I'm not Rhad, but I think it would energize the base. Those that are energized against Obama are the loonies who think he's a socialist and probably already believe he's serving the "homosexual agenda." Sure they might be a little more energized against him, but people who feel like he's not really serving the base of the party on a civil rights issue like this would be less likely to stay at home on midterm elections. They will see Obama is actually making a progressive step. Beyond that, it's just the right thing to do. I'm not trying to compare the repeal of DADT to the Civil Rights Act of '64, but LBJ pushed that through even though he knew it would be bad for the Democrats politically. It was, but it was still the right thing to do, and our nation is better off because of it. Sometimes you have to do what's right regardless of the political consequences. I say that only in case I'm wrong about it being a political positive for Obama to repeal DADT.
Would that make enough of a difference to turn the election to the Dems favor? I think politically that would be making a marginal gain equally countered by setback. Right now the Dems are trying to limit the damage and if this isn't going to turn the election I doubt they want to deal with it. True LBJ did but keep in mind LBJ also ratcheted up Vietnam and himself felt politically trapped by Vietnam. You, Rhad and others are certainly free to criticize Obama and for the record I agree that DADT should go but I think you are expecting too much from Obama especially if you are talking about political bravery he has already passed Health Care reform, something that no Democrat has been able to do, and passed the Stimulus Bill in the face of united and determined opposition. He is already getting pounded by political opponents for those two things so I am willing to give him a pass on this one. Anyway DADT is most likely on its way to being defeated in the courts. I think Obama realizes that and the Admin is just pantomiming as political theater.
Judoka: I think FB covered it pretty well, but let me add a few more bullets: 1) If "Political Obligation" can trump extremely clear policy promises, than my cynicism is hardly novel and should be adopted as the modus operandi for anyone with average intelligence. Let's make the obvious comparison - try to imagine Obama and his DOJ saying they were "politically obligated" to protest efforts to integrate blacks into the military... 2) **** "political obligation". What a loaded phrase of hackneyed nonsense. Obama's lack of backbone is seriously dooming him. Talk about "political obligation" - his base is eroding and his poll numbers are in the tank. I don't care to defend him much anymore, and I was hardly a huge supporter to begin with. This mantra of obligation that led to the backroom sale of the public option, the half-assed non-effort to repeal DADT, the watered down wall st reform etc; blame congressional republicans all you want but it's plainly obvious that Obama settles prematurely and with the sole clear incentive of appearance. And the effects are obvious. Most (if not all) of his most vocal supporters are becoming skeptical and his support is crumbling. Worried about the repercussions because of the "war"? Fearmongering at it's finest - I expect better from you, Sishir. 3) Lastly, let me head off the "Major" crowd that likes to trumpet that Obama's centrism was plainly on display during the campaign and that progressives fooled themselves. In this instance, Obama clearly made a pledge (repeatedly). The pledge is clearly in line with constitutional principles and rights. And he's wussing out. Centrist? No. This is a pathetic display of pandering.
The elections in a lot of places are close for the Dems. The focus of the party seems to be trying to energize enough voters to turn out. Repealing DADT would energize a lot of voters, and since I think most Americans aren't in favor of the policy I don't see a huge push back. But even if it ended up being a gain in one arena and an equal push back in another, then the Dems broke even while doing the right thing. It should be a no-brainer to do it. As for as Obama getting health care passed, and the stimulus, I give him credit for it, but it could have been handled better. Either way he does get huge props for doing that. That doesn't mean that I can't criticize him for this issue. It also doesn't mean that if I do criticize him for this issue that I don't still have a generally favorable opinion of the job he's doing. It just isn't as favorable.
A pertinent article. Enlarged portion would be my argument, along with a giant dose of regarding "troop morale".
if you guys think overturning DADT is going to energize democrat voters in places that need to be energized, you are very naive the places where dems are vunerable are in blue dog districts that swing either way, and sorry gay rights is not an issue that will swing them democratic not saying that should be a consideration, that's a different argument
They are vulnerable there because the base in those states won't come out. They do exist though. Independent voters won't swing for those candidates because of DADT, but in those states they probably wouldn't anyway. All the more reason to energize those that will vote Democrat. The loons in the tea party are a minority in most places, but they are effecting elections because high numbers of that minority turn out to vote, and large numbers of everyone else don't turn out to vote.
