Dear President Clinton: Where’s Your Apology For DOMA?, NYT’s Bruni Asks

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 12:19 AM GMT
    I agree with Bruni. I liked Clinton as a president and mostly supported him, but this was a major error and he has yet to admit fault or apologize. He has admitted some of his mistakes while president and unlike some other past presidents been specific about them, such as not acting in Rwanda, so why not this mistake?

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/3-dear-president-clinton-wheres-your-apology-for-doma-nyts-bruni-asks/politics/2012/12/01/55076
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 1:09 AM GMT
    Agreed. He should apologize for DOMA and DADT.

    And while we're at it, all the politicians who voted for DOMA, and politicians who support it today, should apologize.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Dec 02, 2012 1:35 AM GMT
    Iceblink saidI agree with Bruni. I liked Clinton as a president and mostly supported him, but this was a major error and he has yet to admit fault or apologize. He has admitted some of his mistakes while president and unlike some other past presidents been specific about them, such as not acting in Rwanda, so why not this mistake?

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/3-dear-president-clinton-wheres-your-apology-for-doma-nyts-bruni-asks/politics/2012/12/01/55076


    One of the attributes of Clinton was that he was practical. He signed it into law 2 months before the 96 election. I am not saying that it was the reason why he was re-elected. But it was one of a few things that allowed him to appear as a centrist.
    From the purely political perspective if he didn't sign it, it could have been a wedge issue for the republicans.

    He also negotiated and signed budget cuts and took credit for the first balanced budget in a long time. In fact the budget had not been balanced for the most of the 4 decades of Democratic control of Congress.

    Democrats owe Clinton ALOT !

    I guess if Clinton has changed his mind he should apologize.
    but before that, maybe ask Democrats like Sen Schumer, Sen Reid, Joe Biden,
    and the 70% of the 46 democratic Senators at the time voted for it.

    What I think is worse is that Obama as a Senator lectured the country on the Att Generals job description, the " the ATT GEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENTS LAWYER". Obama arguably is illegally using the ATT GEN as a defacto political machine. Considering he promised to repeal DOMA ,Obama is taking the easy way out, violating longstanding principles of how our government works for political expediency.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 1:42 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    What I think is worse is that Obama as a Senator lectured the country on the Att Generals job description, the " the ATT GEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENTS LAWYER". Obama arguably is illegally using the ATT GEN as a defacto political machine. Considering he promised to repeal DOMA ,Obama is taking the easy way out, violating longstanding principles of how our government works for political expediency.


    How do you propose to repeal DOMA in the Republican-controlled House? (you just complimented Clinton on practicality and yet you denounce Obama for the same thing)

    Eventually DOMA will make its way to the Supreme Court. Not defending it in lower courts (which have struck it down thus far) makes it much quicker.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 1:54 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Iceblink saidI agree with Bruni. I liked Clinton as a president and mostly supported him, but this was a major error and he has yet to admit fault or apologize. He has admitted some of his mistakes while president and unlike some other past presidents been specific about them, such as not acting in Rwanda, so why not this mistake?

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/3-dear-president-clinton-wheres-your-apology-for-doma-nyts-bruni-asks/politics/2012/12/01/55076


    One of the attributes of Clinton was that he was practical. He signed it into law 2 months before the 96 election. I am not saying that it was the reason why he was re-elected. But it was one of a few things that allowed him to appear as a centrist.
    From the purely political perspective if he didn't sign it, it could have been a wedge issue for the republicans.

    He also negotiated and signed budget cuts and took credit for the first balanced budget in a long time. In fact the budget had not been balanced for the most of the 4 decades of Democratic control of Congress.

    Democrats owe Clinton ALOT !

    I guess if Clinton has changed his mind he should apologize.
    but before that, maybe ask Democrats like Sen Schumer, Sen Reid, Joe Biden,
    and the 70% of the 46 democratic Senators at the time voted for it.

    You are correct, Democrats do owe Clinton a lot, but DOMA is not one of those things to be thankful for and the votes of 70% of Democratic Senators at the time does not make it right that he signed it. It only means that 70% of the Democratic Senators were also wrong on DOMA. I have said I supported him. I voted for him both times, but this was a mistake, and a big one at that. You are never going to support the candidate you voted for 100% of the time and when they are wrong, especially this wrong, they need to be called out on it.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Dec 02, 2012 1:55 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    musclmed said
    What I think is worse is that Obama as a Senator lectured the country on the Att Generals job description, the " the ATT GEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENTS LAWYER". Obama arguably is illegally using the ATT GEN as a defacto political machine. Considering he promised to repeal DOMA ,Obama is taking the easy way out, violating longstanding principles of how our government works for political expediency.


    How do you propose to repeal DOMA in the Republican-controlled House? (you just complimented Clinton on practicality and yet you denounce Obama for the same thing)

    Eventually DOMA will make its way to the Supreme Court. Not defending it in lower courts (which have struck it down thus far) makes it much quicker.


    Doma IMHO probably will be held to be unconstitutional. It should go through its natural course.

    However just like every other President to date, Obama has to negotiate if it is legislation he wants pushed through. There is very little evidence this has gone on in the last 4 years and little hope it will ever happen. Now is the probably the best time to pass such a law.

    I would support a law that says the federal government has no say in what makes a marriage. Obama may find several republican members with this libertarian thought process. You could probably quantify the numbers in dollars of needless litigation for DOMA.

