This morning, Dan Choi appeared on CNN and said that Obama had lost his trust, and he would not be voting for him in the future. Tonight Wolf Blitzer played Choi’s comments for Valerie Jarrett:
CHOI: Valerie Jarrett said that gay people, some of us should try to understand the politics and the situation, and that we are a “nation of laws.” Well we understand that, we don’t need a lecture from Valerie Jarret on that. Civics, Day 1. American Government. Checks and balances.
When Congress enacts a law that’s unconstitutional, whose job is it to strike it down? The courts. I understand the judicial branch is now the only branch of government that is fulfilling its mandate to the constitution. And that the President is not able to do that, it upsets me. I am resentful. Absolutely.
CNN: But do you understand the administration’s position, that they say they are committed to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but they want to do it through Congress, they don’t want to do it through the courts.
CHOI: No they’re not. I don’t think they’re committed at all.
CNN: You don’t? You think this is just…
CHOI: I think this is just politics. This is a midterm election calculation from the politicians in the White House and the administration.
CNN: So you don’t trust them.
CHOI: I do not. And actually at this point I have a message for Valerie Jarrett and all those politicians in the White House: You have lost my trust. You have lost my trust, and I am not going to vote for Barack Obama after what he did yesterday.
Jarrett responded:
BLITZER: You hear that from a lot of activists in the gay community right now, they’re very very upset.
JARRETT: Well listen Wolf, first off, it’s a pleasure to be here, thank you for inviting me on. This is a very important issue, and I’d like to just address it directly.
The President has said, that during his term in office, as soon as possible, he would like Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It’s legislation that was passed by Congress, he cannot simply sign an executive order to revoke it, or he would have. And so we’re asking Congress to repeal it. Until then, the JD has no choice but to defend the laws that are on the books, and that’s what the JD is doing But we want it to end, and we want it to end as soon as possible.
BLITZER: One legal scholar suggested today that perhaps the President could go ahead and do what he needs to do, but at the same time make it clear to everyone that he thinks this law is unconstitutional.
JARRETT: He ‘s done that, he said it as recently as last week when he was at a town hall meeting. He said he thinks that this law should be absolutely repealed. He doesn’t believe in this law. He agrees that there are gay men and women serving in our military, proudly defending our country, putting their life on the line every single day and that this law has no place in our country. But it is an act of Congress, and Congress should repeal it.
BLITZER: But as you know, after the elections, almost certainly there are going to be more Republicans and conservatives in the new congress than in the current congress.
JARRETT: This shouldn’t be a Republican or a Democratic issue.
BLITZER: It shouldn’t be, but it could be, between liberals and conservatives. So here’s a question: will you push for repealing DADT during the lame duck session?
JARRETT: I know that the President has said that he wants it repealed as quickly as possible. I think if you look at any kind of survey, the vast majority of Americans people want it to be repealed, so it shouldn’t be a partisan issue. And we do fully intend to push forward. And we share the frustration of people who think it should be done right away, we wish that it had been done sooner, but we are determined to get it done.
BLITZER: So if Dan Choi were here, what would you say to him? Because you can see how upset he is.
JARRETT: I appreciate his frustration, I share his frustration, and I understand that for somebody who has served proudly in the military, that he thinks it’s an outrage, we think it’s an outrage too. And we think that the focus should be directed at Congress, because Congress is the one that passed it in the first place, Congress is the one who should repeal it.
Number one, when did Obama say that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unconstitutional? I’m rather sure she’s putting words in his mouth, I’d be happy to be wrong about that.
Further, Judge Virginia Phillips has already ruled Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional. If the President truly does believe Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is unconstitutional, he has all of the justification he needs to let Judge Phillips’ decision stand.
But there is an extremely serious problem with having Valerie Jarrett continue to be the White House spokesperson on this matter. I defended Jarrett earlier this week over her use of the words “lifestyle choice” when addressing the issue of LGTB teen suicide. I said it didn’t make her a bad person, but it did show she was out of touch with the discourse in the LGBT community. And that meant she emphatically should not be in charge of LGBT issues at the White House.
The fact that Jarrett could use a term that is like fingernails on a chalkboard to LGBT people, and still be out there as White House spokesperson on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is symptomatic of something deeply wrong. She should have stepped down, because her continued presence in the media on this issue is like pouring gasoline on the fire. They should have replaced her with someone else immediately. It’s a sign of incredible callousness and insensitivity on the part of the administration that she continues to be their spokesperson on this issue.




161 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Did Jarrett say Obama thinks DADT is unconstitutional? I don’t see that in the transcript.
What I do see is a bunch of dancing around the issue of how and when Obama is going to end this policy.
Jarrett is the right person to be in charge of LGBT issues–only if Obama’s intent is to stonewall the LGBT community at every turn.
Thanks for post. More unmitigated bull sh*t on parade. Can Valerie Jarrett possibly find another pin to dance around on?? What a bunch of crap. Ptoui!
Remember the James Bond movie, Goldfinger?
“Mr. Bond, we have a saying in Chicago. The first time is happenstance. The second time is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”
Is this the second time or the third time for Jarrett?
“They don’t give a fuck about us.”
2Pac had no illusions. The Democrats are still full of them.
Barack Obama is going to be in for a rude awakening on November 2nd after this. Thought keeping the House was going to be hard before? Think again now after the administration just officially threw 30 million Americans under the bus here, with this knife-in-the-back move. An awful lot of races are going to be decided by low single digits — and gay people vote at some of the highest rates in the country out of any demographic group. Seems to me, just a few days before the election, this is a great way to end up on the wrong side of all those dozens of low-single-digit races across the country.
I’ve never missed a midterm election in my entire life; I’m contemplating whether or not November 2nd will be my first.
If the DOJ has “no choice” but to defend laws that are on the books, what is it doing invoking states secrets to prevent FISA felons from being socked with civil penalties – after all, Congress enacted those civil penalties; DOJ has a duty to defend the statutes that provide them instead of attacking the validity of the statute.
