They’re gay? I thought it was just a group of Republicans who liked getting naked and smearing each other with maple syrup.
I only speak for myself but I never complain about flip-flopping nor have I ever understood why it’s so reviled. I’m decidedly Emersonian on the matter and have said so many times:
As for political motivations, if Romney were to speak in favor of anything remotely progressive I’d be too fucking amazed to wonder as to motivation.
I could actually understand the concept of LCRs if Republicans really were the party of smaller government and less spending, but they’re as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats ever dared be. I wonder how many of the LCRs come from the tiny percent of Americans who benefit from the Bush tax cuts.
They remind me of the Creek and Cherokee Indians in the War of 1812 who lived like white men, fought alongside Andrew Jackson and others, helped them to victory, and then of course got scooted west- their tribal lands and their personal fortunes being confiscated- with everybody else in their tribe.
At least give him a drop of courage-credit for taking this stand before the election. It’s like the order to take out bin Laden (as it was when the decision faced him) – might be the greatest and smartest thing he’s ever done, might be a horrible blunder that will end his presidency, who knows?
DADT as we knew it since the early 90s was a Law(*). POTUS could not repeal it by executive order, legislation was required.
(*Before that, “Gay=Cashiered” was not a law but a military regulation. When people panicked over that being possibly repealed by the CinC, the Congress took it out of his hands by enshrining DADT into Law)
At the most he could order minimal-effort enforcement or to-the-letter enforcement only of the “don’t ask” part until the legislation passed, and that is a less than desirable way of running things.
wrong thread
This.
Note to self: keep Vinny away from IHOP.
“Hey, Joe! Yeah, its me, Barry, but you can call me Mr President! Ha, just kidding, Joe. Listen, want to thank you for shooting off your big fat mouth the other…did I say that? “Shooting your mouth off”? Well, let me clarify my position. My position is I’ve come out and made a firm statement that’s going to piss off a lot of people…but its the right thing, Joe, we need to have this national discussion, with everybody jumping up and down with their hair on fire screaming at me, no, really, thanks a fuck of a lot, Joe!..Listen, are you in your office? Nothing, nothing, just Hillary would like to measure for drapes…”
I actually don’t see what the complaint is. It’s factually accurate to say that Obama was worse on this issue than Dick Cheney until today.
Now, personally, I don’t give half a crap about the announcement, because I am not stupid and I was already aware that the president was on our side. We knew this already. And even if he weren’t on our side on this, he’s still the most pro-gay-rights president in the history of our country.
If this costs him votes in November, though, that’s actively harmful to gay equality. Having a stealth sympathizer in the White House is a hell of a lot better for us than having a motherfucker like Romney there. (Hint: Romney’s not gonna tell the U.S. attorney not to defend DOMA.)
[QUOTE=dngnb8]
All I remember is his ranting at Obama. He felt betrayed
[/QUOTE]
By the guy who actually did fix the injustice.
I get that for some reason there are gay people who are angry at the president about DADT. I just don’t get why. (And, for the record, he never really had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and definitely not on this issue.)
Not sure what you think the President can do but he cannot tell the US Attorney to ignore the law.
Well, to be honest, my experience of politics has pretty much nothing to do with the specific vagaries of the law and a lot more to do with identifying likely voters and suchlike. So I’d be thrilled to be educated as to what the president was and wasn’t able to do when that whole thing about Eric Holder saying he’d no longer defend DOMA came up. I’d seriously love to be informed about the limits of the Administration’s abilities here.
Well, let’s just cut fish here:
If that reaction is true it is very disingenuous. Something is always better than nothing.
What is it about Obama’s response that would make Romney a much better choice on their single issue?
It seems that this element is more interested in hating Obama than in examining the agenda of those they want to support (for who know’s why).
Obama dragged his feet on DADT in the same way he dragged his feet on killing OBL.
See the cite in post #6 and tell me how that works.
Honestly I am not sure how this all plays out.
You have the legal aspect and the political aspect and they mix in unfathomable ways.
Holder has a mandate but you do not get that job by bucking the powers that be.
There are a gazillion laws on the books (I didn’t count) and finite resources to apply those laws. If the President tells Holder to go heavy on jaywalkers then Holder will be well advised to chase jaywalkers.
Holder has to enforce the laws of the US but his marching orders will certainly come from the President.
“Dragged his feet”. He pulled the trigger. Bush & Co. had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora many years before and let him escape.
WTF are you trying to state, imply or infer?
Yes, yes. You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and then you have the facts of life.
Which, really, seems like the thing I said that you had an argument with.
Osama’s dead, huh? Has anyone seen the long form death certificate? Anyone?
The Log Cabin Republican are the epitome of hypocrisy and stupidity. It’s like accusing LBJ of not supporting the Civil Right Amendment soon enough and therefore it is right and proper to support George Wallace for President.
The LCR (or at least their spokespeople) are a bunch of self-loathing hypocrites.
I was answering a question you had.
Where was the argument?