Pissed about Obama and DADT? So am I, but....

Look at AOL's headline:

Supreme Court upholds DADT

http://news.aol.com/?feature=518157

No, they didn't uphold it, they chose not to hear the case at all. In order to uphold a decision, one has to hear a challenge and then make a ruling.

Now take a look at WAPO's headline and some important story elements. No other piece that I've seen has this angle:

Supreme Court Turns Down 'Don't Ask' Challenge

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801368.html?hpid=topnews

(all emphasis mine)

The Supreme Court today declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, a move that could effectively leave it to the Obama administration to resolve the long-controversial issue.

*snip*

In the "don't ask, don't tell" case, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.

*snip*

Pietrangelo appealed to the Supreme Court on his own, while most of the other plaintiffs asked the court to not to review the case, preferring to allow the administration to deal with the issue.

*snip*

In opposing Supreme Court review of the Pietrangelo case, opponents of "don't ask, don't tell" have noted that Obama pledged during his presidential election campaign to end the policy. They say he appears to (be) proceeding carefully to end the ban by first asking the Pentagon to study the implications and report its recommendations.

I cannot say whether or not WAPO is being completely unbiased here, but the AOL article is one paragraph long and gives NO DETAILS WHATSOEVER, plus that headline is misleading. Typical of the Right Wing "half-truth" method of journalism.

What does misleading the public accomplish? It makes the left angry at Obama, and mollifies the right. The more angry progressives are, the more likely they are to stay home during midterms, and maybe in 2012 as well.

Personally, I am not willing to let the RW media control my actions, nor do I wish to give them the ability to define the debate.

I know I will get flamed, but here is what I think: I think Obama is genuinely against DADT, but if he waits and lets the military come to the correct conclusions (YES, DAMN IT, IT'S A GAMBLE!) he doesn't have to take the political fallout, and the end result is the same. I am sad that DADT isn't number one on the list, but I still trust the man. I will reserve judgement until such time as the military reviews the issue, decides against the gay community, and Obama agrees with them and/or does nothing.

Here's a tinfoil hat theory: what if the idea is to let SCOTUS rule on it, but he is waiting to confirm Sotomayor first? Maybe he knows things we don't. Is there any law saying that a different case couldn't come before the SCOTUS again, even if it's a couple of years down the road?

I realize this is a tired talking point, but health care and Sotomayor are currently this administration's top priorities. Wouldn't it be prudent to assume that if SCOTUS overturned DADT JUST WHEN HE IS TRYING TO GET A "CONTROVERSIAL" NOMINEE CONFIRMED, their decision would be ALL THE MEDIA WOULD TALK ABOUT FROM NOW UNTIL DOOMSDAY? It would cloud the nomination process and give a lot of Republicans a reason to run for political cover and do whatever they can to make it a difficult if not impossible confirmation. You might think they don't have a chance to block it anyway, or they will try regardless, but I disagree.

The same theory could apply to any WH health care plan, in which case there are plenty of DINOS who could don the black hats and scuttle the whole enchilada.

Franken hasn't been seated yet, either. I don't know why that matters, but my gut tells me it does.

It makes no sense that Obama would reverse himself so soon on DADT, and I think he really does wants to do away with it. I think he is shrewdly biding his time for political reasons. They might not be the best, and it might not please everybody, but right now, single payer might actually be "on the table" (which is better than nothing) and Obama is starting to lean towards a public plan, plus we could use an empathetic wise Latina on the bench right now. Why? Because the Conservatives don't like her, which means she must be doing something right!

YES, The Obama seems to be moving in mysterious ways (freep lurkers will have field day with that, but they won't get the irony, which will prove my point even further). Despite appearances, I am not yet ready to call Obama "GOP Light".

Plus, I love a mystery.

Yea right. :eyes:

wow, the RW plan might just be working

This isn't middle school.

Everyone seems to understand that he has chosen to kick this can down the road a bit. I don't think anyone would dispute this. Some folks (like myself) aren't all that thrilled about it, especially since there isn't much evidence anyone is doing anything such as studies or plans. However, there is always the concern that it will be something that "never quite gets done", or that is "tried, but we just couldn't get the votes". I'm not buying the whole "chess master" theory of Obama. And really, we've seen no evidence of that theory. In the mean time, 200+ people have had their careers ended and they just keep on coming. At this point I think one just has to accept that we'll all just have to wait and see. I suspect many of us aren't going to be all that encouraged by your kind tea leaf reading.

but you don't agree with my "tea leaf reading"?

Uhm, OK.

Your original post was a defense of a strategy, at least the way I read it. I don't see that strategy, and I found your effort to be grounded mostly in the presumtion that there was a strategy. I'm willing to admit that one may materialize, and that he has some longer term plan. I'm not willing to go as far as you are and suggest I can some how see the outline of a strategy by reading between the lines of multiple, second hand, sources.