Or not.
Obama is just an accumulation of empty rhetoric in a suit.
Shorter Jarrett: Hold your nose and Vote For Stinking Corporate Democrats just this one more time and MAYBE we’ll repeal DADT through Congress. The President is not going to use his Executive Order power to do it EVER!
Barack OBama loves Saddleback Rick Warren, Donnie McClurkin, Mountaintop Removal, Clean Coal, Big Oil, Faith Based Intitiatives, DADT, DOMA, Privatized roads, Privatized education, Privatized Social Security, and Privatized Toll Booths.
Barack Obama – Creator of the Toll Booth Economy.
It’s getting harder and harder for me to write this off as merely (!) callous and insensitive. I’d be happy to be wrong about this, but there’s a definite pattern here . . .
If the right wing shouts, then the Obama administration removes people. See Jones, Van.
If the right wing thinks about shouting, then the Obama administration removes people. See Sherrod, Shirley.
If the gays shout, or progressives, or unions, or any number of other folks on the left shout, then the Obama administration keeps right on going.
Don’t skip it; vote for state and local candidates because they make a real impact on your life. I’ve got multiple friends running for state/local office simultaneously for the first time in my life, I’m going to be there for them.
But the top of the ticket can get bent.
What time of day did this interview take place? If Blitzer couldn’t take the time to get knowledgeable enough on this issue after Jarrett’s morning interview that caused a firestorm on the net to be able to call her out for her lies, then he is worthless as a “journalist”.
How much effort would it have taken for him to find multiple examples of the Obama administration not defending and/or enforcing current laws to toss back at Jarrett when she re-stated her false claim that they MUST defend all laws?
Cogent analysis and agree. Shameful.
Seeing Dan Choi go off on the Obama administration inspired me not to vote for Democrats in 2010. This is just one more reason to have lost trust in this president and in Democrats.
Meanwhile, Valerie Jarrett’s mealy-mouthed bullshit amounted to excusing the Obama administration’s latest betrayal – this time for reviving a discriminatory practice Obama promised to end – because, to Obama, following the political process is more important than standing up for values or constitutionality. She seriously wants us to believe that Obama is as frustrated as gay Americans of this (you know, just like Obama was frustrated about not getting a public option in hcr). Right.
Shirley Sherrod gets fired for something she didn’t say.
Valerie Jarrett for something she did say?
Not so much.
Fierce advocate my ass.
Exactly right. Thank you, Jane.
When you look up “Media Whore” in the dictionary, it shows Wolf Blitzer’s picture.
you ask good questions, but no offense intended, did you really expect Wolf Blitzer to behave like a “real” journalist?? That’ll be the day. Talk about a walking cupcake brain… thy name is Volfie.
Looks like you’ve got a Seminal diary!
Yes, but right next to Blitzer’s photos is the Snowbilly Grifter’s, and she’s fightin’ mad that Blitzer’s is in a more prominent position than hers.
hey don’t forget bart stupak. O loves bart stupak.
Nicely phrased.
Btw, I think Pelosi will be on Countdown at MSNBC after the Oddball segment.
Choi was excellent. He stayed on point, He is right and he “hit it out of the park”.
Ryan, please consider doing this, and spreading the word to like-minded friends and colleagues. Thanks.
When has this administration never shown callousness and insensitivity to any single issue important to the Progressive community?
Obama’s first two years are up…and we might as well as had Bush Jr. in the White House for all the difference it’s made.
Snowbilly Grifter is a totally unprincipled Media Whore. Blitzer is a whore for Israel.
eh – ok. I’m down with that. Agree.
Yeah, well it just happened to be Wolf today. The same comment applies to EVERY “journalist” who has talked to anyone in this administration about this issue all year long.
You mean keeps giving them the finger…
Sadly, the difference that it’s made to have a laughingly called “Democratic” POTUS is that Obama’s had far far less “pushback” from the Democratic caucus than Obama would have IF Obama had run as the for-real NeoCon Republican that he is. Plus too many of the populace, whether D or R, “view” Obama as a “liberal,” which is quite sickening.
So, we’re actually, imo, in worse shape under Obamaco than under Bushco.
I do not see DADT repeal passing the Senate in the next Congress.
If conventional wisdom is correct, the Dems will hold a slim majority at best. That means peeling off nine or ten Rethug votes to break the filibuster we all know is coming. Ain’t gonna happen.
No way in lame duck session either. The Defense report won’t be finished in time for that IMO.
Exactly.
Doesn’t it seem when Obama promises to end DADT sometime during his watch like he’s hoping to save this issue for later use, like he isn’t ready to give up this campaign issue yet? Too bad he doesn’t realize that in the meantime disappointment in him is turning into anger at him. He’s totally failing politically here.
The unfortunate fact it seems of Presidencies is that they do indeed live in a Bubble. This is well known.
What many seem to fail to understand however, is that over time, the oxygen in that Bubble gets depleted, rendering the Bubble inhabitants at first giddy, and then slowly bit by bit more fractious, defensive, paranoid, and then insensate with the end being comatose.
The timeline for such effects is a variable of the size of the Bubble which consists of the number of residents.
The larger the number of Bubble residents, strangely, the longer the oxygen lasts.
The smaller the number of Bubble residents, perversely, the quicker the oxygen depletes.
In the case of the Obama Administration, the number of Bubble residents seems to lead one to predict that long before the end of this Administration’s term, all its Bubble residents will be flatlining.
I’m not sure about Rachel Maddow, but for the most part, I agree with you. But then, that’s why I don’t waste my valuable time watching much of any “nooz” on tv or listening on the radio. Incredible waste, and frankly, having to witness drek like Blitzer blah-blahing about nothing makes my brain cells die faster.
This is absolutely a fucking joke anymore. I mean, we are in Groucho-Marx-as-Rufus-T.-Firely territory with these people. (Except Groucho was TRYING to be an absurdist, insulting huckster!)
I’m just out of words at this point. Heck, I wonder how much Prez Phobe is even bothered by the Uganda situation.
