White House still has no strategy or plan to end DADT

[Bluebear]

via Americablog: Every time Kerry Eleveld asks Robert Gibbs a question, we hear an answer that is disappointing and disillusioning. Today's exchange in the White House press briefing room was no exception. Here's Kerry's report. I posted the full exchange below:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated on Monday President Barack Obama’s “deeply held view” that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy should be overturned, but he stopped short of saying what the White House would do if the legislative effort failed.

Gibbs always stops short of saying what the White House would do, because the White House won't do anything. It's not like this issue hasn't garnered enormous amounts of news coverage over the past couple weeks and months. The White House has no plan or strategy -- still.

Here's the full interaction between Kerry and Gibbs:

The Advocate:It looks like the defense authorization bill and with it “don’t ask don’t tell” repeal is sort of barreling toward a dead end — 69 House members and now 16 Senators have signed on to a letter urging the president to instruct his Justice Department not to appeal a recent decision that ruled “don’t ask, don’t tell” unconstitutional. Is that something that's even being discussed within the walls of the White House right now — not appealing that decision?

Robert Gibbs: I think the Department of Justice, last I heard, was reviewing the case. Obviously, the president has a deeply held view that this is a law that can and should be changed. We worked to make sure that that happened in the House and we regrettably were unsuccessful in the Senate, but it’s not going to stop the president from trying.

Not being aware of all the discussions around here, I know that the Justice Department is weighing a series of arguments as they make those decisions.

Right, but ultimately that power resides with the president. I mean, he can instruct his Justice Department not to appeal.

I’ll be honest with you, Kerry, I don’t have an update on whether that’s something that’s (inaudible)…

Any contingency plans at all? I mean, I’ve listened to you talk about the priorities for lame-duck — you rattled through them on Thursday, Friday, and today and not once has defense authorization been mentioned…

I will say, and I think I’ve said on a couple of occasions that, off the top of my head, I wouldn’t say that this list is completely exhaustive. Let me see if I can get better guidance on that, but understanding again, the president’s deeply held belief that we have to make the change.i

What do our advocacy groups, the ones who flaunt their White House access, actually do? Because the White House talks a lot, but doesn't act on LGBT equality.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/white-house-still-has-no-strategy-or.html

[Sweet Charming Dem]

1. Well, the president has a lot of things on his plate

You can't expect him to take chances on actually doing something to move towards equal rights, especially if it's a move that the vast majority of Americans already support.

Anyway, we have elections coming up. Maybe after the elections.

[napi21]

2. I think they're waiting for the report that's due in Dec. AND

one of the current cases against DODT is destined for the SCOTUS. I know you've all waited a long time and want it done now, but the report is only two months away. Can you wait another two months?

By far the best answer would be an Scotus decision ruling it unconstitutional. THEN with all the Pubs crying griping, growing & all, it would be DONE!

[Bluebear]

3. "Can you wait another two months?" - No. What if we lose Congress?

[Skittles]

5. JUST WAIT FOR YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS PONY, PT

Y'ALL ARE JUST SO FRIGGIN' *IMPATIENT*

[Bluebear]

8. The report is only two months away!! The ones where the families don't want homos!

Watch and see.

[Radical Activist]

9. Doesn't matter. Lame duck session meets in December.

It will be the same Congress. But we've gone over this before.

[Sweet Charming Dem]

16. Telling people to quietly wait for their civil rights doesn't sound very radical or activist-y to me

[Radical Activist]

17. Good thing I didn't do that.

I merely clarified the facts about a statement that might lead people to a false conclusion. Waiting until December will not stop DADT from being repealed, regardless of the election results. It's misleading to claim otherwise. Even radicals can be accurate and truthful.

[dsc]

20. No it won't

We are guarenteed to have a pro repeal vote replaced by an anti repeal vote in WV since both Manchian and Reece are anti repeal. We also are currently behind in both Illinios and Colorado where again, a pro repeal will be replaced by an anti repeal if we lose. All of those are special elections meaning the winner takes office immediately.

[Radical Activist]

22. The Congress that meets in December will be the same Congress we have now.

The lame duck session includes the current Congress, before new members are sworn in. It doesn't matter what happens in IL or CO because the newly elected members of Congress won't be sworn in yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_session_%28United_States%29

[dsc]

23. that isn't true

the elections in WV, CO, IL, NY, and DE are all special elections. It is just like what happened when Brown won he was seated immediately not in January.

[ieoeja]

24. I assume you mean Senate elections.

IL Senate is not a special election.

We are going to retain NY and DE. CO is a toss-up. I believe we're losing WV handily.

It *is* going to be tougher. But the Democrats can -- but don't have to; so why bother finishing this thought? -- leave Republicans with no choice by forcing them to vote for authorizing funding for the armed forces, or not.


On the other side ... lame-duck Republicans have been known to actually vote their conscience instead of voting the party-line once the sword of Damocles has been removed. Even just elected Republicans know that in six years their vote on DADT will be meaningless. So it should actually be easier to get Republican votes for this after the election.

Don't forget, a number of Republicans on the committee that moved this forward voted in favor of moving it forward. Then reversed their vote in the full senate JUST PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.

[dsc]

25. that number would be one

Collins of Maine is the only GOP member of the committee who voted for the DADT provision.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. "full interaction between Kerry and Gibbs" LOL. I guess that means "full interaction" scrubbed of

the ums and uhs.

[EFerrari]

6. John is right, of course. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. John who, sorry? N.T.

[EFerrari]

15. John is the owner of Americablog, the source for the OP. n/t

[Touchdown]

7. Tired of hearing this. Tired of the excuses. Tired of the stonewalling.

Just tired of Washington. The second gayest city in the nation.

[Radical Activist]

10. "understanding again, the president’s deeply held belief that we have to make the change."

I guess that sounds "deeply discouraging" if you really, really want it to be.

[BlueIris]

11. "Obviously, the president has a deeply held view that this is a law that can and should be changed."

Yuh-huh. Reaaal obvious.

[Lorien]

12. the sad thing is that the WH seems to think that only the GLBT community cares

about this issue. They're wrong.

[BlueIris]

19. The Admin will pay for pretending this is an isolated concern.

Among other things, history will not be kind to them on this subject.

[Erose999]

14. Yes, we can (but just because we can doesn't necessarily mean we will).

[MadHound]

18. Trying to look like they're doing something about civil rights,

Without actually doing something about civil rights. That's exactly what this administration is doing.

[VMI Dem]

21. Sure they do. Let others do the heavy lifting, take credit when the work is done.

Duh.

[xchrom]

26. Well yeah- it's a close election year - who needs 'gay' votes? Nt