This is supposed to be Democratic Underground, where we are generally supportive of Democrats.

It's ok to be critical of Democratic Policies and President Obama, but "bashing" supporters is never a good idea. This OP is non productive and flame bait. It broad brushes an entire group of DU members, and I might add...how do we know that everyone in that video didn't say more? Is that all they said, or was it just sound bites? It really is irrelevant in this situation, I know. But so is "megachurch", whatever that is.

stuff enlightened, sincere Obama supporters say

One strawman deserves another.

This one is funnier;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512215

They must have been lurking around here. I think that I've read every one of those excuses on this board.

at Obama supporters in general. There are things said in that silly video that are actually true. the video says " Stuff Obama supporters say"...meaning all supporters. So congrats on insulting anyone that supports the president. You must be so proud.

He doesn't have the support in congress...

He did pass a healthcare bill...

He is a constitutional lawyer

He did end DADT

His family is beautiful....why is that a bad thing to say?

It's a derisive caricature of an entity that is certainly a minority at best.

"these two must be DUers, to be getting so many of these right".

I see most of those comments at least once a week here on DU.

Digging and looking for it is exactly as easy for you as it is for me, but I'm beat and that sort of research appeals to me just now about as well as a mix of vodka and milk would.

We have a Google box up there somewhere, though. Is that blacked out, too?

Sorry, thought it would be easy enough to find. In my experience such posts are not that common, particularly from the most vocal supporters here. Now, you could try to actually diminish ones criticism and make it out to be something it's not, but that's what we call a caricature.

that YOU"D find it humorous.

You tell me to lighten up, then proceed to complain about "brutal and nasty" attacks against progressives. Maybe YOU should lighten up and grow thicker skin. How 'bout that...

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:53 AM - Edit history (1)

he didn't end DADT -- the Log Cabin Republicans, via our court of law, did.

Nor did he 'get us out of Iraq' -- he tried to keep our armed forces (and highly paid mercenaries) there, as long as they weren't to be held to the law of the land, i.e. they should be held immune from Iraqi law.

The Iraqi's were having none of it.

Yet, strangely, I don't quite see those being redacted from Teh List!

You said Republicans are responsible for ending DADT.

Where should I look it up, in Dreamworld?

I've seen it all now. Giving Republicans credit over Obama or Democrats.

which leads to another link...

Causes all sorts of bizarre statements, does it not?

And none of it has been pretty.

pretty much

as soon as i think i've heard it all

BAM!

republicans ended DADT

freakydeaky

Shame it's buried in this thread and few will read it.

Even what you just regurgitate back to me with different words in bold doesn't support your claim that Republicans are responsible for ending DADT. Your last bold print tells you all you need to know. If their case was rendered moot, how are they responsible for ending it? Democrats were not scooped by anything LOL

Democrats and President Obama ended DADT, not Republicans.

contort things to give REPUBLICANS credit before they acknowledge something positive that President Obama, the Democrat whether they want to acknowledge it or not, has done.

Truly bizarre.

"He didn't have to defend the case!"

Republicans get credit when it goes the progressive way, Obama gets blamed when it goes the repressive way. It's always been like that. I don't understand it, myself.

The ruling the Log Cabin Republicans got rendered DADT unenforceable. Appeals began. Then Congress repealed the law.

Basically, the Log Cabin Republicans moved faster, but the appeal process would take quite a while to complete. Then the Democrats in Congress made the appeals moot. But we can't pretend Democrats were 'first-across-the-line' any more than Republicans can pretend their candidates are sane.

But there was no particular reason to expect the Log Cabin Republicans to fail in the end.

Then the Democrats lept in and repealed the law before the Log Cabin Republicans could finish what they started. But we can't pretend they did not get there first.

You said "The thing is that vote was after the law was unenforceable.", which is what I responded to.

"The Democrats lept in" well I guess we can't ignore that Democrats, specifically Rep Martin T Meehan was trying to repeal it with Congress either, since 2005, then again in 2007 and 2009.

Either way in the end, the Democrats were responsible for ending it. The highest court in the land ruled against LCR.

The ruling against the LCR was on the basis of the case being moot. By the time it got there, the Democrats had finally passed a law to repeal it...but DADT remained in force for quite a while.

"I guess we can't ignore that Democrats, specifically Rep Martin T Meehan was trying to repeal it with Congress either, since 2005, then again in 2007 and 2009."