    Some may praise Obama for what he did , however mark my words, the precedent laid down will likely bite back at democrats in the future.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 5:29 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    q1w2e3 said
    musclmed said
    What I think is worse is that Obama as a Senator lectured the country on the Att Generals job description, the " the ATT GEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENTS LAWYER". Obama arguably is illegally using the ATT GEN as a defacto political machine. Considering he promised to repeal DOMA ,Obama is taking the easy way out, violating longstanding principles of how our government works for political expediency.


    How do you propose to repeal DOMA in the Republican-controlled House? (you just complimented Clinton on practicality and yet you denounce Obama for the same thing)

    Eventually DOMA will make its way to the Supreme Court. Not defending it in lower courts (which have struck it down thus far) makes it much quicker.


    Doma IMHO probably will be held to be unconstitutional. It should go through its natural course.

    However just like every other President to date, Obama has to negotiate if it is legislation he wants pushed through. There is very little evidence this has gone on in the last 4 years and little hope it will ever happen. Now is the probably the best time to pass such a law.

    I would support a law that says the federal government has no say in what makes a marriage. Obama may find several republican members with this libertarian thought process. You could probably quantify the numbers in dollars of needless litigation for DOMA.

    Some may praise Obama for what he did , however mark my words, the precedent laid down will likely bite back at democrats in the future.


    And defending DOMA is helping it go through its natural course?

    And who, one might ask, is allotting the dollars in needless litigation for DOMA?

    Define "several." icon_lol.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Dec 02, 2012 5:43 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    musclmed said
    q1w2e3 said
    musclmed said
    What I think is worse is that Obama as a Senator lectured the country on the Att Generals job description, the " the ATT GEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENTS LAWYER". Obama arguably is illegally using the ATT GEN as a defacto political machine. Considering he promised to repeal DOMA ,Obama is taking the easy way out, violating longstanding principles of how our government works for political expediency.


    How do you propose to repeal DOMA in the Republican-controlled House? (you just complimented Clinton on practicality and yet you denounce Obama for the same thing)

    Eventually DOMA will make its way to the Supreme Court. Not defending it in lower courts (which have struck it down thus far) makes it much quicker.


    Doma IMHO probably will be held to be unconstitutional. It should go through its natural course.

    However just like every other President to date, Obama has to negotiate if it is legislation he wants pushed through. There is very little evidence this has gone on in the last 4 years and little hope it will ever happen. Now is the probably the best time to pass such a law.

    I would support a law that says the federal government has no say in what makes a marriage. Obama may find several republican members with this libertarian thought process. You could probably quantify the numbers in dollars of needless litigation for DOMA.

    Some may praise Obama for what he did , however mark my words, the precedent laid down will likely bite back at democrats in the future.


    And defending DOMA is helping it go through its natural course?

    And who, one might ask, is allotting the dollars in needless litigation for DOMA?

    Define "several." icon_lol.gif


    The ATTY general has a specific constitutional role to represent the United states in litigation. If we allowed politics to dictate that well then the role of the judiciary is diminished.

    The Irony is the Obama specifically made comments in the Senate denouncing the act he has unfortunately adopted.

    Several , well back in the 90's Clinton was able to get Republicans to sign on to a great deal of unusual things for them ( defense cuts) for example. Many forget how our government worked ( compromise), I put that squarely in Obama's lap. His arrogance is chronicled in several books, and the way his administration negotiates ( in bad faith) ex leaking information on private talks) explains the last 4 years of divided broken government.

    Simply he has to deal and negotiate. A repeal from the point of view of states rights has some appeal amongst republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 6:00 AM GMT
    Lol, define "some"--when a lot, and I mean the majority, of Republicans want to impose a federal ban on same sex marriage.

    And your point about precedent of not defending laws considered unconstitutional is no precedent at all. The last 4 presidents did it.

    http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201102250014
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 6:05 AM GMT
    President Clinton has said that he no longer supports DOMA/DADT years ago....http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/president-bill-dadt-doma-clinton-doesnt-support-doma-any-longer/legislation/2009/07/14/4188

    http://www.newser.com/story/117921/bill-clinton-its-time-for-gay-marriage.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 6:09 AM GMT
    On the lack of compromise:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57044.htmlHouse Speaker John Boehner said it outright on “60 Minutes” last year. When talking about “compromise,” Boehner said, “I reject the word.”

    “When you say the word ‘compromise,’” he explained, “… a lot of Americans look up and go, ‘Uh-oh, they’re gonna sell me out.’” His position is common right now.

    In the same spirit, Tony Perkins wrote in a recent CNN.com op-ed piece, “When it comes to conservative principles, compromise is the companion of losers.”

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Dec 02, 2012 6:31 AM GMT
    sfbayguy saidAgreed. He should apologize for DOMA and DADT.


    Half-right. An apology for DOMA is in order, but not for DADT, which was a progressive measure allowing gays to serve in the military -- albeit not openly.

    People forget: before DADT gays the military code did not allow gays to serve in the military at all, openly or not. Just suspicion of being gay was grounds for a discharge. Clinton wanted gays to be able able to serve openly, but the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs were dead set against it and were pushing a bill that would have made the military code's ban federal law.

    Clinton pushed DADT as a compromise to prevent that outright ban. DADT prevented gays from disclosing or talking about their orientation, yes, but it also prohibited discrimination against gays in the military, ending those gay panic discharges. He deserves praise, not scorn, for it. DADT was outdated by 2010 but at the time of adoption it was progress.