Obama to delay repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'

  • redheaded_dud...

    Posts: 408

    Nov 21, 2008 1:44 PM GMT
    What do y'all think? Is he already back-pedaling?

    President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

    Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 1:47 PM GMT
    The article, right out of the gate, says that he wants to build consensus among military personnel and legislators before presenting something to the congress. How is that back-peddling?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 1:48 PM GMT
    I guess it is better to get everyone onboard beforehand, rather than go thru another humiliating rejection like Clinton got. I am not sure it should take until 2010 tho. .... icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 2:10 PM GMT
    Obama is going to start off as more of a fence-builder than a bulldozer type of politician. Quite different from Clinton and Bush Jr.. The military is a very conservative organization in many ways so it will be interesting to see if there is any consensus that can be developed on this issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 2:22 PM GMT
    SurrealLife saidObama is going to start off as more of a fence-builder than a bulldozer type of politician. Quite different from Clinton and Bush Jr.. The military is a very conservative organization in many ways so it will be interesting to see if there is any consensus that can be developed on this issue.


    Correct. That's the buzz-saw that Clinton ran into when he tried to change the military's policy on gays overnight, and he had to settle for DADT. Better to do it right, and really make it happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 4:39 PM GMT
    This is Great News.. MIlitary already have been trying to decide on what to do with this case.. Before Obama got elected. They have been thinking about it being a case by case issue where they look at the Person and see if he/she has done thier job if so there is no problem.icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 4:58 PM GMT
    He seems to be trying to distance himself from the dictator style of this administration. He'll have less opposition if key figures are on-board as well. Since they are his nominees, I'm sure it'll be fine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 6:30 PM GMT
    It's like people have said, he doesn't want to make the same mistakes of the past. There are things to consider with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have learned that Obama is a masterful strategist as far a people go. He is not even president for that matter yet so people shouldn't be getting impatient already
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 6:36 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    SurrealLife saidObama is going to start off as more of a fence-builder than a bulldozer type of politician. Quite different from Clinton and Bush Jr.. The military is a very conservative organization in many ways so it will be interesting to see if there is any consensus that can be developed on this issue.


    Correct. That's the buzz-saw that Clinton ran into when he tried to change the military's policy on gays overnight, and he had to settle for DADT. Better to do it right, and really make it happen.

    He didnt just have to settle for it....it went from being just a military policy to being a law! So now Congress has to make any changes. But I dont blame Clinton. It was the gays at the time with no strategic sense that pushed it to be first thing after his election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 6:56 PM GMT
    If nothing else Obama is very deliberate and very pragmatic in his decision making. This is what I found and find very appealing about him. He does not have that “Fools Rush in Attitude”
    So this comes as no surprise to me.

    Like someone posted earlier better to get it right the first time, then go down in defeat and have to settle for another compromise that we will not be happy with don't you think.icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 7:00 PM GMT
    Seems like a sensible approach. And 2010 is only about a year away now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 7:04 PM GMT
    i doubt it will happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 8:35 PM GMT
    Didn't Democrat Free Willy, Bill put this in place, in the first place?

    Words so he doesn't have to act on his words now. After all he is "only" a politician, no matter what party he belongs to. Re-election is his foremost priority, than to keep and preserve peace.
  • DiverScience

    Posts: 1426

    Nov 21, 2008 8:58 PM GMT
    A) More important things

    B) If he tries to go over people's heads now, he'll make it a power game and end up stonewalled on everything *else* he could do.

    C) He's not even president yet, he loses nothing by using the time to soothe feathers and build consensus.

    D) He never gave us a timetable before so it can't be backpedaling. This is the first timetable he's given us.

    E) Has any other president ever explicitly included GLBT rights in their proposed program, after election?
  • cowboyathlete

    Posts: 1346

    Nov 21, 2008 9:00 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidThe article, right out of the gate, says that he wants to build consensus among military personnel and legislators before presenting something to the congress. How is that back-peddling?
    Agreed, plus the economy is overwhelmingly the number one issue on everyone's mind right now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 9:05 PM GMT
    he never said that this was going to be attacked immediately. in fact he said he needed to build consensus before he moved forward to make sure it was done correctly, so to answer your question, no, he is not backing out.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Nov 21, 2008 9:08 PM GMT
    2010 does not seem an unreasonable delay.
    It's silly to see all the references to back-pedaling and such, when...Obama is not even President yet!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 9:30 PM GMT
    swimbikerun said2010 does not seem an unreasonable delay.
    It's silly to see all the references to back-pedaling and such, when...Obama is not even President yet!


    The real question is, why hasn't Barack Obama solved global warming, world hunger, and the riddle of the sphinx yet?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 9:33 PM GMT
    I've always been mystified by the upset that the gay community had when Clinton "settled" for DADT. He had to settle. And that set the stage for greater and greater accpetance.

    True, if Gore or Kerry had become president this issue would have been advanced sooner. But DADT was a step, and, perhaps, history will judge it a huge step, even though many considered it an insult.

    And, now, perhaps is the time to take an even bigger step. Does anyone doubt that if that step is taken, Obama would take it, but McCain would not?

    Give Obama a chance to negotiate this. McCain would never have even considered it.
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Nov 21, 2008 9:56 PM GMT
    I think December of 2010 is Obama's date to try and get this through. He is going to have to try and appease a lot of leftists until then on a number of signature issues for them. Since we will still be in Iraq and Afghanistan; if he pulls his "fuck the rich" tax increases (that will be on everyone that makes over $50K) the economy will still be in shambles; and the losers that think he is going to make their lives better will still be in the shit, so is base that put him over 50% will already be in a bad mode. If he tries to get gays in the military, gay marriage, government health care, gun bans, or any other key liberal wet dream past, he will get the Conservatives that sat out this election fired up like Hilary did with her health care plan, and He will lose his congressional majorities just like Clinton did in 1994.

    He needs to play nice for 2 years then make sure he has both houses of congress in 2010 and 2012 to really stick it to us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 9:59 PM GMT
    Support for DADT is waning every year. Supporters are in the minority now, as a matter of fact. Additional news on the over 100 retired military leaders who just called for it's repeal.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/dont.ask.dont.tell/?iref=mpstoryview
    Civilian Support is well over 70% for it's repeal. Support in Congress is clearly there. But they can't just flip the switch--the military definitely needs plans and policies in place, with proper training, for it to be effective.
    Go to (and support) http://www.sldn.org/ for the most info and ways to help.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2008 11:28 PM GMT
    Bill Clinton promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military when he was campaigning for president in 1992. That was put off until... well, it's still not been repealed.

    It's been long enough. Time to quit pissing around and just repeal it, no ifs, ands, or buts.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 22, 2008 12:58 AM GMT
    Repealing the policy cannot be an overnight deal. This is a smart strategy. This will give the top leadership a chance to develop an integration plan that instructs accountability throughout the chain of command, develop a training plan to instill integration into each and every soldier and ensure that any backlash is dealt with swiftly and harshly. A transition period that includes those who have to deal with the immediate impacts is the responsible thing to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 1:49 AM GMT
    He's doing the right thing. Lining up the ducks. Besides, like some have already mentioned, he really does have much bigger issues to tend to first. He'll get to it - it'll happen. Be patient grasshoppers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 2:11 AM GMT
    I think its better than what Clinton said she would do. She said she'd legalize it by executive order on day one. That would have caused a controversy and a horrible precedent.