Nothing new……..just the same old promisesI can’t even bring myself to watch the SOTU address.  Wish that the Pres would develop a backbone and become an effective leader rather than an observer but I’m not sure that being a leader is in the cards for him.  He has wonderful speechwriters but horrible advisors.  Pres. Obama please act like the leader of our country and quit telling us how weak and unable you are to do things on your own! For god’s sake, lead man lead!

Marsas i said in another thread, i’ll never forget bush stating in his last state of the union address that we were going to put a man on mars.  how absurd, especially wallowing as we were in his little wars.  so, if we hear something nice from obama that’ll be delightful but unconvincing, because i’m now quite used to tuning out pablum in state of the union speeches.  proof is in the pudding, and if obama isn’t totally insulated from reality by now, he’ll know we’re holding applause until we see pudding.  just mentioning that you might have an old family recipe you might share isn’t gonna cut it.

The blind men and the [donkey]…

Once again we’re in the infuriating position of grasping at contradictory crumbs of information because the most consistent thing about this Administration in relation to DADT is the virtual vacuum of any real statements of ACTION. Here, it’s curious that the chain of events is being reported slightly but critically differently across media, sometimes even within the same article. While the military issues newspaper owned by Gannett reports Levin said he delayed his hearings “at the request of senior Defense Department officials,” Reuters quotes him directly as saying “the Pentagon” asked him to but then the same article says it was “the Administration” who asked.
I trust that I am not the only one who feels a chill at the idea that “the Administration” = “the Pentagon.”
Even ignoring the Pentagon’s defense of DADT, both in its inception and over the last year, the suggestion that they are the ones telling a Senate committee chairman what to do is very foreboding, and not just in terms of any impediment it is likely to continue to be to an immediate end to DADT.
Couple that, however, with a shocking AP report two weeks ago claiming charter DADT opponent Levin has asked Secty of Defense Gates to “update” the then-ignored 1993 Rand Study that declared unequivocally that out gays need not be a problem [which would require several months and couldn't be based on anything but an attempt to appease the Pentagon as NO ONE, not even that loony banshee Elaine Donnnelly, has ever suggested that nongay servicemembers are MORE hostile to gays in 2010 than they were in 1993] and the likelihood is that IF there is any mention at all in the speech reflecting actual ACTION of any kind versus merely AGAIN reheating pie in the sky promises it would be something like this that the President hopes will buy him more time with the LGBT part of his increasingly fragmented “base.”
However optimistically or cynically with which such a potential announcement of another study deserves to be met [and I could continue to make a case either way], one thing is certain: it would be TOTALLY unacceptable without the conditions that even Pres. Clinton attached to his 1993 six-month delay in lifting the ban while a “Military Working Group” was to come up with an implementation plan:
1. suspension while the study is proceeding of any new investigations to identify gays in uniform and
2. suspension of current cases seeking to discharge gays so long as they based solely on homosexual status rather than on any improper conduct. e.g., Dan Choi.
Even then everyone should hold the rejoicing and Obama statue building for further developments as the result of such actions in 1993 was still DADT and gays put in such a holding pattern were then promptly shit canned.
Bottomline: appointing a committee of foxes to decide what to do about the chickens is as bad an idea now as it ever was.
But after a year-long game of pass the buck in the muck of contradictions and rumors and fake plays [e.g., Gates' phony "search for a way to be more humane"] the most one can do is place their bets for if we’ve learned nothing else in the last year it is not to announce the outcome before kickoff ["Obama to appoint gay to Cabinet"; "Obama to name gay Secretary of the Navy"....]
See y’all back here Thursday morning.

…You know, Pam, I was quite an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama. Or at least, what he presented himself to be on the campaign trail.
And I’d love to say that I expect him to announce that he’s behind the official push to end DADT and discrimination of our community and allies.
But his actions and also his lack of acting on his promises over the first year have turned me sour. (As I am sure they did to many, if not all, in our community and on the left as well. Not to mention all those, who want a more transparent government – whatever party they belong to.)
So, what I really expect is half a sentence, thrown in somewhere in the text to make it as invisible as possible. Potentially, an admonition to the Congress no to run too much ahead of him. That’s what I expect. Well, actually, in the end I just expect him to say a couple of nice words, but not much more. And I don’t really expect him to do much. I mean they’ve been doing stuff behind the scenes already far too long. So long, that we’re in the midterm election year.

