yes, personally
politically, probably
Does he have to call for its repeal or can he simply say “Guys, DADT is no more”?
It’s a law passed by congress, so it has to be repealed by Congress.
About 50 minutes in… did I miss it or is it still to come?
And there it is.
Did I miss it? My dog needed a potty break.
Will there be DADT on 27 Jan 2011?
My bet is yes.
Thanks, Simplicio.
He just brushed over that! WTF, Wuss?
It was kinda like, “Thank you! I’ll be here all week! Forget about that don’t ask don’t tell stuff! Try the veal! Tip your server!”
I’m not against DADT, but he should’ve either said nothing or bully-pulpitted it and say “This president considers it an atrocious stain that people are denied servie in the military because or the sexual preference. It has to end now and I call on all members of this congress, but particularly the Democrats, to spare no effort to end it now. This is no moment for polling or being cautious”.
A true politician.
I think he gave it appropriate weight in the speech. It was part of the broader section on equality and civil rights, which is exactly what sort of issue it is. That he made a simple, declarative statement about repealing the wretched thing without going on and on about it neutralizes the “spending so much time/putting too much focus” criticism from all but the most entrenched homohaters.
Didn’t watch it. Like and respect Obama, but watched Clinton in '95. Boy could sing the birds out of the trees. Everything since has been anticlimactic.
Oh? The rest of you rate a SoTU by SUBSTANCE? 
As for DADT, ask Alexander or Leonidas their opinion of it. BIGGER :rolleyes:
It would have been inappropriate to spend too much time on it in a State of the Union Address, where he’s supposed talk about, you know, the state of the union.
It’s not like that one mention is the end of it. He’ll get Pelosi and Reid to get the ball rolling, and use the bully pulpit after that in more appropriate circumstances.
Why not?
In any event, I believe Sen. Carl Levin is planning on having hearings on DADT in the near future. I’ve heard that he was asked to push them back until after SOTU the other day, but said they will definitely occur in February. Seems kind of a shame to have put them off for the one whole stinking sentence that he threw in, but that’s apparently the story.
In any event, does anyone have any idea how which votes might go each way? I hear Levin’s House counterpart, Ike Skelton (78 years old, BTW) has no intention of letting gays serve in the military, but I don’t know how much he could derail things by himself.
My cynicism here, however I note that he gave no timetable on repealing DADT. I think this was just a feel good line in the SOTU, not something he is going to really pursue. He wants to be able to say “I tried” to his base. When he actually gives a timetable or some structure I will apologize, however until then it was a political line with no substance behind it.
As one who [del]happily[/del] voluntarily but shamefully passed off any responsibility for the execution of the Vietnam War to others more responsible than I, I would not have objected had any of those brave lads come out, unsuccessfully, during a draft board interview I never had to take.
My brother felt guilty about having gone to a greater extent (my real, but not-yet-diagnosed, asthma would’ve kept me, even in 1972, stateside) when, pre-lottery, he beat the SSA, so he later, after the danger passed, enlisted as a lawyer in the Navy. :rolleyes: Doesn’t make him less of a pussy. He’s just a pussy with benefits.
My feeling as well. This is still the same guy who had a homophobic preacher speak at his own inauguration; I see no evidence that he’s a friend to homosexuals.
I don’t want ot hijack the thread so this will be my only answer regarding my opinion.
It’s mostly about living quarters and those kinds of things. So it’s mostly logistical/administrative. I would oppose having men and women being regularly quartered together. It’s not a moral indictment or believing that gays are not brave/patriotic.
What he said:
I took that to mean he intends to get DADT repealed in 2010.
I’ll believe he means it when I see action. It was a campaign promise and it has been put off every time it comes up.
There is a growing disconnect between the gay community and the DNC. Obama and the DNC have great interest in not losing the gay vote. Their support for the gay community has been lacking. There is a growing movement within the gay community to disown the Democrats. From my point of view it’s always someday we’ll represent you. We are tired of it. I think they will say anything to keep our votes but they never seem to be willing to do anything. Obama saying he’ll end DADT is an example of them saying something we’ll see if he follows through.
You can check out the latest issue of the Advocate, the largest gay magazine in the US. The cover story is an editorial questioning if gays should continue supporting the DNC.
I don’t feel it’s by chance that DADT was mentioned in the speech. It was necessary to try and stop gay voters from walking away.
I think he means he intends to try.