Unsurprisingly, more lies from our “fierce advocate” but very surprisingly, a great question from Blitzer:
I’m proud of you Wolf but you should have pressed her and not let her get away with, “This shouldn’t be a Republican or a Democratic issue.” That’s just bullshit lame.
Obama (and Jarrett) knows exactly what he’s doing. Obama is a constitutional scholar, and much as I loathe him, Obama is smart. He KNOWS. Bear that in mind: Obama KNOWS what he’s doing. Obama is not W, who was a foolish little man. Obama KNOWS, and THIS is his answer to us all. Got it?
Made sure I watched the video before absorbing the zeitgeist round these parts (not that I didn’t have a glimmer about it, after all.)
Anyways, my take is that Choi wins this give-and-take, regardless of any media bias and spin-machinin’. And I mean that he wins with all of those who are cynical about media, and that includes people that normally don’t care about “gay” issues.
It’s a victory for intelligence.
btw i saw a good screen name over on the Joe My God blog – “fierce urgency of whenever”
Obama is a Republican. He will never do anything to repeal DADT. That is why he is kicking the can down the road just like he does with anything that appears to be progressive. Sad but true. We’ve been had and it was by design.
In response to onitgoes @ 35
But what’s his goal here? My best guess is that he thinks he can use this later if he keeps the issue alive, not realizing that his base’s enthusiasm is evaporating and even turning into outright anger.
Is that a rhetorical question? Obama’s BFF, Rick Warren, is very much in favor of the Ugandan legislation to do away with gays in Uganda by any means necessary. I’m sure Obama is all “down” with Uganda.
Yup. Obamco wears the “liberal” label and will take it down with him for years to come. I’m actually “hoping” the repubs bring a real charge against him during their impeachment proceedings – maybe the attempted sale of his old Senate seat to Blagojavitch and Co.?
Jarrett(Bad Hairdo R) is implying that we must keep wishing for sparkle ponies. It is not an R or D issue lies Jarrett.
VaJa might as well be Sarah Palin for the stupid lies she tried to pass off. Even Blitzer (Warmongering Whore from Hell) couldn’t let that bipartisan shit slide.
IF Obama REALLY wanted to repeal it, he would have made sure it was brought up in the Senate while he (supposedly) had 60 votes in the Senate but he didn’t. Now he just wrings his hands and says “I feel your pain” and sends his proxies out to lie about what he’s said. I would agree with Dan Choi except I decided I wasn’t going to vote for him again months ago.
Petro!! Thanks for the Canadian perspective. Glad to hear it.
Namaste!
Blah blah blah. Jarret is full of shit just like Obama. Actions speak louder than words , and that’s coming from a Deaf guy. I’m sitting out this election and I will sit out in 2012 absent a primary challenge. This is not a nation of laws Ms. Jarret but of bigoted empty suits like yourself and Obama. It’s been two years and this ain’t change I can believe in. Btw, I am in university and a lot of my peers feel the same way. Obama lost the younger crowd and the lgbt community. One Love bitches.
What you said. Agree, esp that I decided ages ago never to vote for that NeoCon again. Done.
Even if Jarrett had been relieved of her spokes last week, she was still entitled to respond to the monizing she got on CNN from Mr. Choi earlier. And so she was asked to respond. I wouldn’t call it something “like pouring gasoline on the fire”. Bellows maybe.
I find that I am so shrill! at this point I’ll have to take another deep breath before I comment further.
Oh just let it rip, Kelly…. go for it. You’re entitled.
Petrocelli Petro????
If so, waving.
LS
Obama never said that he agrees with Judge Phillips’s ruling that DADT is unconstitutional. He did say, however, that he is opposed to same-sex marriages after Judge Walker ruled that a law prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. His DoJ appealed both decisions to the 9th Circuit.
Does anyone seriously believe that DoJ is going to admit in either case that the government agrees with the district court’s decision and only appealed the decisions out of a sense of obligation to allow the circuit court to weigh in on the subject?
How can Valerie Jarrett or anyone else credibly claim that Obama is opposed to DADT?
Typical Obama bullshit!
DOJ is obligated to act because of legislation on DADT? And not torture???????? Or massive foreclosure fraud?????? Or anything else that requires “looking forward and not back?”
How about we look forward and not back and bring on equality?
I am so angry I am spitting nails.
And back on topic … just how does Mme Jarrett know how Lt. Choi feels? That is such an abusive, yes, abusive and cheap rhetorical trick to claim to “share” the aggrieved party’s feelings when it’s obvious you do not have any grounds to claim shared life experience and you are in the midst of dismissing those feelings you claim to share.
If we’re going to be treated to a parade of PR crap, AT LEAST send out the professional PR suits. Gibbs was better than this nonsense. Pffft.
that’s ok Kelly…i was shrill and my head exploded during the Bush years. I’m even angrier now.
Nah, I’m just normal Petro in Portland.
Sorry, Isis@50.
Wow. Everybody here is so pissed off!!! I wonder how deep it goes. I wonder how many are pissed off enough to stop validating bad policy by withholding their normally automatic support for incumbent Democrats at the ballot box??
In fairness to the only president we have, he is, as he reminds us, the president for all the people, which includes the homophobes, male chauvinist pigs, and the amateur left that caucused him to the nomination.
Jarrett was on the morning show today before Choi: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/77547
I agree that if it was only a matter of being offered a chance to respond, she did deserve that. But Choi was responding to her comments because the White House still has her out there talking about DADT.
Hahaha. Hi anyway :)
That’s probably what I will be doing, but damned if I can’t say I’m not *tempted* to sit it out.
All I can say is we BETTER get a challenge to Obama in the primary, because at this point there’s no way in hell I’ll vote for him, not even if Sarah Freaking Palin were his opponent (or someone just as bad, but with a much better shot of winning — like Mike Huckabee). I’m telling you… if 2012 comes in, and Obama’s on the ticket without doing a complete 180 on glbt issues, I don’t care WHAT people tell me, I’ll pull the leaver for Donald Duck (or maybe Harvey Milk).