True your criticism of any president isn't novel and I think you can find a lot of company with the pro-life crowd in regard to Republican presidents and abortion which I think is actually a more spot on comparison. DADT was a compromise position that I agree doesn't satisfy most people in the same vein Republican Admins have done the same thing in regard to abortion. Passing policies (or attempting) that make small compromises in regard to abortion without taking it on head on. You are free to criticize my analysis as fear mongering but can you show that engaging in the policy that you recommend would lead to any greater change? I can understand your frustration and you are right to voice it but at the same time I don't think you are considering the political realities that Obama is facing. In fact as you admit in your further post you don't care whether it translates into political success or not. This is the position that the Nader supporters took in the 2000 and as Deckard will point out you elections have consequences and you ignore political realities at your peril. Yes he did make that pledge and I will agree he is hypocritical not to honor that pledge. What a shock! A politician that doesn't honor all of his campaign pledges! As I said before I am willing to give him a pass on this for a few reasons. First is that this is an issue that the courts have and most likely will continue to rule in favor of reversing. I believe Obama knows this full well which is why he sees no need to risk political capital on it. If the courts have been ruling the other way I might be more upset about it. Second, as I said before he has already stuck his neck out, and likely will end up sinking the Democrat majorities, over Health Care and the Stimulus. To expect more of him over an issue that is likely to be resolved by other means I think is unrealistic and ideologically driven.
Given that the majority of the energy is on the other side I doubt it will be even. Even if it is a wash you are asking Obama and the Dems to expend more resources defending another issue when they are trying to stop the bleeding as is. Anyway as I have stated this issue is likely going to be resolved by the courts. Of course you can still criticize him. I am not faulting your right, and honestly people like you and Rhad should be holding his feet to the fire, but as this is D & D I am taking the counter position to explain why I am not criticizing him.
Just like Reagan, GH Bush, and GW Bush felt that abortion was morally wrong also. So is abortion illegal yet?
judoka those are great posts, its easy to sit here on a message board and blast Obama for being just another politician but it is totally ignoring the reality. DADT is a fringe issue that obama does not need to give away political capital on. like you say, let it play out, that maybe hard for the gays in the military to deal with, but there is a bigger picture. these issues, healthcare, stimulus, taxes, DADT, wiretapping, etc they are not in vacums.
Or not, apparently. Change, right? On a more serious note - this is not a difficult pledge to uphold at this point. Simply avoid appealing. Obama is afraid to. Risking political capital goes both ways. And I'd argue he has for more to lose from disenchanted liberals than from moderate republicans who probably won't vote for him anyway. The argument is, frankly, myopic and reactionary; a good demonstration of why the democrats routinely look like disjointed and incompetent ninnies. Ideology is, ostensibly, what drove him to make the pledge in the first place.
Except you circa last night in response to my question about whether you think this will change political fortunes. Pardon me for pulling a Tim Russert on you but if you think this is a strategy that you think is right politically why did you say you don't care? Also in regard to the Gibbs quote he was talking specifically about Health care. No its not if taken without any larger context. As Pgabriel noted though these decisions don't take place in a vacuum. Obama is clearly afraid of this of issue and given the political situation he has good reason to be. That very well may be the case and this is a calculated gamble on his part. I think though it is a good gamble given the direction that the courts are going. In a few months DADT could be overturned for good and Obama can say that his pledge was fulfilled, although not the way that people were expecting, while also saying he listened to the concerns of the military and Congressional critics. Even so I doubt he will lose many votes for this. Honestly if it was the presidential election this year and it was close would you not vote for him? Probably true but I am pretty sure there was some political calculation in regard to that.
Obama can choose not to pursue this case (see post above) any further, effectively ending DADT. please cite a similar circumstance wrt abortion and any of the three presidents you mentioned.
It isn't giving away political capital. Judoka thinks it would be for some unknown reason. It would actually be gaining political capital because 78% of Americans favor repealing the law. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...78-percent-favor-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell
What...what? The context was "political fortune of Obama if he used an executive order to stop DADT". Firstly, that's not really germane to the topic at all. Secondly, I was very clear - I don't care how it effects his political fortune - it's the right thing to do. The Gibbs quote conveys the same sentiment, although it's obviously lip-service. No he's not. Read it again. Gibbs specifically says he is unsure if it pertains to health care. (Obviously, there is no reason to assume it applies to DADT either, but the point remains that, publicly, "political fortune" is subservient to "tough decisions" according to the Obama spin machine.) So which one is it? Should he be afraid of the political repercussions or push on because few people care? By "not in the way people were expecting" I assume you mean "he did nothing to actively overturn it and basically excused himself from any sort of consistent position on the matter, pledge be damned." That's bloody obvious.
More to the point (and I repeat myself) Obama's concern should not be catering to those actively against the repeal of DADT - he probably won't get those votes anyhow.
