Via email:
Statement by the President on Votes to Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
I have long advocated that we repeal ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’, and I am pleased that both the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee took important bipartisan steps toward repeal tonight. Key to successful repeal will be the ongoing Defense Department review, and as such I am grateful that the amendments offered by Representative Patrick Murphy and Senators Joseph Lieberman and Carl Levin that passed today will ensure that the Department of Defense can complete that comprehensive review that will allow our military and their families the opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process. Our military is made up of the best and bravest men and women in our nation, and my greatest honor is leading them as Commander-in-Chief. This legislation will help make our Armed Forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity.
Just getting stuff done.
Here’s the House Roll Call. Sadly, more Democrats voted against it than Republicans voted for it. In honor of five brave Republicans, I will list their names.
Judy Biggert of Illinois
Joseph Cao of Louisiana
Charles Djou of Hawai’i
Ron Paul of Texas
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida
A special recognition must be given to Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania who authored the amendment, which passed 234-194. Murphy didn’t do this for political gain. He did it because he sincerely believes it is the right thing to do. He served in Iraq and he knows that barring gays from the military is harmful to our national security. He’s knows discrimination is wrong. And he made this his mission in Congress even though he serves in a traditionally Republican district in the Philly suburbs and he’s facing the incumbent he defeated four years ago. It’s a classy and fearless move on Murphy’s part and he has earned a special place in history for his efforts.
Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services approved their amendment in a 16-12 vote. Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia voted against it. Republican Susan Collins of Maine voted for it.
Since when does a commander-in-chief need legislative approval to integrate the armed forces? Did Harry Truman need it? The man is weak, face it.
The comparisons to Truman regarding that integration are frankly getting annoying. Truman didn’t need to override legislation with his executive order in the first place, so it’s
On topic, good news. I’m surprised Paul voted for this, considering he has said “DADT is working” in the past.
Bolsters my case that the Pauls are libertarians who oppose choice merely to get elected.
Two completely different issues.
Not really. Find me any other American pols who favor gay marriage and oppose abortion. I’ll settle for one.
I’m saying that the issues aren’t linked – one can support gay marriage on libertarian grounds (it’s not a matter that should be subject to government regulation) but oppose abortion on the belief that abortion is murder and that the state has a legitimate right/responsibility to prevent/prosecute murder. While it is true that most people who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds also oppose abortion on moral grounds, but the two issues are not necessarily linked.
It’s certainly not a common pairing of positions (pro gay marriage, anti-abortion), but it is a pairing that is consistent with a libertarian perspective. That said, the Pauls may well be cynically positioning themselves, but I don’t see the benefit to them from opposing abortion while supporting gay marriage – their target demographic does not permit any variance on those two issues, which is why you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone on the right who takes that combination of positions. Likewise, the left doesn’t accept any variance on those two issues so you’ll be hard pressed to find any pol on the left who takes that combination of positions.
That could be a contributing factor in why there are no true libertarians in Congress…
And the two most endangered Republicans voted for it. Sounds like those two are looking at November, alright.
your annoyance is of no concern to me. The point is that in this era of presidents as “deciders” which in regard to war seem to be easy, in regard to integration Obama just is unable to decide. But then, he was a no-show on health care for a year so what’s new.
Well, isn’t that stupidest comment I’ve read in a while.
Back then, it was a major bone of contention that the president wasn’t pursuing statutory language:
In other words, Truman was accused of being soft by the left because he opted for the only thing he could actually do, which was a measly executive order that took six years to have the desired effect.
But, today, the president is accused of being weak by the left for actually getting statutory language.
Sorry, Bacon. But that’s retarded.
Not to mention that Truman was a huge racist. He didn’t do this out of the goodness of his own heart and for a desire to integrate the military against the public’s will.
some readers might understand your comment. I don’t.
Executive Order 9981 was an executive order issued on July 26, 1948 by U.S. President Harry S Truman.
There was a president. Obama doesn’t measure up. He should have done a year ago what Harry did, but in an age of presidential deciders he’s unable to decide. It’s the same sloppy freshman-like performance we see in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf.
Yeah, and his military immediately told him to fuck himself and Omar Bradley said the executive order didn’t mean shit. What’s your point?
Well, most of Truman’s military complied, if they didn’t immediately snap to attention. The Army was the worst at dragging out the process of desegregation, but then it’s probably historically the most conservative of the various armed services.
And while Omar Bradley initially went public with his own contrarian version of Truman’s order (he thought it meant “separate but equal” for blacks), Truman publicly corrected him, and thereafter Bradley was basically on board, though it still took 3 yrs for the Army to begin to fully comply and another 3 to complete deseg.