Howard Dean… if you’re out there and reading this… get your ass on the campaign trail!
I’ll vote for my mom’s long dead cocker spaniel before i vote for a dem running for national office mal… and i’m strongly considering that for many state races in Texas as well
well, if she had be relieved last week, then she would not have been on CNN this morning spreading her lies for Choi to go after her. And, as good as Choi was, even his response to her didn’t provide any examples of the instances where Obama’s administration has not enforced and/or defended current laws to provide the actual proof that she is full of crap.
Why doesn’t the White House just come out and admit that they have made a deal with the DOD on DADT just like they made a deal with the hospital associations on the public option. I’d give them a little more credit if they were just honest about it.
I hope Choi has more opportunities to get up in the O administration’s grill. The contrast between the sheer realness of a Dan Choi and these empty, calculating assclowns will (I think) resonate beyond LGBT rights. People everywhere, no matter their supposed ideology, “get” real.
I think Obama thinks he can claim homophobic credentials in his bi-partisan conciliation with the Tea Party while lying to the LGBT community. This by laying the responsibility to DADT and or repeal to the Congress. His hands are tied. A more than usual loathsome political move.
What Ryan said.
Man, when you’re talking to Wolf Blitzer and Wolf is the one in the conversation making more sense, that’s a bad day.
I’ll put myself in the President’s shoes. The Big Gay Book of Saucy Retorts says:
:} Back atcha.
And what Sharkbabe said @62, in spades.
If I were king, I’d have one of those TV news reader people ask Spokey Jarrett to ask her boss why he didn’t write and sponsor a Senate bill to repeal DADT when he was a US Senator if she and her boss keep insisting that he thinks it’s bad law and ought to be repealed by Congress.
sooo… did you sign the pledge?
***Mod Note: Please post your link once only in the comments. ***
These guys have been slingling BS since Day One. “Let’s look forward and not back”, yeah, if I ever rob a bank I’ll try *that* one on the Judge.
This is just the WH version of “shut up you impatient, unreasonable babies.”
To paraphrase Kanye West: “Barack Obama doesn’t care about gay people.”
The righteous anger re DADT in the posts and the comments make me feel a lot of pride in FDL. Standing together for the right thing makes a community strong. We have to keep making the PTB uncomfortable so they will know that we are watching and taking names.
I would ask her why Obama says that he “cannot” issue a stop loss order suspending DADT discharges that he has the authority to issue while waiting for congress to complete their jobs of repealing the law while at the same time Obama has instructed his Homeland Security Department to stop enforcement of an immigration law that requires deportation of non-citizen widows/widowers while waiting for congress to change that law.
Awesome. You can criticize him for his naivete, but he just spit it out.
That’s Rock & Roll.
There were less than 10,000 homos in Act-Up. And it ultimately led to changing tons in this country.
There are now MILLIONS OF ‘MOs politically active in one form or another.
HRC and Dems, much less Republicans, look out!
Please feel free to be shrill Kelly. :)
I’m working it up to be Mod proof. I’ve only had ONE glass of wine since coming home from work, so give me a minute to get a full QUEEN going.
The Queen of Sauce. I LOVE it!
hahahahaha
That’s very funny. :)
I’d rather have a plant instead of the sauce. ;) I get less pissed and more mellow that way.
Let me knock one goddamn thing out the way.
I have seen more than one comment or commenter all concern trolling along the lines of “So, LGBTs wanting to be waging immoral war, how progressive is that?”
Riposte: Yes. It’s all about EQUAL. Equal doesn’t mean better, or more moral it means EQUAL. And equal has a certain amount of ugliness to it. Equally wrong, equally screwed, equally in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time, but EQUAL. There are so many circumstances for young gay folks to go to the military, and that’s awful, but it’s even WORSE to exclude that crappy opportunity. And not every recruit carries a weapon. There’s computers and other skills in those occupations. Why LGBT youth should be screwed more than other youngsters is beyond me.
Next – What.The.Fuck.
The first Black President is not fully behind 100% person/citizenhood for live gay citizens? If ANYBODY should know that DADT is unconstitutional, Barack Hussein Obama should, and should be frikking HAPPY to say so.
Does he think LGBTs are 90% ok, you know, you’re pretty good, but no Marriage, and no Military service for you under the Constitution?
How slightly better than 3/5ths of a person is that?
I’m supposed to accept a 30% gain and call it a day?
FUCK THAT.
” They should have replaced her with someone else immediately. It’s a sign of incredible callousness and insensitivity on the part of the administration that she continues to be their spokesperson on this issue.”
yep.
WooHoo! Got get ‘em Kelly! Let add my full throated support for both of those comments. I’m sick of people saying stupid shit like, “if you’ve ever served in the military, you’re a war criminal”. Apart from the obvious bullshit of that statement, you’re absolutely right. The morality or amorality of being in the service pales besides the obvious amorality of not having that choice, like everybody else does. It’s like saying, “So what if you can’t get married? The divorce rate is over half anyway”. Stupid. Fucking. Distraction.
What flannel-mouthed bullshit from Jarrett.
In the background RM is talking about how much the repugs (read Kochs, CNBC etc) want the corporate tax rate cut. Shit they already ripped us off on the Bush tax cuts and now they want more – -ON TOP OF THE FACT MANY CORPORATIONS PAY ALMOST NOTHING IN US TAXES DUE TO LOOPHOLES. OT, I know but big issue nonetheless. I feel like I am trapped in a weird world where nothing is right.
And as for the mouthpiece-at-hand, Valerie Jarret, I’ve got 3 pieces of advice, and it’s advice-the-third which would be best:
1) Stop Talking.
2) Start Listening.
3) Better yet, just go away now.
Actually everything is right. The problem is that nothing is left.
Does the DLC have a night school, and is Jarrett currently attending classes there? Her comments on DADT sound like the same kind of deceptive parsing that Mr. DLC, Bill Clinton, was infamous for.