HowI wanna hear the How not the What he intends to do.  Outline concrete steps and when they will be taken.  When you say how you intend to accomplish something, a little detail and a few specifics go a long way.

He’s going to say“I am directing my administration to evaluate repealing DADT” and his apologists will all swoon while those of who want action cock our eyes at this oft-repeated phrase.

Not quite“As Commander In Chief, I am directing the military to report their preferred option to modify DADT”.

semantics

Not quite…Repeal is off the table – even as an ambit claim – and it leaves open the possibility of the “modification” being even stricter enforcement.
I think you’re being over-optimistic.

I don’t want another campaign promise in the form of an “announcement.” I want to hear that it’s gone.  

I’ll listen to what he has to sayand then demand he follows up on it.
If he does, wonderful (and about damned time).
If not, I’m gonna push for someone to challenge him for the 2012 nod.

I think I fear the same thing.
For me, unless the President takes some concrete action*, I will remain unimpressed with this “fierce advocate.”
* Such as:
  1.) Challenging congress to deliver a repeal of DADT by a firm date.
  2.) Suspend discharges under DADT until congress gets its act together.

After so many dissapointments it’s impossible for me to behopeful on this. I expect the usual BS. He will mention his dissaproval of DADT but will say nothing concrete in order to have cover when nothing happens.
Then he will tell us during his reelection about how hard he worked on Hate Crimes as the only example of “fierce advocacy( did nothing, it passed Congress under Bush) and how that’s enough to warrant our support and money for a second term. Don’t think so.

From ‘The Hill’Supposedly Carl Levin was asked by the White House to hold back on announcing DADT hearings.

tired of speeches/tired of O.I’m not watching the speech.  I’m fed up with the President and the Dems. I can’t bear to hear any of them and reflect on the broken promises and disappointments.
If there’s real news out of the speech (which I doubt–we’ll likely get pretty words), I’ll catch it later.  I’ll be far happier watching MI-5, Season 7, or the first disc of it anyway.  At least those folks know what they’re doing.
This administration has revealed its utter lack of competence, its utter misunderstanding of reality and history by pushing a spending freeze which will–wow!–save 25 billion a year for ten years while doing untold damage to the economy.  Hasn’t anyone in the WH read histories of FDR and what worked and didn’t work in the 1930s?  
We need jobs programs, and the states need aid: combine the two in a brand-new WPA.  And we need massive cuts in defense spending, specifically closing huge, wasteful bases around the world, but that’s just a start.
At least Rachel Maddow has her head screwed on straight (so to speak).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26…
PS–and for those who are thinking, well Clinton would have done better, I doubt it.  She’d have the same disastrous economic team and she would be just as invested in the national security state

I would like to believe that the WH would not have leaked this if Obama was not  going to do something substantive. But SOTU speeches have historically been long on words and often short on results.
If Obama announced an immediate executive order halting DADT discharges that would be real action. And that’s not going to happen. Won’t bother watching here either.

You will forgive me for not holding my breathTried that a few times with the Obama administration. Each time, I nearly died from self-inflicted asphyxiation.

another pretty speech that does NOTHINGWould be ten times worse than no mention at all. Pelosi has already promised she’s doing NOTHING before 2010 election on gays or Immigration.
All this will do is refresh the BROKEN promises. SERIOUS mistake.

Ah yes….The typical moaning and whining from the usual suspects that expected their issues to take precedent over anything else done in 2009. Face it, LGBT issues are not important enough on the list of issues that needed addressing that it would get touched in the first year.
Some people may not like that reality, but there it is.
That the president plans to say anything at all on an LGBT issue is it self fairly significant. How about this…save the complaining for after the speech.

I appreciate Senator Levin saying that.  He is doing his job.  He has pushed for less secrecy in government, working to declassify many documents, particularly where claims of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda are concerned.

I agree with youon the spending issue. That is actually an issue of national importance, and the President has made a bad call, just has he did for healthcare.

OT: Geek, can you do me a favor?You left a comment on the old Gavin Newsom thread. I left you a one word response, “Explain…”
Can you pull that thread up and explain the rationale of your statement? (For the record, I think I agree with your statement on Newsom with a couple of caveats but I want to make sure that we have similar reasoning.)

