Murphy: DADT repeal coming shortly

[Political Tiger]

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the straight Iraq war veteran helming the House bill to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” has told the Huffington Post he expects the legislation will be on President Obama’s desk “in a short matter of time”:

Murphy has 168 co-sponsors for legislation that would repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, as well as several commitments from party leadership that the bill will come to a vote.

He said that the considerable anger directed at President Obama for failing to address the subject sooner was understandable but ultimately misplaced.

“President Obama has clearly said he wants to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Murphy said. “He has instructed as Commander in Chief his Secretary of Defense and chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff to be prepare to implement the policy but he has respect for the legislative branch, a co-equal branch, and said, ‘Guys, I want a bill on my desk. And when it comes on my desk I’m going to sign it to repeal this.’”

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/08/14/murphy-dadt-repeal-coming-shortly/

[BlooInBloo]

1. Too bad Murphy is anti-gay, in that he doesn't support the President side-stepping...

Congress.

Same standard for both.

[druidity33]

11. huh?

How is that anti-gay?

Presidents shouldn't have to sidestep Congress, btw. Just bc Boosh did it, doesn't mean we should.

:shrug:

[Prism]

12. The poster is mocking LGBT posters

Which is par for the course here at DU, where the gays are the pinata of partisan Democrats. It's very progressive.

No president should illegally sidestep Congress. However, President Obama has several quite legal options he refuses to take for various reasons. (Said reasons change often, depending on day of the week or whether or not a cocktail party is in the offing).

Instead, the President has done the bare minimum while scores of lives are destroyed.

If/when he signs it, it will be the very least he could do.

The very, very, very least he could do.

Fierce advocate, when translated into Democratic politician, apparently means "I'll do nothing, but claim all of the credit if someone else manages it."

And believe me, he and his devotees will claim all of the credit after they spent the majority of the administration so far politically gay bashing the hell out of our community.

[mkultra]

14. he actually mocking people who think using signing statements is legit

a tacit support of Bush's use of these very mechanisms to try and override the authority of the legislative branch. The purpose of a signing statement is to tell congress that a provision they have passed overrides the power of the executive.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

17. Signing statements actually are the issue

two wrongs don't make a right. Separate is never equal. And we have the constitution and the legislative branch for a reason.

[ruggerson]

18. no they're not. You don't have your facts straight.

http://www.palmcenter.org/node/1319

Stop-Loss: The Solution to Obama’s DADT Conundrum

[mkultra]

19. frankly, I just dont know about stop loss

I need to do further reading but it if my memory on this topic serves, this would be an abuse of this authority as it is intended to be used to prevent loss of man power or skill. Since i don't think the military is currently under staffed, i would think that using it to save selective people from discharge might be seen as prejudicial(i understand the irony of this statement). in the end, i do know that congressional action is the appropriate method for resolution. For those families being damaged by the current law, i would say that they knew these rules when they joined and should have always know the risk.


none the less, ill read more and respond later.

[Prism]

22. The military is currently very understaffed.

With two long wars, the military is actually close to breaking. Furthermore, many of the LGBTers discharged were Arabic translators. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue that we can spare Arabic translators given our current military policy and regions of activity.

While the onus is on Congress to ultimately repeal the law (and we are actively lobbying them), the President has many very legal tools to engage on the issue. He has willfully refused to use any of them to temporarily provide LGBT serviceman relief.

He has done nothing on this issue other than occasionally mention it in a speech. Not advocated, not pressured, not pulled strings, not given any orders.

Nothing.

There's really no excuse for this from any Democratic president, but there is especially no excuse from one who claimed he would be a "fierce advocate" for equality. Fierce advocacy does not mean do nothing, pressure no one, or look at us like distasteful one night stand - not to be acknowledged the morning after.

As a Democratic president with a significant gay constituency, signing the bill will be the absolute, bottom-of-the-barrel action he can possibly take on DADT. But we will not forget that he did nothing to get that bill on his desk, that he couldn't have been less interested, that our equality and concerns are about dead last on his list of things to do.

He's been making that quite, quite clear.

[mkultra]

35. stop-loss policy

Ok, i remembered the debate. I think it was essentially that stop-loss, as implemented, does not effect those being subjected to court marshal.

Stop-Loss does not affect soldiers being processed for involuntary administrative separation under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Nor does it affect, in most cases, soldier facing mandatory retirement, those being processed for physical disability or pending separation for the convenience of the government, G1 officials said.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blarstoploss.htm

So the premise was that to use stop-loss for this purpose, the WH would have to rewrite the pentagons implementation of stop-loss and then begin using it selectively instead of on a unit basis. I think this would probably be seen as an abuse of the powers, especially since we are not really in a current state of emergency. Bush's use of stop loss was, by many accounts, an abuse of the power.

[BlooInBloo]

24. No, I'm mocking people who hypocritically rip Obama for applying the same rationale as Murphy...

It's the hypocrisy.

[Prism]

25. There's no hypocrisy

Murphy is doing what he can in his capacity as a congressman to bring action on DADT.

