Leave Obama, Pelosi And Reid Alone!

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 08:57:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here is an opportunity for some enterprising blogger to write a post defending Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid from criticism (a "they don't have the votes!!!" post will do.) The detested (they agree with the Taliban!) Fred Hiatt page writes:

Frustration with Mr. Obama and the lack of progress in fulfilling his pledges on gay rights were evident at Sunday's National Equality March. But why is he the only target? Overturning "don't ask, don't tell" and DOMA require legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) have been content to sit on the sidelines while Mr. Obama takes the hits. This can't continue. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid must exert the necessary leadership in their respective chambers to pass bills the president has promised to sign. Until then, they deserve as much criticism and blame as Mr. Obama for impeding the long march to equality.

(Emphasis supplied.) No, this won't do. WaPo does not completely absolve Obama of all criticism. To the barricades! LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!!!

Speaking for me only

< HCR: All Eyes On She? | The Votes Are . . .? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Leave Obama, Pelosi And Reid Alone! | 55 comments (55 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

then again (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:05:25 AM EST

some naysayer might point out that Obama could end enforcement of DADT with a stroke of his pen.

neither (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:06:03 AM EST

Harry or Nancy have that option


And we are short troops (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:45:53 AM EST

So then we would have openly gay serving and the military would have a very difficult time ever converting back. I'm good with it. But sadly, as the military has given jobs to women based mostly on their abilities and not their glands....the rest of American culture has not gotten on board. In my opinion it would likely be the same fricken result when done in this fashion. There wouldn't be much of a challenge to the dynamics of civilian culture. But you could be gay, tell everyone, and still die for your country that denies you basic rights :)


today (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:53:36 AM EST

right now this minute we are losing approx 2 per day.

he could stop this any time he wanted.


Man selective enforcement of the law (none / 0) (#24)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:56:20 AM EST

that's really something we want to endorse. I mean seriously, we want the president to instruct the military to only selectively follow congressional mandates- that's something we really want to jump on?


Oh stop acting like it isn't done (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:59:41 AM EST

and hasn't been done before :) When it comes to troops though, America will give the President the powers he wants because they do consider that entirely his domain. And so do the troops. They don't hang a photo of Pelosi or Reid in every single building and office :)


It has been done (none / 0) (#49)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 02:17:12 PM EST

and it would be morally right in this case- It would still make me uneasy to say the least, I mean checks and balances exist for a reason- put it this way I supported the Aerial bombardment the deposed Milosevic, I still think they should have been preceded by a formal declaration of war (seriously, basically every war from Vietnam on has either been backdoored or as in the case of Vietnam declared via misinformation).


: Hasn't Obama already done a signing (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 02:23:56 PM EST

statement? I think I remember him doing that already. I know where you are coming from though and there should be checks and balances on Presidents. The laws surrounding "gayness" are archaic though along with seemingly half of my country. We are at war...sadly two this very minute. It would be Obama's literal duty at this point to take up the pen and disempower the archaic because it is disempowering his troops.

: Stop the checks and balances nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 03:01:48 PM EST

THE CONGRESS granted the PRESIDENT this discretion. Seriously, stop it.

: This is (none / 0) (#55)
by Spamlet on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 04:22:07 PM EST

one time when it really is OK if you're Obama.

Man selective enforcement of the law (none / 0) (#25)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:56:20 AM EST

I think you are certainly distorting (5.00 / 5) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:58:52 AM EST

the argument on this point.

The President, AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF, was granted the DISCRETION, by the Congress, regarding application of the prohibition on gay service people.

People are asking him to exercise the discretion the Congress granted to the President in these matters.

I wonder that you think this is a defense of Obama? Honestly, you make irrelevant the way you describe him.


See, even BTD has seen who (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:00:35 AM EST

gets their photo in every building and office :)


77 some house members (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:13:23 AM EST

wrote him a letter recently urging him to do just that.


: He needs to just do it (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:15:08 AM EST

We are losing two gay soldiers a day? (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:56:36 AM EST

Hmmm. No response. (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:42:47 PM EST

: I know (none / 0) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:58:12 PM EST

I'd already hit post when I realized that surely I could have worded that better.

I read that yesterday (none / 0) (#41)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:12:20 PM EST

I will see if I can find it.

I think it was based on how many they lose each year and not necessarily 2 each day.


At that rate (none / 0) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:54:13 PM EST

someone in leadership is going to complain if they aren't already. It is too much of a loss of trained skilled manpower for no reason.


whatever I was reading (none / 0) (#48)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 02:11:10 PM EST

also talked about the cost. 10s of millions per soldier.


: If they are highly trained and skilled (none / 0) (#50)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 02:17:51 PM EST

say someone who has served ten years and then suddenly boom....you are out cuz you are gay...there is at least that much money lost in training. We lose that and we also lose someone who probably was very proficient, and that isn't an easy thing to come by. Particularly in times like now, when the chips are really down and those who are willing to fight this fight have stepped forward. What a time to lose people over something like this.

Well those who have paid attention (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by lilburro on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:13:50 AM EST

and don't just tune in when it explicitly involves Obama, know this has been a blame game throughout. The problem is neither of the 3 care enough to do anything, so I agree with Hiatt.

Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid must exert the necessary leadership in their respective chambers to pass bills the president has promised to sign.

I found that interesting. This seems to be the Obama governing model - promise to sign something and let Congress take over from there. YMMV but...eh. I'd like to see him push harder, IIRC he pushed hard for his stimulus, harder than he has for healthcare (although hopefully HCR turns out better).

In fairness DADT and DOMA (none / 0) (#14)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:42:58 AM EST

are both structured in such a way (DADT explicitly) that they can't be overturned by the President, and unilateral executive action is the sort of thing we frowned on when Bush did it.


: Long list (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by lilburro on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:07:19 AM EST

of Obama's inactions and "adjustments" to his promises on DADT:

November 29, 2007: "As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military. I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don't Ask, Don't Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office." (Senator Barack Obama to the Human Rights Campaign)

May 8, 2009: "...for more than a month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and most recently national security adviser and former Marine General James Jones have made clear that if repeal is on the agenda, it is pretty far down. In a Washington Post profile, Jones said that when Obama was under pressure recently to review the ban on gays in the military, Jones went to see him and advised him to avoid taking on another issue. He said Obama agreed." ("Obama, activists lose momentum over `don't ask'," San Francisco Chronicle)
He was willing to take on executive responsibility re: this issue when he was campaigning.

Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Addison on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:32:19 AM EST

...sounds like someone needs to change out of their pajamas and read a book about how complicated governing is.

But, but, but.... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by ruffian on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:33:41 AM EST

I live 3000 miles away from Pelosi and Reid and have never voted for them or posted a lawn sign, or supported them in any primary. Heck, I've never even done a utube video for them, though at 51 I'd be the prototypical 'Reid Girl.' And I'm not even gay. Why on earth should they do anything for me? snark

Just got home from DC march (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by kenosharick on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:41:38 AM EST

and Obama came in for some criticism, but certainly not the crazy, nasty stuff like the "teabaggers." It was more like trying to push him to do the right thing in ending DADT and DOMA as well as a push for ENDA, ect. I was terribly impressed by the HUGE numbers of young highly motivated people and straight allies.

Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by koshembos on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:44:33 AM EST

The Democrats in congress are supposed to follow their leader, the president, and not start their own wars. As it is, Reid and Pelosi have their hands full with health care, energy, collapsing states governments and the utmost urgency of bank reform. Obama fails to lead on all fronts. To provide him with another colossal failure in DADT an DOMA is to expose his lackluster leadership even further.

Even Carter the worst Democratic president of the 20th century would have done better on health care reform than Obama's outrageous approach. Don't blame the failure on the privates instead of the chief of staff.

I am curious (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Steve M on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:22:46 AM EST

health care has been at the top of the Democratic agenda since Truman, and Carter had 61 Senators and a veto-proof majority in the House... so why exactly didn't he get it done?


It's a fine line Steve... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:42:14 AM EST

Obama and Congress have to appear to get something done without getting something productive done and angering the money interests...Carter probably figured why play the games when you just can't win.

Obama, otoh, thinks he can play the game same as ever and smooth-talk us into thinking another loss is a win.


Wow (none / 0) (#15)
by Steve M on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:44:30 AM EST

You woke up on the extra-cynical side of the bed this morning!! You must be a Jets fan.


There is a... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:49:17 AM EST

non-cynical side of the bed?...:)

Seriously though...all those Team D prez's, all those Team D congress'...what else could it be?


Simple (none / 0) (#21)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:52:10 AM EST

At least personally my explanation is that we've never (or at least not since a brief period during the depression) been a unified party in the same way the GOP is its like the old Will Rogers' quote about not being a memeber of an organized party.


One man's "disorganized"... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by kdog on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:23:45 AM EST

is another man's "playing both sides of the fence"...at this point you gotta surmise the disorganization is intentional, no?


: No (none / 0) (#51)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 02:19:54 PM EST

the same party had both Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich up until spring of 2006- that's just too large a variance to maintain partisan cohesion.

Don't you get it (none / 0) (#17)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:47:41 AM EST

Obama is singularly responsible for its failure in a way that none of the other Democratic presidents were because um.... he didn't something, something. I'll be honest the DADT tell criticism bugs me even more because while health care is arguably a tactical mistake DADT is not something the President has the power to change- for godsakes I was corrected on here for blaming Clinton for signing off on DADT and DOMA, because after all he was just responding to the legislature, but somehow Obama is supposed to overturn them by I don't know force of will or something.


Is he responsible AT ALL? (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:56:44 AM EST

Or is he the Bystander President?

I for one am not saying the President can do whatever he wants.

I AM saying he does not have to do whatever the Republicans (or Blue Dogs) want, and indeed he is the most powerful person on Earth.

He won a landslide election. He has an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress.

Let's put it this way, if he is as impotent as his supporters want to paint him, then clearly he was not the right person to be President.

I know he is NOT impotent. I credit his power and hold him to account for the ways he uses and chooses not to us it.

This "Leave Barack Alone" stuff is insulting - to Obama.


