Where is the anger at CONGRESS?

[CTLawGuy]

In reality, Obama only has the power to sign or veto legislation. Yes he can advocate for certain laws with the bully pulpit, but it is ultimately up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other members to push the repeal of DOMA and DADT through Congress. The time to really be angry at Obama is if he actually vetoes a repeal. Encouraging the president to skirt and flout the law will only do so much. Where is the pressure on the people with the real power?

[Captain Hilts]

1. I agree. nt

[NC_Nurse]

2. Right here. I've been mad at them for a LONG time. They are mostly bought

and paid for and/or cowards. There are a FEW exceptions.

[lordsummerisle]

19. Congress: the best government money can buy n/t

[katandmoon]

3. Nancy'n'Harry are useless. But they're not the ones who campaigned as fierce advocates of gays.

[SeattleGirl]

5. True, but Obama can't make lasting changes all on his own.

Nancy and Harry and the rest of the spinless Dems need to feel OUR boots in their backsides.

[katandmoon]

16. Our boots make not the slightest impression on their backsides.

[SeattleGirl]

17. So, your solution is to just do nothing? Or to put 100% of the onus on

Obama?

That's a cop-out.

You kick someone long enough, and hard enough, and they are going to notice.

And I don't just mean Obama.

Last I knew, most DUers didn't like the Imperial Presidency of Bush; speaking for myself, I wouldn't like it any better if Obama started pulling that crap.

This stuff pisses me off, not because I don't think Obama should be criticized, but because it seems so many people want to blame him, and only him, when things don't get done. We have a whole freakin' Congress, and it's time some of the anger going to Obama got redirected to them.

[katandmoon]

22. I have written to both Pelois and Reid on various issues. They've both essentially told me to

go pound sand.

THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT I THINK. I am not in their district/state and I can't vote for them. Therefore my opinion is meaningless to them. Yes, I have given up on them.

WTF is Obama's LEADERSHIP on this issue? NOWHERE. That's where. No-fucking-where. HIS foot is the foot that needs to be imprinted on Pelosi's and Reid's asses. But he's using them for cover instead. And they're using him for cover.

There is plenty of craven cowardice to go around on both the Hill and the in White House.

[hileeopnyn8d]

54. They aren't the only members

of Congress that can introduce legislation. Your profile says Maryland. How about writing Barb Mikulski or Ben Cardin, they can't tell you you're not their constituent.

Or these Reps:

Frank Kratovil (D)
Dutch Ruppersberger (D)
John Sarbanes (D)
Donna Edwards (D)
Steny Hoyer (D)
Elijah Cummings (D)
Chris Van Hollen (D)

[LooseWilly]

46. Pressure on Obama IS pressure on Pelosi and Reid.

They all being of one party... and Obama being the de facto head of the party... pressure on him is pressure on them. The best explanation of Obama's inaction (giving him the most credit) is that he's afraid of having GLBT issues sink his agenda the way they can be argued to have sank Clinton's agenda... and so he's staying clear of them. On the other hand... if he feels enough pressure on the subject... then he'll need to address it to be sure that he can get on with his agenda... and at that point he'll urge Pelosi and Reid to do something about these issues. I'm confident of Pelosi... Reid & the Senate not so much. But neither is gonna do shit about shinola until they get the go ahead from Obama... and that's why he is the one who needs to feel pressure.

[tavalon]

36. Not for lack of trying.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Exactly.

[SeattleGirl]

18. And what are you going to do about it? Nothing? Or are you going

to take some of the anger and frustration and direct it toward them?

[Luminous Animal]

20. Honey, I've protested in front of Nancy's office

more than I've protested anywhere else for the past 22 years. You do know, don't you, she has little but contempt for her activist constituency. She's a "let them eat cake" kind of gal.

[SeattleGirl]

28. Please don't call me honey.

I get your point, but I could do without the condescension.

[katandmoon]

23. Don't you dare put this on me. Put it where it belongs. On Obama.

[SeattleGirl]

29. Nope, sorry, some of it IS on you and on everyone else who is

yelling that things aren't happening like they should be.

You think you can just sit back in your easy chair and wait for the goodies to come to you?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Never has.