President Obama is doing as little as possible in his capacity as President.

Two different types of behavior will bring two different responses.

Action/inaction.

Is that difficult to understand?

[BlooInBloo]

26. (facepalm)

[Prism]

27. Don't mistake me

I get your point. However, Murphy is given leeway in being politic and gracious - he's doing actual work. So he can cut the President slack and behave as if it is all going swimmingly. As long as he's pushing the bill through, words won't take a back seat to action.

However, when all someone has are words with very little action to back it up, they're going to be taken to task.

You think Murphy not being ripped for giving the same opinion as the President is hypocrisy. I don't believe it is. Mainly because I don't believe the President honestly believes he cannot do anything. I'm sure he knows his executive powers. He simply finds every way possible to avert taking a direct hand in the policy, because he doesn't want any of the responsibility if something should go wrong.

Murphy is not being a political coward. The President is. Therein lies the great difference in attitude towards the two men.

[ruggerson]

28. Murphy is taking an active role in getting the repeal passed

There are conversely many people in the rather large movement to repeal DADT who disagree with Obama (and Murphy) on the reluctance to use stop loss.

These are usually people who want to see the policy repealed and are less concerned with protecting Obama from the political backlash he seems to fear should he be too active a participant.

If and when it is repealed, it will be because groups like Servicemembers Legal Defense Network created an atmosphere on the Hill that allowed Tauscher to introduce the repeal with a sizable amount of cosponsors - and Murphy to take over the lead when she resigned to join the State Department.

Obama says he will sign it, which is great, but he has done very little to actively push for its repeal, other than verbalize opposition to the statute, when he is prodded to do so.

If it is repealed, it will not be because he was the "fierce advocate" for the cause. It will be because 80% of the public supported the repeal and gay activists, despite constant heckling from people such as yourself and counterparts on the right, never stopped pushing for the law to be overturned.

Which is honestly too bad. It would be great to have a President using the bully pulpit energetically and giving resounding support to gay civil rights issues and actively lobbying for that agenda on the Hill.

Maybe he will become that President. He isn't him right now.

[BlooInBloo]

29. Obama doesn't want the President to sidestep Congress' laws due to separation of powers...

Murphy doesn't want the President to sidestep Congress' laws due to separation of powers.

Identical argument in both cases.

Obama says Congress needs to repeal DADT.

Murphy says Congress needs to repeal DADY.

Identical prescription.

But Obama gets ripped for it, Murphy doesn't.

Hypocrisy.

[ruggerson]

30. again you view this issue through the lens of how it affects Obama

I disagree with both Obama and Murphy on stop loss and have said so.

Obama can do something about it, being Commander in Chief. Murphy cannot. Hence the ire is primarily directed at Obama, since he could implement the policy tomorrow. Murphy could not.

Whenever this or any other gay civil rights issue comes up on DU, you find a backhanded way to insult many members of gay community here and their perspective. Whether it was your inappropriate remark about Prop 8 just yesterday or this issue or marriage rights.

Why not just be happy that the bill may be progressing through congress and support the LGBT activists in their tireless efforts to get this thing done?

[BlooInBloo]

31. " I disagree with both Obama and Murphy on stop loss and have said so."...

Then clearly I'm not talking about you.

[ruggerson]

32. clearly

and your agenda has also been clearly understood.

[BlooInBloo]

33. (shrug) The understandability of "my agenda" is clear enough to anyone who's literate.

[ruggerson]

34. agreed

n/t

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

2. Rec'd for

you, PT..thanks!

[Zodiak]

3. Excellent news!

Now for the follow-through.

[mvd]

4. That's great

I'm glad initiative is being taken. K&R

[DeepBlueC]

5. I can understand why he wants a bill

unlike the Boy King who found them a pesky distraction and ignored them even if he did sign them. x(

[hileeopnyn8d]

6. One hundred and sixty-eight co-sponsors!

I think it was less than 150 when he appeared on Rachel's show. I know Murphy is a blue dog and that doesn't win him points at DU, but I love him for this.

He is absolutely the right person to champion this bill, and I do not think he will back down. He's been very steadily releasing info that keeps it from dying, as well as holding party leadership accountable by stating he has their commitment that it will come up for vote.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Rec the man can walk and chew gum at the same time

but it is poor judgment to drive a car while shaving and reading the paper at once.

[TexasObserver]

8. Recommend

[donheld]

9. Bring it on

[SpartanDem]

10. He has a website dedicate to the effort

http://letthemserve.com/

[Political Tiger]

21. Great website! n/t

[Arkana]

13. Well, I do hope a bill gets to Obama's desk, because I believe he'll sign it.

[elizm]

23. Of course he will. nt

[tritsofme]

16. Didn't you get the memo? Blue Dog conservadems like Rep Murphy are worthless!

No better than Republicans.

What's the point in even having a congressional majority if it is filled with do-nothing Blue Dogs like Rep Murphy!

[Number23]

20. Thanks for the excellent news, PT.

Happy to rec. :)