Please reread the last part of Blitzer’s question and the first part of Jarrett’s answer (the second question of the transcript). She implies that Obama has made it clear that he thinks DADT is unconstitutional.
Hi!
Gotta run for a bit and do some work emails. Back later. Hope you’ll be around.
I don’t think Kanye West cares either. In much the same way that the 22,000 diamonds in the crown that Queen Elizabeth wore while delivering her austerity message could help a lot of poor people, so could the diamonds in Mr. West’s mouth help out a lot of unfortunate people as well.
I agree but then all you have said is what O will say after the electon” “sorry, we didn’t have the votes but we tried you know …. “
I stand corrected.
Might be Kelly. :)
Progressives are going to have to come to terms with the fact, that the current White House is to the right of Ronald Reagan.
What intelligent white house would continue to let Valerie Jarrett talk about this issue? It makes no political sense right before the mid-terms to have Valerie as the point person for DADT. Unless your intention is to hurt the dems before the election.
The Obama White House tells us daily that they are not in the business of helping real democrats and progressives, before we attack the GOP, we better kick out the ones that have invaded the democratic party.
After the BUSH disaster, a real democratic president, “FDR” with some real democrats in congress “TED KENNEDY” could have destroyed the GOP, and kept the GOP out of power for years!!! But not Obama, the GOP has came back from the dead in 24 months.
Too late. You’re preaching to the choir here. Some Kos and HuffPo users are still deluded though.
Ding.
Maybe Obama thinks that if he doesn’t rock the boat too much, his corporate overlords will let him stay in power.
Not likely.
What a waste.
The Powers That Be want folks fighting between themselves, so the folks are too busy to notice the top 1% has 43% of the world’s wealth.
The Powers that Be want any and all efforts that extends/drags out one sub-group hating another. Having their minions drag they asses on removing a tool of hate like DADT is a prime example. The Powers That Be would keep us at each other’s throats over DADT for a century if they could get away with dragging they asses on it for that century.
Obama now owns DADT, along with the war in Afghanistan, a health care bill that doesn’t reform the system at all, a stimulus bill that fell short, etc.
Those “Powers That Be” are modern day Nobles or MOTU. They love war more than money, so long as they don’t have to fight it, like Cheney, but money is a close second.
Me
So right.
They keep on going and going even harder.
They get off on being vindictive to the Left.
Is Vegas taking bets on how long before Obama and the Dems start gunning for NPR?
Jarrett, like her boss, is a cold-blooded liar. Both she and Obama know for a FACT that the DADT law allows the executive branch to forego enforcement in times of need, and this era certainly qualifies as a time of need where the preparedness of the military is at stake. They also both know for a FACT that, as Jane pointed out, the current ruling has already declared DADT unconstitutional and is therefore rendered null and void — it has already been “repealed.” By actively trying to overrule the court’s decision, Obama is proving he has no intention of keeping his promise. He’s defending DADT.
Wonderful, I also wonder. During HCR I recall Jane saying something about going to Nevada to campaign against Reid. What came of it? I also recall a wonderful opportunity to ask Progressives to walk away from Coakley but when it came time she just couldn’t do it. Obviously, Jane walks a tightrope by calling attention to power, but Power certainly hasn’t held back bashing her!
Obama & Team lie as badly as Bush, Rove & team. Oh yea, there’s lot’s of Progressive outrage but it always seems to fall short of standing up to the scoundrals. I will ALWAYS believe the Dems could have passed REAL HCR, but they obviosly decided there was a bigger win playing with PHARMA. The problem in the face of ALL Democrats is, if we don’t send a REAL & MEANINGFUL MESSAGE to Obama et al why SHOULD they take any of us seriously?
SO, I also “have a message for Valerie Jarrett (& Obama & all Democratic Incumbents seeking reelection this year)… : You have lost my trust. You have lost my trust, and I am not going to vote for Barack Obama after what he did yesterday….” Further, I will NOT vote for ANY Incumbent, either Party, seeking reelection this year! Enough is enough.
Hell, vote for a Green or a write-in. Not voting sends the message that Republicans represent the public’s desires. Of course, so does voting Democrat. Since the Dems are toast anyway, you’re really not going to waste anything by voting Green or write-in or whatever left-wing third party is out there.
Shit you should tune into O’Donnell. I think I heard they want to tax health benefits, raise the SS age and put a dollar tax on gas. I think those ideas came from the Kochs. Is there no end to this? Maybe I didn’t hear it right. Someone tell me I heard it wrong.
Glad to hear it, Teddy. I hope you clicked the link and signed the pledge, and will encourage your like-minded friends and colleagues to do the same.
bailey2739, I hope you’ll visit the link at 55, read and sign the pledge there, and e-mail five friends, encouraging them to join you. We’re eleven days away from a real chance to push the party and the president to the Left by quantifying our disgust with their performance during the last two years. Let’s not squander that opportunity.
Just like Axle Grease, this woman is slick. But that’s why she’s part of “the inner circle”. Gotta make your bones by being a good bullshit artist. It’s a prerequisite. Reminds me of Karen Huge from the Smirking Chimp admin.
Now they are talking about how they can leave the Bush tax cuts in place as a “compromise”. Yeah, right. We knew that, but I guess you have to convince us that it’s the right thing to do, eh?
First Jane, are you saying that having a lifestyle that includes gay activities, actions, etc. is wrong?
Lifestyle–style of life you live. Is there something wrong with living a life with gay style to it? Why does this grate on you like nails on a chalk board?
The choice part; is there something wrong with someone choosing to live a gay life? Or is it only people who are somewhat “forced” to live it because of genes or some other biological factor who allowed to live it guilt free or with permission?
What is inherently wrong with someone choosing to pursue a same sex partner? Are only people who must do it because of biology permitted?
Is there something so wrong with it that the only thing that makes it OK and something for which they shouldn’t be discriminated against is if biology makes them do it?
They need to get a more clear statement of what they believe over at the WH.
