2010 Census: Obama likely to lose Presidency in 2012. — Page 3

Why Goth? Why did Democrats (the party that has supported gay rights) support two awful deals like DADT and DOMA? Because of pressure from the right. DADT was a bad compromise, but on paper should have stopped the ouster of gay servicemen. And you can spend hours debating the motivation behind DOMA but it DID stop Republican calls for a constitutional amendment- which would have been sheer hell to try to reverse.

"...while the Democrats look to gays only when it seems to be convenient..."

Are you inferring that the repeal of DADT has been 'convenient'?

And for the record, I have no political party. My social views have become more liberal as I have gotten older, and my fiscal view is that the government should be flexible in response to economic conditions; ie niether doctrinal liberal or conservative.

---

>> Are you inferring that the repeal of DADT has been 'convenient'?

Yes. Straight up.

(BTW, before proceeding, bear in mind that I mean the Liberal Party of Canada, which is akin somewhat to your Democrats, but only somewhat)

The issue was sitting around like a wallflower at a cotillion, and suddenly, quite remarkably, after all the postponements and obstructions... suddenly 67 senators say, "Okay, we'll vote for it!" as bill after bill is rushed through in the final days of this congressional sitting.

I am not saying anything untoward about the people who worked so hard to get this thing up there. Dan Choi should be given a medal for bravery after all he went through. But let's get real on a few things, shall we? Reid and Pelosi tried to attach this to a defence spending bill twice, and the bill went down in defeat — because of that attachment. *Now*, when it's a standalone bill, *now* the heavens open, and the wisdom of its passing descends, casting enlightenment?

Gimme a break.

I'm glad it's passed. I'll be very curious to see how long the Pentagon takes to roll it out, particularly with a GOP-held House that could, if it chose to, reinstate it. And my gut is telling me that there has been a deal of some kind made here between the Dems and the GOP, to pass this so the GOP can get something major in the coming session. We've already heard suggestions that the GOP allowed this to pass if it got its way on START, and I would not be surprised one bit were that true... again, considering START has sat around since February waiting for ratification.

And I'm not the only one who's noticed the rather incredible reversal of fortunes for DADT. Commentators from NPR and CNN today were both saying how they'd not seen something like this in a very long time, and they were all just as mystified as I am. So celebrate the victory, kids, but dont be surprised if it turns out to have a hefty price tag attached somewhere along the way.

---

So, in other words, you're just making stuff up to put a negative spin on this?

"...particularly with a GOP-held House that could, if it chose to, reinstate it..."

That's just patently false.

"And my gut is telling me that there has been a deal of some kind made here between the Dems and the GOP, to pass this so the GOP can get something major in the coming session."

There's not one shred of evidence to support that supposition.

"suddenly 67 senators say, 'Okay, we'll vote for it!' as bill after bill is rushed through in the final days of this congressional sitting."

It's called being on the right side of history. Many wise people (including me) suggested that the vote would NOT be just 60. There are definitely GOP senators who jumped on the bandwagon.

---

>> That's just patently false.

Really.

Last time I checked, a law could be suggested by anyone sitting in Congress. Just because one law is repealed, that doesnt ipso facto mean it might not ever, ever appear ever again. In case you missed the memo, there is already a movement within the GOP to try and reinstate this next year. Granted, not much of a movement, but given that it's there at all certainly suggests someone will try. We're not talking about a constitutional amendment here, just a simple law. And laws can be put back on the shelf just as easily as they can be taken off.

>> There's not one shred of evidence to support that supposition.

Really.

Look at the countless negotiations required to pass the healthcare overhaul — or any major legislation for that matter — and do please try to tell me that negotiation isnt part of the game in DC.

>> It's called being on the right side of history.

... which sounds very noble. But if these folks were so concerned about being on the "right side of history", why wait until it's a standalone bill? Why not look at it when it was part of something else and say, "You know, I should be on the right side of history here and vote for this"? Did something happen in the weeks between now and the last attempt to get this through? Suddenly an obstructionist GOP becomes all concerned about being on the "right side of history" on something it routinely uses as a wedge issue, even as recently as the November election?

Insofar as trying to put a "negative spin", all I'm saying, sir, is keep your damn eyes open and watch what's going on there inside the Beltway. As noted, I'm glad it passed. But I find parts of the passage process baffling. And I suggest you go back to the Broadway board, where the magic and mystery of theatre can never be assailed. Here, we periodically look behind the curtain. Like real theatre, it's rarely pretty.

---

I agree with Sean on this. I said awhile ago that it amazed me how the Defense Authorization going down was being labled a defeat of DADT. In line with Sean's thoughts, my feeling is that the accomodations made will be found there when it passes in the upcoming session - with different parameters in place.

"And I suggest you go back to the Broadway board, where the magic and mystery of theatre can never be assailed. Here, we periodically look behind the curtain."

I'll take that under advisement, with all the gravity it deserves.

---

You make Roscoe look like an optimist.

---

The new chair of the Environment committee thinks we should apologize to BP and that the EPA should be scrapped.

Yes, Pollyanna, weirder things have happened in DC and no doubt will. Be as optimistic as you wish, but do so with eyes wide open so you're not blindsided by what is very, very possible, given how bizarre Washington politics are these days.

---

For the record, am not an optimist, but a pragmatist.

As I sure you know SM, the House has no power to enact any law without the Senate approving it and the President signing it into law. Joe Barton is an ass and a fool. And he can conduct hearings and do a lot of stupid things as a Congressman. He cannot, however, pass a law, and neither can the House of Reps by itself.

If the GOP wants to enrage the Dem Base and guarantee an Obama re-election, they would run on repealing DADT.

It's hardly worth engaging with someone who seems to think that an article on the Huffington Post has the force of law.

And yet you engage Goth?

I think it bears noting that the DADT repeal came on the heels of the capitulation over tax cuts, and that at the same time the Republicans were apparently caving on DADT, the DREAM Act went down. That was a strong sting to a portion of the Dem base, and had a more immediate negative effect on a larger number of people.

MB - totally a fair point and accurate on the independents.

I also think that trying to repeal DADT would motivate the youth vote back to levels of 2008 - something the GOP does not want to do.