0 Democrats in the leadership were actively trying, and 0 Democrats in the White House were doing more than lip service to changing the law. The LCR victory seemed to galvanize the leadership into finally doing something about it.

You're certainly really, really into giving credit to republicans for Obama's executive order, in spite of the facts.

So...executive orders can repeal laws now?

Here's the timeline:

LCR wins -> Appeals start, as usual decision is stayed pending appeal -> Democrats in Congress realize they should finally start moving before they look really, really bad. -> Congress changes the law -> LCR Appeal ruled moot, since Congress had changed the law (but the policy was still in force) -> Secretary of Defense and service chiefs certify ready for end of DADT -> DADT ends.

You'll note that doesn't start with Democrats doing something.

So clearly we have single payer health care, right?

Oh wait.....

I'm not arguing that no Democrats were pushing for repeal. Some were trying. But the Democratic House, Democratic Senate and Democratic White House failed to move forward until the LCR won their lawsuit.

In your mind, what, exactly, was preventing Congress from doing anything earlier?

Sure, there could have been a filibuster in the Senate, but not the House. And you really should go read that 2nd link. Even with majorities in both chambers, the bill you are pointing to did not get out of committee.

If the SCOTUS voted for DADT, where would we be?

Meanwhile, a niche group of Republicans do not represent the Republicans as a whole.

Thus it is inaccurate to say "Republicans ended DADT" since that is a generalization about all Republicans.

It is more accurate to say "Some Republicans started a process that may have resulted in the ending of DADT."

Either way they are getting far more credit than they deserve.

Republican ideology, Republican representatives, Republican voters, they all overwhelmingly rejected the repeal of DADT.

The SCOTUS ruling happened after Congress put forward their plan to end the law. So SCOTUS decided the suit was moot, since the law in question was being dismantled anyway. But that ruling allowed DADT to remain in force for many more months. Depending on how pedantic one wanted to be, they ruled DADT could remain in force.

"Thus it is inaccurate to say "Republicans ended DADT""

It is also inaccurate to say "Democrats ended DADT". They had their thumb up their asses on that subject until the LCR made them look bad.

And I'm not giving the credit to the Republican party. You are putting words into my mouth.

This is a case where the not-religiously-insane parts of both parties managed to get something done. It just so happens that that portion of the Republican party is quite small. But this is not a clean "D" win.

Look at us, bickering over whether the Republicans ended DADT or not. Their approach was not guaranteed to succeed. And Obama and the Democrats had been pushing the repeal of DADT for years before the LCR made their move. There were other more important things such as HCR and stimulus stuff to get passed (this, btw, is why single issue voters threw Obama under the bus over DADT, because their single issue was more important).

The vote tally shows that in fact that, no "parts of both parties managed to get something done." It was an overwhelmingly Democratic party move. Look at the vote tally. Mostly Democrats. And yet, because LCR filed a lawsuit that wasn't guaranteed way to end DADT, they get more credit, at least to be as put in a category of "parts of both parties," when it was, again, an overwhelmingly Democratic Party move.

In fact DADT could've set worse precedent if it was upheld, which it could've been; I agree with you SCOTUS ruled "in favor" of DADT, but without leaving precedent, it's basically not a predictor of what they would've done, I don't know how it would've actually went and I fully admit that.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out that all the Democrats were standing around saying "bad law!" but not doing a damn thing about it until someone else made it impossible to ignore any longer. The fact that that other group has "Republican" in their name does not mean the Republicans get credit.

"And Obama and the Democrats had been pushing the repeal of DADT for years before the LCR made their move."

If only the Democrats had majorities in both houses of congress and the presidency. Why, they could have done something years earlier....oh wait, they did have those majorities and the White House. It's really odd to claim they were "pushing" for something yet couldn't even get a bill on the floor until after someone else got the ball rolling.

"And yet, because LCR filed a lawsuit that wasn't guaranteed way to end DADT, they get more credit"

Yes. Because they were actually DOING SOMETHING. Democrats had majorities in both houses and the White House yet didn't do anything to repeal DADT for roughly two years. There wasn't anything in their way, they just didn't bother to move forward. Thus, they ceded a lot of the credit.