She and they (the Obama admin) are absolutely deaf on this. They’re just like Bush in refusing to listen; and like Bush, they make up things and offer homilies and phony reassurance (and LIES) to shut us up. It is becoming as maddening as it was during the Bush junta.
Unfortunately, we have sycophants like Blitzer without the guts or the intelligence, I suppose, to ask her point-blank WHERE Obama has said it’s unconstitutional. He is keeping the same-old same-old going, just as much as Jarrett, Obama, and the other liars are.
Blitzer isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Jeopardy had one of their specialty weeks a while back and the contestants were three news anchors. Wolfie was missing stuff any eighth grader knows. The other two final scores were pretty good. Wolfie’s score remained in the basement for the entire show.
you must be so proud jane to have this group of rational, articulate, reasonable,enlightened folks hanging on your every word.
I hope you are delighted when the tetards take over.
of course, they wont bother you. you are one of them.
good job.
I am so impressed with your followers.
yes, you heard it right. But, you need to listen to it in detail and all of it to understand it. It wasn’t as bad as it could have sounded. For example
The $1 gas tax is over time and doesn’t make it to $1 until 2025 maybe. And, in that same time gas mileage MUST go up. So, the total you pay for gas would not actually increase.
The SS age increase to 70 doesn’t get there until 2050. And, those in hard labor type jobs would get disability payment from age 65 to 70 to make up for it. My problem with this is they didn’t discuss getting rid of the FICA tax cap at all in the discussion.
They kept the Bush tax cuts for ALL, but also closed tax loopholes to make the code more progressive. So, they keep the top rate at 35%, but more income will be taxed by closing the loopholes.
They recommend no spending cuts at all kick in until 2013 in order to not harm the recovery. They also recommend cutting BILLIONS from defense.
He’s lies about everything. Has from the very start.
He obviously has no intention of doing anything about DADT. He’s hanging on till there’s a darn good chance of it failing when he gets his Republican majority.
This is part of Obama’s 11 dimensional chess except he’s playing against his own party.
There’s a little clutch action happening on your pearls, honey.
Bless your heart.
Reading is so, so hard.
Try again, sister!
You have got to be joking?
What you are basically saying that in 2008 all the rational, intelligent, real democrats voted for Obama because they want Obama to do the following
1st Obama endorses the Bush agenda of spying on and killing americans
2nd Obama attacks Unions (the F! the UAW moment screams republican)
3rd Obama double downs on Bush Wars, (now they are Obama wars)
4th Obama attacks Teacher Unions (teacher unions now hate OBAMA)
5th Obama does not attack the Banks? he bails them out? (sorta like what the GOP does)
6th Obama passes the Bob Dole Health Care Bill (Bob Dole is a republican)
7th Obama kills the Public Option
8Th Obama kills Drug Importation
9Th Obama APPOINTS an insurance executive to manage his health care Bill
10th Obama does not APPOINT Dawn Johnsen
11th Obama hand picks the cat food commission to destroy Social Security
12th Obama supports Blanche Lincoln, a candidate who hates Unions, and has no chance of winning
How many times do we suppose to let Obama and his White House of Morons kick us in the TEETH?
I am not scared of no moron that calls themselves a tea party follower?
Why? you can see that they are our enemies, it is the enemy that you can’t see, that is the enemy you have better worry about!
Just Gimme Some Truth
I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
I’ve had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of Tricky Dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope
I’m sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mama’s little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now
I’ve had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of Tricky Dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
It’s money for dope
Money for rope
Ah, I’m sick to death of hearing things
from uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
I’ve had enough of reading things
by neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Maybe, but I would argue that Jarrett’s answer is non-responsive to the question of whether Obama said or should say DADT is unconstitutional.
Certainly Obama didn’t say so at the MTV town hall meeting she referenced.
And Gibbs has deliberately and consistently refused to label DADT unconstitutional.
It takes some serious chutzpah for anyone in this administration to claim their hands are tied by the rule of law.
Oh really, Ms. Jarrett? So does that mean Al-Awlaki is now free to go about his business without having to keep an eye out for assassins and drones? Does that mean criminal fraud perpetrated by Wall Street will be prosecuted by DoJ? How about torturers and the geniuses who started our unnecessary war of aggression in Iraq? And what was it that Holder said the other day about Prop 19? And I’m sure no one in this administration would ever consider spying on Americans’ communications without a warrant from the FISA court…
The people in the WH would neither recognize nor consider themselves bound by a law if it walked up and shook their hand and slapped handcuffs on their wrists.
Jarrett’s appearance is off the charts insulting. Not that I’m surprised by that. For the WH a day without punching a hippie is like a day without sunshine.
I believe those comments are uncalled for .. personal attacks like that make you look like a shit-head .. touche’
I don’t know whether you’re aware of this or not, but before he worked for CNN, Wolf worked as a correspondent for the Jerusalem Post.
Still, not a journalist.
How much clearer can they make it for you?
They are defending DOMA in court.
They are appealing the end of DADT.
They have ignored ENDA.
Get it yet? Homophobes in designer clothing occupy the WH.
Just a few points. Interesting that Jarrett resorts to a common apologist defense–the President is powerless in the face of Congress. You know, Congress makes the laws and the President simply has little tosay. We could only wish Bush was as weak as the office apologists proclaim in Obama’s case.
I have been reading too much of Chris Hedges. Another example of the liberal power elites failing their constituents. Another deliberate and cynical backstab.
I suppose at this time the upcoming problem for the LBGT community and believers in universal rights for all is to stop Obama from actually working with goper majorities in either or both houses of Congress from eroding rights any further. I can easily see the gopers attaching some vicious anti-gay measure to some highly critical, but unrelated bill and Obama signing it, shrugging that sorry he had no choice–Congress made him do it.
Without defending DADT, which I think should be ended, now, the sooner the better, my theory, and it is mine, is that Obama is defending it and making Congress end it because of the fear of backlash to having a court end it. Much like Roe v. Wade, etc.