: yeah (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 11:19:21 AM EST

the bit about "taking the pajamas off and realizing that governing a divided country is hard" made me laugh.
I laugh because when the republicans are in power, if by one freakin vote or the tie breaking of Cheney, they seem to be able to do whatever the hell they want.

Uhhhhm, .... (none / 0) (#39)
by Yman on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:20:51 PM EST

... yes, he can, ......

.......or is that whole "Si, Se Puede" just a campaign slogan?


Dems could at least offer us (none / 0) (#9)
by SOS on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:02:31 AM EST

an illusion of controlled chaos.


Gotta love the fact (none / 0) (#19)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:49:38 AM EST

that actually signing DADT and DOMA is merely a President aquiescing to congress, but being unable to overturn them is a personal failing of the next Democratic President, its almost as if one President is held to a much higher standard than the other.


In fairness (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by CST on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:52:06 AM EST

times do and have changed. Especially with regard to this issue (not so much others - healthcare...). It's not 1992 anymore, it shouldn't be this hard.


I agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:53:24 AM EST

I meant more along the lines that the President can't overturn DADT or DOMA without a piece of legislation to sign- its just not in his power (not in the "powerless president" sense - in the constitutional sense).


: No (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by jbindc on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:03:49 PM EST

It is Obama's position that he needs something from Congress to repeal DADT.
The Palm Center at the University of California, among others, disagree with this position. the President can suspend the separation of gay service members from the military. What's his excuse now?

The President has the authority to issue an executive order halting the operation of "don't ask, don't tell." Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305 ("Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement,
and Separation"), Congress grants the President authority to suspend the separation of
military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a
reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.

: You can repeat this all you want (none / 0) (#36)
by dk on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:01:19 PM EST

but BTD's comment here shows what Obama can do. You can certainly argue that you don't want Obama to do this. I for one wouldn't agree with you, but at least it would be a more honest position.

Actually, ..... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by Yman on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:17:26 PM EST

Clinton didn't just "acquiesce" to Congress's wishes, he pushed for the complete repeal of the ban at a time when the Pentagon, the Congress and the American public opposed it. If you recall, he paid a heavy price in political terms for making the repeal of the ban a priority early in his first term. He did sign DADT, an admittedly flawed compromise, but the term "acquiescing" suggests he was complying passively.

Obama, on the other hand, has several high-level military leaders suggesting a repeal of the ban is appropriate (Shalikashvili, Powell, Cohen Mullen, Prakash, etc.), a need to keep highly-qualified military specialists, a Senatorial super-majority, and strong public support (70-75%+) in favor of total repeal..... yet all he's done is sit back and wait for Congress to give him something to sign, despite the fact that he said (referring to the repeal of DADT) it "should have started long ago. It will start when I take office."

One President is being held to a much higher standard than the other, ......

..... just not the one you're suggesting.


: This was Pres. Clinton's reponse (none / 0) (#42)
by themomcat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:14:16 PM EST

to a heckler at NN09.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/clinton-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/
....

President sets the agenda (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:07:44 AM EST

I'd be the last person in the world to give Reid or Pelosi a pass. I think Reid has been a dismal failure as the Democratic leader in the Senate. He never has shown any backbone to fight for any issue.

The difference now is that the Dem's have the WH and the mythical 60 majority. I've yet to hear Obama tell Congress what he wants. He hasn't pushed Pelosi or Reid into a position where they have to lead. He's allowed them to hide in the shadows with him.

Pelosi has at least had the courage to stand up and say what she wants out of the HCR bill. All Obama or Reid want is a bill. Any bill will do for them. They're content to accept anything and blame the results on the opposition, even if it's from within their own party.

BTD, I think you're having (3.66 / 3) (#3)
by Anne on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 09:13:29 AM EST

entirely too much fun with this theme, lol, but I have to admit that the mental images I get from it are making me smile...

Now that I think about it, it's almost like someone sent out the word that the time has come to restore Obama's place on the top of the pedestal he thinks he belongs on - poll numbers must be trending down, or something.

Finance Committee meeting coming to order - WWOD? (What will Olympia Do?)

Obama might try saying (none / 0) (#11)
by SOS on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 10:08:51 AM EST

"Americas Best Days are Ahead of Us"

See if that works

Pelosi (none / 0) (#45)
by kaleidescope on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:26:03 PM EST

She's probably holding back on pushing repeal of DADT and DOMA because there is so much support for those measures in her district.

this is, like, so original (none / 0) (#54)
by joel dan walls on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 03:20:16 PM EST

In the actual world that we all inhabit, few people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 (yours truly included) are starry-eyed, Koolaid-drinking followers of The One. However, this stereotype has been an unvarying target of BTD (and many others) since early 2008.

: It is most unfortunate (5.00 / 4) (#56)
by Steve M on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 04:30:00 PM EST

that with such a trifling number of Obama supporters who fit the stereotype, several of them just happen to have high-profile blogging assignments. Stroke of bad luck there.

the hacktacular hiatt and (none / 0) (#57)
by pluege on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 04:39:17 PM EST

WaPo rag's idea of fair and balanced: criticize more Democrats.