takeaway from all this is that both parties are the same except for the names."

This country needs a second party badly.

[PeterUK]

"Sell 'em sunshine ans ship 'em shit"

[markg8]

What Clinton did was attempt to shove DADT down the military's throat. It failed because Colin Powell told Clinton that the policy was untenable and that Clinton would face politically unacceptable consequences for proceeding. Clinton backed down.

David I don't know what planet you live on but on mine DADT has been federal law since 1994. The policy was actually crafted by Colin Powell. It might help if the military obeyed the "Don't Ask" part of the law.

Obama says congress should change the law and send him a bill. Some legal beagles from UCAL Santa Barbara says he can simply issue an executive order. I'll side with Barney Frank and Barack Obama on this one.

Citations from folks who don't believe gays should be banned from serving in the military:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30military.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

28 retired generals and admirals plan to release a letter on Friday urging Congress to repeal the law.

The retired officers offer data showing that 65,000 gay men and lesbians now serve in the American armed forces and that there are more than one million gay veterans.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/issues/stories/0-AIRPAPER-2461638.php

Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, who retired in 1997, says he supported “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it was put in place in 1993 but argues that current circumstances — a military straining to deal with two wars amid calls for a bigger force — dictate that it’s time for the country to revisit the issue.

“I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,” Shalikashvili said in an op-ed piece Jan. 2 2007.

http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-tells-cadets-military-ready-to-accept-gay-serv/

On May 4, 2008, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, when speaking to graduating cadets at West Point, expressed the view "that Congress, and not the military, is responsible for the 'Don't ask, don't tell' law banning openly lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service."

[Dennis the Peasant]

Guilty as charged, Mark. But that doesn't undermine the validity of my point.

Also: Irrespective of how one feels about gays, the simple fact is that once the armed forces where fully intergrated with women, they were going to have to deal with a whole host of issues related to sex and gender that they did not have to deal with in earlier times. Those issues, it seems to me, are essentially the same for women in the military as they are for gays in the military.

[PeterUK]

Mark,So if the law was changed would this encourage you to enlist?

[markg8]

Those issues, it seems to me, are essentially the same for women in the military as they are for gays in the military.

Um, no. Just off the top of my head the issues aren't the same anymore than hetero women, gay men and lesbians are the all same.

[congressive]

The answer is simple: if you're gay, don't enlist. If you're hetero with a brain, don't enlist. Don't ask. Don't tell. Don't enlist. If our gay-bashing military establishment is afraid of a lifestyle choice, no wonder they turned tail and ran from Bora Bora when they got near scary foreign people.

Same thing goes for marriage. "Married couple" is now a term for a pair of hateful, self-righteous, bigoted religious fundamentalists. "Civil Union" is now the commitment of choice for intelligent, compassionate, life-long-committed relationships.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Congressive-

I admire your open-minded tolerance, to say nothing of your compassion and sophisitication.

Sorry to hear you despise Barack Obama both personally and politically.

Mark-

I was speaking strictly in terms of having to have structures in place to ensure armed forces personnel have adequate protection from sexual harrassment, etc.

[David]

Mark, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why Obama won't make the order to integrate, regardless of whether the military is ready for it, which seems to be your main smoke screen on this one.

[just passin by]

Since none of this gender orientation stuff matters, when do the male enlisted Marines get to start showering with the females?

[markg8]

David go back and read it upthread. You seem to have missed it.

jpb what's it matter to you? Neither marines or women will have you.

[David]

None of that fluff addresses my point. Avoiding a direct answer renders you less persuasive. Could it be that you don't have an answer?

[markg8]

David you asked for citations, I gave them to you. Seems to me that Franks, the most influential gay person in congress, says next year congress will have laid the groundwork with the military and the public to repeal DADT. He and Obama agree on that timetable.

But if you'd like to see that timetable speeded up you too are welcome to lobby for it. If you're so damned concerned about saving American lives you ought to. We've fired some 60 or so Arabic translators we don't have enough of for the "crime" of being gay.

[Eric Blair]

C'mon Brantl, just google "Acorn conviction" or some variation of that. There have been several convictions of Acorn employees for various things connected with fraudulent voter registrations all around the country.

[David]

"Seems to me that Franks, the most influential gay person in congress . . ."

Well, that changes EVERYTHING.

[richard mcenroe]

And there is no Mafia because none of the capos have every been indicted...that's the Chicago way!

[markg8]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15155.html

GOP offers scant proof of voter fraud
11/2/08 7:16 AM EST

For weeks, Republican leaders have warned that widely reported problems with fake voter registrations could result in a flood of phony votes in pivotal states.

But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.

“Do we have a documented instance of voting fraud that resulted from a phony registration form? No, I can’t cite one, chapter and verse,” he said.
...
A review of prosecutors’ statements and documents filed by Republicans in the most serious new cases alleging voter fraud shows that none offer an example in which a fraudulently registered person managed to cast a valid vote. While several cases argue that such frauds are possible, none sketched a scenario for how massive numbers of people could fake registrations and then vote.
...
Asked for specifics about the dangers of fake registration, Ben Porritt, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, provided links to 13 news clips and a 2003 Missouri state auditor’s report. Eleven of the cases did not involve registration fraud. Two recounted how felons appeared to have cast illegal votes under their own names. The lone example of a forged registration leading to an illegitimate vote comes from The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, who in April 2006 wrote that a community organizer had improperly registered a noncitizen, and “someone eventually voted in [the noncitizen’s] name.”
...
Michaelson, who served for 27 years as executive director of the Illinois Board of Elections, said the sharp exchanges over registration fraud have undermined voters’ confidence in the electoral system.

“The fact that so many of these illegal registrations are being made public raises a perception in the minds of people,’’ he said. “That’s more of a general concern. You don’t want to perpetuate the idea that our election process is lacking integrity.”

Asked whether his own party was responsible for fostering that perception, Michaelson said, “Well, it doesn’t help. It has captured the attention of a lot of people.” Why do it, then? “Maybe it’s because there’s nothing else to talk about,” he said.

Michaelson could not cite a single real example of how registration fraud has led to voting fraud. He said that an election-rigging scheme starting with phony application forms would not make much sense.