I agree with you, tooon the spending freeze and the need for FDR-lite (or heavy, for that matter) type programs. Unemployment in Massachusetts is at a 30 year high, FYI.

I’ll look for it…

Michiganhas lost nearly a million jobs in the past ten years.  A spending freeze will not help us here.

WH BSWe were told to expect something big last time he gave a speech, and the mountain gave birth to a mouse: more pretty words.

Thanks!

It’ll boil down to:“I’m instructing my advisers to instruct the Pentagon to evaluate the possibility of forming a bipartisan commission to explore the viability of perhaps forming a blue-ribbon panel to consider whether to appoint a czar to maybe do something about looking into the possibility of…”  Fooey.

There are two choices1) A pretty speech with no action because Gates and Mikey Mullen are scared of gay people.
2) Gates and Mikey Mullen direct the President to ask Congress for a segregated service because they are scared of gay people. President agrees, Dems hide under their desks and cry, and our first black President presides over the segregation of our military forces. The DNC calls it progress and keeps calling me for money, and I tell them to fellate a Mexican Lime Cactus. Beloved stays closeted and continues living in fear.

And behold! The heavens opened up and the light of the All-Wise shone forth through the clouds of darkness.  
Finally.

“We will begin a study of the impact of DADT”“and discuss solutions in my not-going-to-happen second term….after my jobs program passes in 2013″

I used to cringeevery time I saw George Bush on TV or heard his voice.  I’m at that same point with Obama–after only one lousy year.  No matter what he has to say, there’s bound to be something more interesting on TCM.

Or worse: I am appointing Michelle Bachmann to chair a bipartisan committeealong with my fave gospel singer Donnie

Then he ought not make these half-assed attempts to offer us opiatesand that, in the end, is what we are angry about.
But then, Geek, the most pressing issue in the nation is one that the President has no intention of addressing either: jobs.
His own legislative priority, a healthcare win, has become so desparate that the only thing he hasn’t done yet is write federally funded bonuses for insurance execs into the bill

Yes! Yes! Yes!I find myself at exactly that place you describe. And this latest gimmick of his makes me even more determined to avoid him, insofar as possible.
Paul Krugman, no less, eviscerates the spending freeze idea here as appalling on every level–and worse:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…

Fundamental equality is NOT an important issue?How sad for you and for this country.

“Moaning and whining”?That’s a gross mis-characterization of suitably angry and disgusted responses to an administration that hasn’t kept even minimal promises.

Just as apologists claim that Jim Crow was “a necessary step towards equality”(at least, that seems to be the sentiment among the supporters of separate and inherently unequal civil unions, domestic partnerships and the like), I suppose a case can be made that segregated troops is “a necessary step towards equality” for gay men and women in the military.

National Security wasn’t a 2009 Priority?After all, both Candidate Obama and President Obama stated that DADT was undermining National Security (not to mention its repeal is supported by like 75% of the country), so tackling DADT should have been a no-brainer. Certainly the administration of a “fierce advocate” for equality should not have argued in favor of prejudice in its defenses of DADT and DOMA.
We’ll see what the speech says, but to dismiss the very real damage being done to Obama’s LGBT support by his silence on our equality (i.e., not strongly condemning the anti-gay hate votes in CA and ME, no comments about the hate-filled rhetoric of the local DC anti-gay preachers) is incredibly short-sighted. Obama and his cronies better figure out they need to shore up their base to survive the 2010 mid-terms. Clearly this mention in the SOTU is meant to do that, the only question is, how effective will it be?
As for the “spending freeze,” again we will have to see, but the reporting today sounds much more like a return to the “pay-go” rules of the Clinton administration, which I fully support. Although basic Keynsian economics say “spend, spend, spend” in a recession, more recent work on dynamic macro-economic theory supports Obama’s plans (as I understand them).  

Not optimisticI was just putting out what I think he will say. He’ll throw us a bone and yet not do a damn thing to follow up, just like our “fierce advocate” has done for a year now.

HAHAHA!Yes. I think this one probably wins. Now I just need to decide if I want to watch the blathering of an empty suit.

LMAO

The DNC calls it progress and keeps calling me for money, and I tell them to fellate a Mexican Lime Cactus.