Conservatives claim that the big problem with Roe is that the courts ended it, and it should have been left to the states. Oh, they would all be in favor of abortion if only the States had addressed the issue, but the nasty activist liberal court intervened improperly.
So Obama is trying to keep the Court from making that mistake again.
Beat me. I don’t know. I’d like to see DADT repealed yesterday.
I haven’t really seen my theory, and it is mine, addressed. I assume it’s because I’m a moron that no one else has considered it. So I’m putting it out there — maybe I’m not a moron.
Then again, Dan Choi’s reaction that this is midterm election pandering also seems reasonable too.
Yep. Just like Nelson/Stupak in the health insurance bill. And for that matter, he pretty much wore out the “blame Congress” excuse during the p.o. fight.
I don’t think Obama has an honest or honorable bone in his body.
Yup. What was shitty after that is the White House without any compelling requirement of the hcr law went out of their way to declare that abortions could not be covered in the high risk pools. Nothing in the law required it from my reading. Amazing. I suppose amazing is not the right word.
LOL, let me know when you find the right word, ’cause I haven’t yet ; )
umm, no he wasn’t
He believes in it, but he didn’t create it. Obama is just a symptom of a larger problem in the Democrat party.
yeah yeah 11th dimensional chess. It couldn’t possibly be that Obama is homophobic or anything, despite all evidence being to the contrary.
“Barack Obama doesn’t care about gay people.”
Not that angry. It’s O that is stalling here. The majority of Dems in Congress have already voted to end this. Parlimentary procedure in the broken Senate is to blame, and Obama. Push the Dems to end the filibuster. Don’t replace them with Satan’s minions.
Blitzer IS worthless as a “journalist.” He’s a dork, just another access-whore.
bingo.
AllBark Obama
Distill it down to 1 word like LOL with the O being Obama’s Pepsi logo.
R’s believe in rapid wild west decline where the money and guns win quick.
D’s beleive in slow decline so they can get a bit more before it all goes to hell.
Arguable if slow or fast is more painful. But in the medium term its no different.
he did do this one pushback question, though the other was the more important.
That guy on Fox pusing hack on where the money is going to come from to pay for tax cuts, and what programs people would slash is half decent of his as well.
Notice the media still only asks about 20% of what needs to be asked – and they only do that when the situation is so dire that it might wake people up if they ask 0% of the questions.
I don’t think Obama has the stomach to actually deal with this issue.
that’s our president-throwing liberal, progressive folk under the bus every chance he gets.
We’re reaching the point where I don’t think anyone has to really wring their hands about voting or not voting for Obama in 2012. Given his current trajectory he simply won’t have the same war chest to counter a GOP challenger.–And let’s face it–money matters more than votes. There are very wealthy democratic donors who are gay and plenty of wealthy donors who stand firmly with them. (There are also plenty of very wealthy donors who champion the environment and Obama’s record there is awful) Those checkbooks are going to be hard to pry open.
Perhaps he thinks it will hit him in the mid-terms (that “the gay” will just for D’s no matter what). And perhaps he knows yet to develop (manjor good/bad) issues with the economy or war will dominate 2012.
Or perhaps as noted above its all about the fierce urgecny of whenever… its good for him.
A president who defends laws he thinks are unconstitutional is betraying his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Defending current statues is properly the job of the DOJ — but if Obama really opposed DADT he could issue an executive stop-loss order today. If the DOJ opposed it, let the courts decide.
You heard right, and it was disgusting.
At least we know he is a pol hack POS now.
They are trying to dress that pig up, but its a waste of time. Do they think people are that stupid? That he will win an audience with that.
I would love to hear KO and Maddow at the water cooler talking about that joke. A bunch of rich old white men deciding how much pain to inflict on everyone. More for them!
They were full of shit.
Just chipping away at things that impact the poor and middle class.
Yea, some old manicured winners figured it all out in a couple days. Even had time to pose for pictures.
Here is another idea… elected officials figure it out. Oh wait, they are going to come up with the same result.
Only good idea I heard was to account for hard labor in SS retirement age – but the “solution” was “slightly” more for disabilirt programs.
I don’t disagree with your theory, but there is the important point that it’s unconstitutional and opresses a minority. Courts are supposed to protect minorities – even when the two political branches do not (of course it so happens that courts are also political because men & women are).
I think its because Obama is part of the Bush-Yoo-Obama doctrine/crowd.
- The POTUS and VPOTUS are above the law
- Now the USAG must be above the law too – and the lawyers who “allow” the POTUS to be above the law
- Next they will establish the mil is above the law
I do think the repeal will happen (not so sure it will be in the next two years). But people in positions of power should fight for it just as their minority of citizens and their allies fight for it… beacuse its right, just, and the law.
the law meaning the Constitution, not the un-constitutional DADT law.
my name is cindy,i’m on my unelected grandma politician computer to respond to LT. Choi.I just finish school and want to serve this country,I AM GAY! and i am really getting sick of choi and the rest talking trash about the President! they think they can threaten him with this no vote and he will jump to their wants. lets get ” REAL” he did’nt put that law in place ,stop acting like children! everything has it’s place and time’ wait! look how long and what the afro american had to go through just to be able to eat, go to the restroom ,vote, sit on the bus where they wanted too! they died, nobodies killing you because they want you to lie about what you are, they wish their plyte could have been this least! here,s the problem you know that the republicans if in power will never do what you want and you are running scared! but lets not be dumd!the President told US” that his hands were locked by ” LAW AND THAT IF HE COULD WAVE A WAND IT WOULD BE OVER” now a don’t vote or no vote for the president is a vote for the republicans who don’t give a hill of beans abouT “YOU” THE SMART THING TO DO VOTE THE REPUBLICANS OUT WITH THEIR SLICK TACTICS TRYING TO USE THE LOG CABIN REPS. TO PRETEND LIKE THE PRESIDENT IS THE CAUSE THINGS ARE STILL LIKE THEY ARE! SEE YOU IN THE SERVICE SOON!