Bradley was this country’s first Chairman of the JCS. While not perfect on deseg, he did largely perform his mission, in contrast to CJCS Colin Powell, who never waivered from insisting to the Commander in Chief that the personal attitudes of the Chairman should prevail over the expressed preference of the CinC. That was an act of insubordination, and at that first JCS meeting Clinton utterly failed to make clear who was constitutionally in charge. Understandable, given the political climate of the time, but an unfortunate lapse in laying down the law about civilian control of the military. Very unTrumanlike and weak.
Obama fortunately does not have a Powell dictating terms as CJCS Mullen is on board with doing away with DADT. But he still has those other reluctant chiefs to deal with, as they appear to want to drag this thing out until a more conservative congress can come in after November. But, again fortunate for Obama, none of these various Chiefs is of the immense stature of a Powell, and further the vast majority of the public is in agreement to scrap DADT.
Obama hasn’t been as forceful on DADT as Truman on deseg, but he’s certainly not been the weak pushover with the military brass that Clinton was.
well, it took Truman three years to even issue the executive order. And he was no longer president when it was fully implemented. So, I think any comparison to Obama will end unfavorably for Truman. I can only imagine how a 1946 version of the Netroots would be eviscerating Truman on Jim Crow in the Armed Forces.
Not sure though if there was much public discussion outside of black CR circles on the issue of military deseg in the 45-7 period prior to Truman’s order. Certainly doubt if it reached the public consciousness among the vast masses to the extent that DADT has in the 16 yrs since its implementation under Clinton.
Therefore it’s hard, in my understanding of the social context of the mid 1940s, to downgrade Truman for inaction in his first 3 yrs. And dealing with such fundamental matters of race was far more of a difficult undertaking back then, pre-CR era with Jim Crow in effect in the South, and with a largely indifferent or unengaged white public, as compared with 2009 and Obama taking on a now less-socially charged issue that dealt with a smaller slice of the public and where O also enjoyed an increasing public acceptance of his anti-DADT stance.
To this point I give Obama passing-good “mid-term” marks, about a B. But this one still hasn’t played out fully yet, and we’ll see if he can be close to Truman-firm about settling the matter satisfactorily.
well, we’re trying to interject the internet into the 1940’s, which would have had interesting effects for the left-wing of the Democratic Party and for the whole push for Civil Rights.
There might have been no internet but there were Wallace voters — and they’re an eternal type, not a one-shot phenomenon.
Okay, internet in the 40s, alright. And the Left. Historical time-space counterfactual exercise, with our electronic-computer engineering well ahead of where we really were in the 40s …
Doubt if it would have made much nevermind on the matter of desegging the military. The left then would have been after Harry big time for some of his unfortunate pre-McCarthy Loyalty Act measures and for enabling J Edgar in the latter’s attempt to stamp out and criminalize dissent on the left. Some disgruntlement also over the US backing a military dictatorship in Greece. Truman perceived by the left as drifting dangerously far to the right in anticommunist attitudes.
The above would have sucked up most of the lib-left side oxygen leading up to the 48 presidential.
I think the abolitionists would have had considerably more success in organizing and carrying out direct action. Just being able to use Facebook to find each other and YouTube to document the daily atrocities would have done wonders.
So Obama’s not “The Decider” that George W. Bush was…or that Truman was (except, as Booman has further explained, he wasn’t exactly as decisive as we might think).
Look, Obama’s a (self-described) skinny guy with big ears and a funny name. He spent years sidelining as a constitutional law professor. He’s also spent a lifetime navigating the complex and dangerous waters of race in America. By temperament and training (Columbia College’s core curriculum, Harvard Law, Alinsky’s legacy as taught at the Gamaliel Foundation), he’s developed himself as a public figure who is thoughtful, deliberate, consensual, and strategic about achieving his goals.
Only time will tell the merits of Obama’s approach versus, say, Bush’s. Based on the evidence so far, there’s a decent argument to be made that 10, 20, 50 years after each man’s presidency, Obama will be seen as a successful progressive president, and the one who had a more lasting impact on American society and the world—in part because of his even-tempered approach and the respect he shows for his opponents.
You know, this bill does nothing to repeal DADT if the brass don’t actually sign off on it.
Perhaps Boo, now would be a good time to draw up a draft balance sheet of Obama’s successes and failures to date – as this will be the basis of his appeal to voters in the midterms. I see from Pollster that Obama’s favourable ratings have taken a turn for the better in recent weeks so there does appear to be a public perception of a change for the better following the passing of healthcare and the momentum this has generated for Financial regulation and now dadt. As against that his job approval and the national right direction/wrong track numbers have dis-improved recently.
The negatives, for me, are still Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, climate change, immigration etc. but I doubt how much more will be achieved on these before the midterms, so now may be a good time to draw up the ledger. The stimulus and the recovering economy, Sotomayor, would also on the plus side for me. His handling of the BP oil spill is in the balance right now…