Thanks. With my pain being up to about a 7 on the old pain scale today, I’m looking for any relief I can get and the rest of you blenders are providing comedic relief. Unfortunately, it is over issues that should not be comedy.

If most gay people thought like you we would be in prison or worse. Move to Uganda and  be happy.

Ho-HumYour Press Secretary gave a one word answer, Mr. President. “Yes.”
Anything less than a full repeal of DADT and the complete integration of troops is unacceptable (and really, how can the President even allow his military brass to even talk about a segregated military!)

EasySegregation and “separate but equal” is perfectly acceptable in our family relationships, so why not military service? It’s merely an extension of the segregation in which closeted troops live now. Isn’t that how Gawd intended it, for us to live in fear and hate ourselves? He is in the mix, after all. **vomit**

Ignore us.We don’t need more pretty words.  I’d rather be ignored.
Sick of ‘hope’, ready for ‘change’.

I don’t have data to support any disagreement
….about economic choices Hillary might have made BUT, more importantly, I think she would have been a MUCH better leader because, “in the vernacular of the peasantry,” I believe she has the BALLS Obama doesn’t.
As someone else recently amusingly re-envisioned:
“It’s 3 am.
Obama! Pick up the goddamn phone!!!!”
I don’t believe SHE would have kept silent for months while the Neanderthal dishes ran away with the spoon of healthcare as HE did! [And there are those who make the case that, having been burned herself on it, she would have had the sense not to tackle both the economy AND health care in her first year.]
I don’t think SHE would have waited until it was too late to help save the Massachusetts Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for FORTY-SEVEN YEARS as Obama did!

AND I firmly believe that, except on DOMA, SHE would have been the fierce advocate for the hate crimes bill, ENDA, and getting rid of DADT that HE promised to be but wasn’t…if for no other reason than to atone for her husband’s failings, but also because I believe she more viscerally cares about the issues that O does.
Cue Carole King: “but it’s too late, Baby….”

Apple is going to make a super secret announcement tomorrow…The pundits are all saying that it is the long anticipated slate computer.
POTUS is going to make an announcement about DADT tomorrow in the SOTU.
I feel that I will be pleasantly surprised by one announcement and disappointed once again by the other.

So, if “LGBT issues are not important enough,” could you please explain what you think is?  Other than carpet-bombing Afghani wedding parties and shoveling billions of public dollars to corporations, that is.  Arguing the old “full plate” BS won’t fly anymore; if his plate is full to overflowing at this point, it’s because he’s done damn little to take anything off of it.
LGBT equality is mandated by the Constitution.  (If you’ve never read it, take a gander at the 14th Amendment.)  What, precisely, strikes you as more important than a president–and a constitutional scholar, no less–who cleaves to the constitution?  (Not that we’ve had one in a long time.)
Despite your constant drone, no one here has ever suggested that LGBT issues should take absolute priority over everything else.  But they do matter.  And since Obama has paid scant attention to all the everything elses on his plate, what kind of response do you expect from people?

I’ve read the 1993 RAND reportAnd one conclusion in it was: the military won’t comply if they don’t think the President (Clinton, then) means it.
And he’d better not ask for Congressional hearings before filing a bill to repeal DADT, or call for hearings w/o mentioning repeal legislation. In 1993, that was an invitation for a six-month showboat campaign by the military and Congress to create a major scandal.
It might be helpful if he said something like this, “As long as we’re on the subject of freezes, I now announce that, as Commander-in-Chief, as a matter of wartime necessity, I am directing the military to cease discharges under Don’t Ask till further notice. If this renders the law obsolete, then Congress should discard it.”
In my dreams. If I may channel Andy Rooney, has anybody noticed how Obama has been saying, of late, “I want to be clear.” I want to make one thing perfectly clear may be coming soon enough.

Put not your trust in princes.
– Psalm 146:3

With all deliberate speedI’m sure he’ll make some graceful comment about honoring their sacrifices but we will need to examine this further, or some other form of the Nixon Segue.
I’ll believe he’s serious if (1) Lt. Dan Choi or Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach is sitting in the gallery next to the First Lady and (2) the President points at him/them, tells his/their story and says, “This is wartime. We cannot dispense with their talents. I want this policy repealed.” (Extra points if Choi/Fehrenbach are in full uniform).
Nice picture. Probably for alternate-history buffs.

You’d do it for Randolph Scott!
– Blazing Saddles