Never will.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. It's a good goddamn question

For Obama to nullify DADT, he would have to employ the same provision that Bush and company used to backdoor draft the reserves and stop loss soldiers into third, fourth, and fifth terms. That's what he's being asked to affirm. On the other hand, a Democratic Congress could easily pass a well-constituted law that would do the same thing without affirming that nonsense. But we'd apparently rather have an executive issuing law through executive fiat and affirming the most abusive executive overreaching of the last ten years than agitate for change at the Congressional level, where it well and truly belongs. DOMA, similarly, is a despicable fucking law passed by Congress, and signed (despicably) by Bill Clinton, who triangulated on that "brilliantly," as usual, getting in his homophobic bona fides for the center right voters just six weeks before his 1996 landslide (we should not forget that Clinton remains a hero to some of the very poster who rail against Obama (!) on DOMA!. No, we hear. The current administration should simply refuse to enforce the laws it considers unconstitutional. Well, now.

[LooseWilly]

47. It's like deja vu.

Obama could suspend enforcement/investigations under 10 USC 654... pending action by the Congress... and if he urged Congress to act, they would act. They were willing and able to address the release of photos ordered under the FOIA lickety split like, weren't they? I don't imagine that was an issue that had been on the "docket" for many years... it was pushed up to the top of the lists because of White House pressure. The same could be done for DADT or DOMA... but the Clinton fuck ups in dealing with the GLBT issues have the Dems politically spooked.

Blaming Congress is a cop out. Obama could face this, and Congress would join him with a word. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. For Obama to override DADT

he would have to use the same power used for the backdoor draft and stop loss to overturn explicit language in the public law. This essentially affirms the stop loss power that was used throughout the Bush regime (and that we all found outrageous, right?), while bestowing on the President the right to openly contravene Congressional authority on any military matter whatsoever, so long as the executive branch can offer up some vague notion of military necessity. If that's the cost of "dealing" with DADT by a sovereign exception, then the cost is far too great. Whether any of this applies to DOMA is another matter altogether, and I'd like to see evidence of that similar to the study that suggests Obama can use the stop loss provision to override DADT.

[LooseWilly]

51. You are being intentionally simplistic.

You are correct, he could use the same Emergency Powers that Bush used to override DADT (10 USC 10234 I think...). I agree that would be an overstepping of his powers. However, he could use the powers to determine the basis of investigations for dismissal under 10 USC 654 to suspend all further investigations. If he were to do so indefinitely it would probably also be a theoretical overstepping of his powers (though completely legal)... however, if he were to do so Explicitly Pending Congressional Action... it would be a lot like a Court Suspending a Law Pending Appeal.
If the Congress had the balls to simply re-pass DADT unchanged... then it would immediately go back into effect under the stipulation above.

This would put the DADT "ball" into Congress' "court"... and would end dismissals until such time as Congress "gets around" to dealing with an "updated" version of (or complete repeal of) DADT.

Under those circumstances... I'll bet you $1000 that Congress would get to it inside of a month. Hell, they were able to make time in their "busy schedules" to add an amendment to make an exception for any military photos of detainees from the FOIA... I'm sure they could squeeze in some DADT "quality time" if Obama gave them some incentive to do so.

In other words... your whole argument is not only out of date... but it is specious as well.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Yes, I read the same report

It's a nice way of saying the executive gets to pick and choose which explicitly stated public laws will be enforced, all under cover of military emergency. There's a great precedent to set, one which could never be taken advantage of. The fact is that no version of a bill suggesting the reversal of the DADT provisions passed by Congress in 1993 are even winding their way through Congress. So on what basis the executive could unilaterally decide that investigations relating to the provision require further determination is a mystery. Of course, it's not a mystery. It is the unitary executive deciding by sovereign privilege, and you know it. That such acts are "legal" is little comfort: a lot of stuff is "legal" in the era of the imperial presidency, like 10 year wars with no explicit declaration of war by the Congress. And that future Presidents (and evil vice presidents) could then point to this example for purposes far more nefarious is also obvious. Why not keep sending stuff back to Congress over and over again, pinpointing first one, then the other, then the other supposed ambiguity? You say "it would be a lot like a Court Suspending a Law Pending Appeal." Well, yes, it would. We have a whole branch of government for that sort of thing, in fact, with procedures and everything.

