Rachel Maddow: Change vs. Repeal
Monday night Rachel Maddow called out the White House for replacing the word "repeal" with "changing" DADT on its website last week. The White House has since fixed the snafu (if that's what it was), but we were reminded of recent White House press statements using the same language.
• March 4, from Associated Press:
"The move enables Obama to say he's making good on his campaign promise to reverse the law, but doesn't lock him into doing so anytime soon. The carefully calculated statement, released this week by White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, leaves enough wiggle room to prevent the hot-button issue from consuming Obama's foreign policy agenda, which is dominated by ending the Iraq war and salvaging operations in Afghanistan.‘The president supports changing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' Vietor said in the e-mailed statement. ‘As part of a long-standing pledge,' Obama has begun consulting closely with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen ‘so that this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security,' Vietor said."
• May 4, Des Moines Register:
"White House spokesman Shin Inouye said last week that Obama supports changing the federal law ‘in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security.'"
So: This language has been in use since at least March 3.
There's a stark difference between repealing DADT and making vague references to "changing" the law. This is not change gay service members who have been living under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for 16 years can believe in.
05-06-09 By Paul DeMiglio, Senior Communications Manager |
6 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Mike Gorman in Lodi, Ca on May 09, 2009 at 11.55 am
Well, in that case how to organize a nation wide rally urging our disenchanting new president to follow through on his campaign promises. Anyone send Obama a copy of “Unfriendly Fire”?
Leland Frances on May 06, 2009 at 10.38 pm
Mr. Gorman:
1. The thread topic is not Congress, but the President who promised repeatedly that, if we voted for him over the other primary candidates who supported DADT repeal, HE would use the bully pulpit to convince enough members of Congress to make it happen. Specifically, he promised (emphasis mine):
“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.
America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS LEADERSHIP.”
2. I miss ACT UP-type actions, too. But the first target would, by his own criteria, be the President and not Congress.
Mike Gorman in Lodi, Ca on May 06, 2009 at 10.20 pm
Mr. Frances, “someone should do something soon”...It’s that mentality that’s kept us from moving very fast. Asking others to do for us what we should be doing ourselves. I would suggest you get the angry ex-service members in your area together, and “politely” (which is totally up to your interpretation!) go down to your congress person’s office and raise some hell. It puts it into perspective when they have to deal with the people of their congressional districts. If they already signed the military readiness enhancement act, then go to others in your state who have not. Gawd, I miss seeing ACT UP style protests.
Marc Kapou in Portland, OR on May 06, 2009 at 07.44 pm
I will always have to wonder: What has the community of Homosexuals & Bisexuals done to anyone else to deserve this kind of unconstitutional treatment? As much as they pay their taxes as American citizens they are, what do they have to do to be heard of their severly denied rights?
Leland Frances on May 06, 2009 at 05.05 pm
“Their apparent resistance to anything pro-gay - delaying repeal of DADT indefinitely, freezing with fear on anything to do with civil unions or marriage - is beginning to make the Clintonites in the primaries seem prescient; and those of us in the gay movement who backed Obama seem like fools. Someone needs to get things moving in the right direction. Soon.”
- Former Obama Is The Messiah/Hillary Is the AntiChrist Cheerleader Andrew Sullivan, May 5, 2009.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on May 06, 2009 at 04.13 pm
Folks, the betrayal is complete. President Obama has completely betrayed Gay Americans. Today, in the US Supreme Court, in case no. 08-824, Pietrangelo v. Gates, Obama’s administration filed a brief SUPPORTING Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 100%. Mr. Sarvis and every other fool who carried water for Obama should be ashamed of themselves. And Obama should be the most ashamed. MLK, Jr. is rolling over in his grave.
Contact me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and I will forward the PDF copy of the brief that the US Solicitor General’s office sent to me. Given the limited space here, I will simply quote one sentence of the brief: “Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Brances in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute.” Brief for the Federal Respondents in Opposition at 7-8. Of course, the Court of Appeals upheld the statute over my argument that the statute (DADT) violated Gay people’s due process, equal protection, and free speech rights.