You've just fell victim to the instant gratification mentality that plagues a good deal of this country, so much that you actually think 2 years is a long time. And you are dead wrong on your timeline. The President ordered his people to start putting together a study to figure out the best way to prepare for the social changes in the military, if any were relevant, way before that 2 years was up. The problem isn't that they took too long. The problem is, you don't have any patience and your sense of what constitutes a "long time" is seriously flawed.

What it shows is that the administration was dragged into repeal kicking and screaming. They did everything possible to try t sabotage the LCR's case. Try reading the sentences you didn't cherrypick because they are not favorable to the president.

Your link doesn't support that. It also doesn't support that the administration was dragged kicking and screaming and did everything possible to try and sabotage the LCR case. FYI anytime a case is brought against the United States, the U.S. Dept of Justice has to defend laws, it is what they do. Unless you believe a defendant doesn't deserve legal representation.

The fact of the matter is, the Democrats and Obama are responsible for the passage and signing of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. It's ok to criticize the administration and/or Democrats but it's not ok to try and give Republicans credit for doing something they did not do. That's when criticism is no longer criticism but has gone too far in rhetoric.

Answer: It doesn't.

The repeal of DADT did not happen through judicial action--it happened because of congressional repeal, despite the fantasies of the FDL crowd.

The case you cite is irrelevant and non-precedential. While an amusing outlier, its only value is to those who would use it for propaganda to preach to those too ignorant of basic civics to know better.

KILLING them.

While an amusing outlier, its only value is to those who would use it for propaganda to preach to those too ignorant of basic civics to know better.

You got it.

I can truly, no TRULY say I've heard it all now.

They publish so much stuff that is demonstrably wrong that I can only assume that they think they can get away with it with their readership.

pwned again

I posted this over a month ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100232148#post236

Way back in 2004 it was the Log Cabin Republicans who brought DADT to court (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States) which ruled FOR them (i.e. AGAINST DADT).
Obama had no option but to discontinue DADT, even though they asked for an injunction against the ruling. Prior to that there had been a lot of foot-dragging INCLUDING his DOJ using, in court, the Bushie argument that gays were prone to incest and bestiality.

Read http://www.thepostgameshow.com/?tag=barack-obama for more Obama DADT & DOMA goodness (with "America's Pastor' thrown in for good measure).


Still want to argue? Take it up with history.

Republicans are not responsible for ending DADT

unless its really, really important that the President gets no credit for doing it.

You had best believe that.

amd many even run a platform of reinstating it.

wow...Giving Republicans credit for something they wanted no part of.

Desperation to flog Obama and this importnt accomplishment, is amazing.

Everything that's wrong..Obama's fault. Obama does something good, and Repugs get the credit. That's exactly how THEY argue. Good job!

I think I've seen it all on DU now.

Until the Supreme Court makes a final say, the lower court cases are not a finality. What the President did, was a finality. Historians will report it this way. He will rightfully be remembered by historians as the President that INTENTIONALLY changed the law and gave us a big civil rights victory. And there isn't one damn thing you can do to change that.

For the hell of it, can you explain to me how a stayed and now mooted case overturned 10 USC 654?

Specifically, explain to us how, in our constitutional system, a stayed and mooted case overturns a federal law. I'd be interested to know.

He passes a health care bill (by the way I didn't comment of the content) BAD Obama....

DADT ends....BAD OBAMA...cuz he's using teh gays for his evil reasons. What a fucking asinine thing to say

I didn't realize fucking complimenting someone was a bad thing..

How bout this...

President Obama is a good husband and father. His wife rocks, and his children are beautiful.

Oh, snap...what did I just do, Gitmo is still operating and I fucking complimented the president and his family.

So....what process do you think the constitution requires for assassinations?

'Cause all the copies of the Constitution I can find leave foreign policy 99.9999% up to the Executive branch, with Congress declaring war the only non-executive activity.

didn't you?

do such Liberal things as provide free education, free healthcare, provide housing for the poor, diminish poverty and illiteracy in his country by 50% at least, since he became president. I'll take that kind of leader, one who actually cares about his people.

This right-wing anti-Chavez garbage started showing up on democratic boards for some reason, a couple of years ago. Before that the left supported Latin America's democratically elected left leaning governments. Interesting how that happened.

how much money is being spent on anti Chavez propaganda, it explains the weekly MSM articles that have appeared. And you get to know the so-called 'journalists', the Latin American versions of Judy Miller.