PDA

View Full Version : Obama to delay repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'



bijou
11-21-2008, 10:37 AM
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.

"I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban. ...

link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/)

xavierob82
11-21-2008, 10:47 AM
Right-wing nutjobs called Harry Truman a "communist" when he integrated the Armed Forces.

I'm sure there will be an equal amount of whining from the right when Obama does away with "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but in a few years time, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

BadCat
11-21-2008, 10:53 AM
Right-wing nutjobs called Harry Truman a "communist" when he integrated the Armed Forces.

I'm sure there will be an equal amount of whining from the right when Obama does away with "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but in a few years time, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Those "right-wing nutjobs" were Democrats.

xavierob82
11-21-2008, 10:55 AM
Those "right-wing nutjobs" were Democrats.


Ah, yes. Back in the strange ole days when both parties had their liberal and reactionary wings.

Hell, even I might have even been a registered Republican in the 1950s.

I much prefer the hardline ideological split found today, don't you?

BadCat
11-21-2008, 10:58 AM
Ah, yes. Back in the strange ole days when both parties had their liberal and reactionary wings.

Hell, even I might have even been a registered Republican in the 1950s.

I much prefer the hardline ideological split found today, don't you?

Let's just say I prefer to be able to easily identify my enemies.

Zathras
11-21-2008, 11:45 AM
Hell, even I might have even been a registered Republican in the 1950s.

That I doubt...you'd be on the street celebrating May Day and Castro's take over of Cuba.

M21
11-21-2008, 12:11 PM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

There is much more important business reform to conduct at the Pentagon. If you haven't noticed they've been kind busy in recent years.

xavierob82
11-21-2008, 12:15 PM
That I doubt...you'd be on the street celebrating May Day and Castro's take over of Cuba.



Since I despise communism, that would be unlikely.

Odysseus
11-21-2008, 12:21 PM
Ah, yes. Back in the strange ole days when both parties had their liberal and reactionary wings.

Hell, even I might have even been a registered Republican in the 1950s.
Guys who referred to non-liberals as "reactionaries" would not have been Republicans. You'd have been a socialist or some other offshoot, most likely.

I much prefer the hardline ideological split found today, don't you?

No. The parties were regionally split back in the day, which meant that voting was determined by regional interests, rather than party ideology. For the most part, that worked well in terms of having representatives who actually represented their constituents. The geographic alignment also meant that both parties were closer to the center, while the fringes were marginalized in most cases. Lifetime voting records were closer to the center, since the parties couldn't drive moderates to the fringe positions. True, party discipline was harder to maintain and individuals were more likely to vote their personal convictions (and the convictions of their constituents) rather than along party ideological lines, but one would think that this was a good thing.

The current ideological divide makes it easier to enforce party-line votes by denying members critical party support in future elections (look at Joe Lieberman for an example of what that looks like). That punishes party members who might be in tune with their constituents but out of step with the party leadership and also makes it harder to defeat incumbents who are ideologically out of sync with their constituents, which creates a divide between them. It also means that consensus is much less likely to occur between the parties on critical issues, and that both parties are far less likely to compromise. The end result is a rabidly polarized body politic in which the day-to-day business of running the nation is subordinated to the tactical needs of the ideologues.

Goldwater
11-21-2008, 03:44 PM
The more power that goes to Washington, the more you will have a focus on the White House over local affairs.

Completely opposite to where the US started.

Zathras
11-21-2008, 05:09 PM
Since I despise communism, that would be unlikely.

More likely than you ever being a Republican.