[bluestateguy]

6. That is a good question

We have a lot of people here who think that Congress will simply say "how high" if the president says "jump". Even Bush did not get everything that he asked for (ANWR drilling, for example). On the other side of the coin, sometimes Congress is the leading actor on a policy issue, and the president follows: welfare reform in 1996 is an example. That was not a bill that Clinton would have preferred, and it was basically part of Newt Gingrich's Contract on America. It was popular, it passed, and Clinton decided to ride along on the caboose and signed it.

None of this is to excuse Obama's abdication on GLBT issues. It has been a disappointment, but the president is not the only cook in the kitchen. If you are having trouble getting Obama to lead on GLBT issues, then turn your attention to Congress, get them to pass DOMA and DADT repeals, send them to Obama's desk, and I'm sure he'll sign them (with a nice bill signing ceremony too).

[QC]

7. Exactly. Nobody here ever speaks ill of Pelosi and Reid.

It's like they're some kind of celebrities or something. Everybody loves them. Weird.

[defendandprotect]

9. Not so -- I think we've all been taking a break on them with so much else happening . . .

lots of animosity here for Pelosi -- Reid and Hoyer!!!

And well deserved . . . !!!

There have been constant calls here for getting them out of office.

[QC]

12. Oh, I agree. Should have used the sarcasm tag.

People have been calling down Jovian fire on Pelosi and Reid since, oh, about a week after we took control of Congress.

I don't know whence cometh this weird idea that nobody ever criticizes Congress.

[defendandprotect]

14. Oh, sorry . . . weird when that happens . .!! Shoulda known . ..

but it has been quite re their ousting lately --- I think there's just so

much crap that it's hard to cover all the bases.

[emilyg]

26. I do. Dislike both.

[QC]

27. Me too! We have no leadership in this party.

Millions of desperate people in the nation and no one with any power willing to stand up for them.

It's a disgrace.

[tavalon]

37. Oops, forgot our sarcasm tag, did we?

[defendandprotect]

8. Yes, so with Reid, Pelosi and Hoyer . . . we're looking to three ....

people immensely disinclined to do anything progressive.

Harry Reid is described as someone from his state as Repug-lite --

I see Pelosi and Hoyer as DLC.

This is like trying to score a homerun using the other team's players!

[hulklogan]

10. I wrote Harry Reid an email that was even ruder than the one I wrote to Pres. Obama

When he tried to pass the buck on DADT the other day. He is, if anything, more responsible for the lack of action than the President or Nancy Pelosi.

[quakerboy]

11. Right here

I perceive that the Senate is where the real hangup is. And they need to be held to account, both in our making contact now, and in our voting later. I started sending emails a while ago. I have moved up to Phone calls of late, because the health care thing is very important to me. When I can get a day off I will be going to visit offices to make my voice politely heard. My representatives are behind the ball on this, and it is unacceptable.

At the same time, the President needs to be out in front, not following. If he was in front leading strongly, voicing the will of the people in an assertive manner, it would be much harder for our senators to hide and wimp out. If the face of the democratic party was saying "single payer now", we would be meeting in the middle at a public option. Instead, our middle ground seems to be "We might be able to get co-ops. Possibly. Or at least the possibility of a co-op".

[4lbs]

13. I would say Harry Reid more than Nancy Pelosi. The Senate is full of chicken Democrats.

The House is full of much further left, and progressive, Democrats, that actually side with President Obama on most every issue. Very few spineless House Democrats.

However, the Senate has about a dozen "Democrats" that are very soft on Progressive issues.

Harry Reid himself is one of these. He's the guy who tried to justify voting against the funding of the closure of Guantanomo with that crap "you gotta release them to transfer them" or some such nonsense.

My state's own Dianne Feinstein is another one.

[davidpdx]

39. And you make a good point about the US Senate

People keep forgetting that there are a group of Bluedog Dems who seem unwilling to cooperate as well as the Democrats being one Senator short (until Franken is seated). It may very well be that there are not enough votes for some of these things to pass.

[jwirr]

21. If we were half as angry as the crowds in Iran we would all be standing

in front of the Capital and they would be rushing to do what we want them to. "Make me." said FDR.