Are you a one-issue voter? What about HCR? That was a once in thirty year opportunity to fix a system extremely biased for the wealthy (& those who work for Gov’t.) Don’t you think it’s important every person in America have access to reasonable Healthcare? Obama doesn’t! Almost 50% of Bankruptcies are due to medical costs, is this right?
This election is THE time to send a message to Obama & Democrats we elected because it’s an extremely low risk proposition. (Obama may be right of center, but he won’t allow dismantling of ss.)
The critique of Lt. Choi for calling Obama’s actions on DADT “politics” is met with the above argument for politics in deciding strategically how to vote rather than on principle. For Choi to assert he will not vote for Obama (and I utterly agree, not just on DADT but several other issues) is not a threat to Obama but to himself when one views it strategically. Choi is speaking from principle, not politics, and the “threat” is to himself if his vote on principle means a Republican is elected president.
Choi’s words should ring across the land as — finally — the truth about Obama’s “thread-the-needle” approach to DADT. It is absolutely politics and bravo to Lt Choi for having the courage to speak so clearly, an especially risky position given Obama is (or recently was and could be again) his commander-in-chief.
Obama doesn’t want a lame duck repeal by Congress he will have to sign or a repeal by Congress he will have to sign anytime before he is re-elected to complicate his re-election. Obama is a coward captured by his fear of the right wing’s ignorant prejudice. He doesn’t stand up to that prejudice, he dances around it and threads needles to let it stand (for example DADT but also war on terror and other right wing fear strategies) rather than move fiercely to eliminate it. Frankly, I think the war on terror and its implication that anyone who would rescind it and its language of “weak on terror” has played a role in Obama’s fear to tear down any major right wing political edifices. DADT is an old policy now but the underlying fear used as a wedge to imply weakness if confronted is current and continuing.
Just as bad is Obama’s deference to the military/Pentagon to decide the issue with a “study” which he has not rejected. Such a study by definition cannot be objective. The military is not a democratic (small d) institution. It is not the place for a policy decision carrying profound implications for constitutionality, not to mention human fairness or even practical smartness to include every race, background and sexual orientation — to value the strength of diversity in the utmost as does almost every other military on earth besides ours — to build the most effective fighting force. By waiting for the Pentagon’s “study” Obama waives his civilian power over the military and forgets (as most people have) that RAND, the Pentagon’s favorite think tank, did an objective and comprehensive study 16 years ago on the question of gays in the military and concluded that Yes, gays can be successfully integrated into the US military and even improved by such a policy.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/index.html
Any reinvention of the wheel since the RAND study is, well, politics and pandering to anti-gay prejudice within the military which exists but in the minority. Again, the military is not a democracy.
Obama would rather pretend to be against DADT and yet not ever make it stop than to put an end to this unconstitutional idiocy (whether he said it was unconstitutional which if he didn’t he should have, having taught constitutional law) or an appeals court judge said it was unconstitutional.
As Jane correctly pointed out, when Congress passes an unconstitutional law the appropriate venue to repair that breach is in the courts, not in Congress where the breach was made, esp when that Congress is likely to be even more conservative next round. Obama has boxed in the issue of DADT in a perfect stasis of inaction, whereas in fact he has the prefect opportunity to let the judge’s decision stand and let DADT die. But he will not do this simple and elegant thing, this perfectly just and correct legal thing, because he doesn’t want to appear to be the one who allowed DADT to die. He doesn’t want to be seen as “weak on gay.” He wants Congress to repeal it so he can say it was the decision of Congress, not his. And he knows repeal stands not a chance in hell in Congress, so he’s safe until long after his re-election. He’s a cowardly needle-threader, “our president.”
Jane said:
I’m sure it was not Jane’s intent but this almost sounds like she wishes Obama would replace Jarrett with a better spokesman who would be more PC in putting out the White House PR without “callous” and “insensitive” mistakes.
As I mentioned in my comment above, Obama on DADT (and many other issues) is a consummate needle-threader and Jarrett is the point of his needle on this subject and she’s failing at her assigned task. I don’t think Jane meant to say we need a sharper point on Obama’s needle to make for a more effective ruse on the public in the pretense that he truly cares about gays in the military. It’s not possible that Jane would suggest Jarrett be replaced by a more proficient needle point for Obama’s needle threading. Surely I am misreading Jane’s view.
Will actions like Jarrett’s faux pas work against Obama’s needle-threading strategy by insulting gays and those who ally themselves with the gay equality enough to get upset and begin to speak out as Lt. Choi did and challenge Obama for engaging in politics rather than policy on DADT? I hope so. Voting for Obama or not because of this (a la Choi’s position) is another question, but the challenge saying Obama cares less about policy and more about the politics of his re-election (and maybe Dem elections in Congress which would benefit him) is utterly healthy and eye-opening.
I say leave Jarrett there — pour the gasoline, light the fire — and let’s hope she makes far greater blunders that make gays and non-gays alike outraged at what Obama is up to, let people see him for what he’s doing in his elaborate triangulation with Congress on DADT (and quadrulation with the Pentagon “study”) as he looks forward to his re-election with hopes of not appearing “weak on gay.” The only hope we have (of Obama’s vaunted “hope” meme) to avoid a third party to try to get our democracy back is for Obama to get the message from the people who elected him president that we will not tolerate his expediency. That means we need a nation nearly full of Choi’s.
Would that Obama had the courage that most gays have, within the military and without, for standing up for themselves against small-mindedness. I bless you and salute you, Lt. Choi.
In my earlier comment, I said:
>>Yes, gays can be successfully integrated into the US military and even improved by such a policy.<<
Meant to say “the military could even be improved by such a policy.”
Oh really? Then he won’t mind dismantling the Catfood Commission which is stacked to the gills with people who are avid to dismantle Social Security. Jane Hamsher has been on top of this from the moment the Catfood Commission was appointed, mostly by Obama. Maybe you missed her columns on the subject. Run an FDL search and educate yourself.
Im sorry, I must have missed something. When a President appoints a commission, the Commission then makes LAW, is that right?