[vaberella]

24. There is none. It's mainly and only directed at Obama.

I've been saying this for ages that Congress is the enemy...so far it's not the president and I for one have serious issues with them.

[donheld]

25. Congress didn't make the promises.

[SeattleGirl]

30. But congress makes the law.

So go gob-smack them around a bit. God knows they deserve it.

[nichomachus]

31. Been mad at them since they took impeachment off the table

I was kind of hoping that Obama, as the leader of the party, would bang some heads together. The GOP doesn't have this problem when they're in power. Turns out that he's as bad as they are.

[SeattleGirl]

32. I think there IS a difference though. When Bush was in office, he

had a congress that would essentially rubber stamp anything he wanted.

Obama doesn't have that.

That is the blessing and the curse of the Democratic party (and right now, it's looking a bit more like a curse).

[jmondine]

33. Where Isn't the anger at Congress?

[SeattleGirl]

34. Not much around here these days. It's all Obama's fault, all the time.

[tavalon]

38. Good point

Thing is, I'm mad at them for different things. And mostly I love Obama, as angry as I am about a few things. I can't really say the same for Congress.

[tavalon]

35. Where isn't it?

Have you seen Congress' approval ratings. Only Cheney has worse ratings? We The People run from furious to disgusted.

[CTLawGuy]

40. it apparently isn't on this board

where the president is solely responsible for failing to undo the twin-headed monster signed off on by "gay rights hero" Bill Clinton.

[tavalon]

42. I'm sorry, I thought you were talking in general, rather than just this issue

I find that Congress is AWOL on most things and Reid and Pelosi are especially heinous about lots of things. I'm so ready to throw the bums out.

[ecstatic]

41. Nowhere in sight. The attacks are personal

Make no mistake. I have yet to see ONE single post putting pressure on Pelosi/Reid or posts that properly place the blame on Bill Clinton.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

44. Good question.

[Vidar]

45. For more than eight years, Congress has proven itself ineffective, duplicitous & cowardly.

The wounds have begun to scab over, as I expect nothing productive from them as a group.Obama, on the other hand, shows real potential to lead & innovate & he's made definite promises upon which he's failed to deliver. Here the wounds are a fresh & my resentment shows.

[LooseWilly]

48. Are you still buying the "blame Congress" line?

You could at least go with "blame Canada !!"... a far more interesting distraction.

Congress would, if Obama pressured them, take up DADT and/or DOMA inside of a week. Did you notice how quickly they addressed the issue of the photo release order under the FOIA? The Senate jumped and had legislation tacked onto something within 2 weeks... and then Pelosi (Gods bless her) chucked that shit right out.

See: White House wants Congress to address an issue... Congress addresses an issue. What does that lead you to conclude?

It leads me to conclude that Obama doesn't want Congress to address DADT or DOMA at this point. He can try to foist blame for inaction onto Congress... which is used to be hated anyway... and meanwhile no muss, no fuss, and no action... because Obama is afraid that tangling with GLBT issues will lead him into the kinds of fights with the right that ground Clinton's presidency to a halt. He's spooked. Those around him are spooked. The Dems are all afraid of the spectres of past Republicans... or something.

Blaming Congress is a shell game. I'm not falling for it. We're not falling for it. The right isn't what it was in '93... so Obama's a weenie to use that old line to justify acting spooked in the face of taking some action on his campaign pledges. We're telling Obama to tell Congress to address DADT and DOMA. He's head of the Democratic party. The separate branches of government don't talk to each other... so leave poor Obama alone argument is a load of crap. And if you argue with that argument, then you are full of crap...

[CTLawGuy]

55. Congress doesn't work for Obama

In American government 101 I learned that Congress passes laws and it is CO-EQUAL with the president who ENFORCES the laws.

[incapsulated]

49. We have been screaming for their heads for 8 fucking years, man

We expect some LEADERSHIP from the DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT to LIGHT A FIRE UNDER THEIR ASSES.

Why is that wrong?

[Phx_Dem]

52. Being angry at Congress doesn't generate as much as attention as

being angry at the President.

And to all the people getting ready to reply with the standard line of "but, but, but . . . he promised!" :cry:

He didn't promise to do anything about DADT, DOMA in the first year, let alone the first six months. So far, he has broken no promises.