Of course not, it's a matter of timing. And after wasting a year negotiating with the America-hating GOP on health care, they're a year behind.

A smart Commander-in-Chief promulgates an order on Day 20 and doesn't negotiate civil rights with the racist old southerners that constitute the bulk of the GOP.

And guess what? It's not going to happen next year either. You heard it here first.

Totally craptacular.
Why won't this man lead?
I hate to agree with scuzzbag John McCain, but Obama really does just vote "present."

Based on a throwaway quote by Lindsay Graham about immigration, you conclude that the White House doesn't want to repeal DADT? I want some of what you're smoking.

President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to issue a study making DADT repeal palatable to Congress. The Pentagon is expected to remove a bunch of restrictions on gay service this week, per the President's order. Congress is ready to move forward, though finding even 50 votes in the Senate will be tricky.

This president cares about LGBT issues, and is working on them. If we are going to have political victories, rather than victories only in the courts, then his strategy is pretty damn good.

I mean really - Lindsay Graham is your source for the inside scoop on the Administration?

I guess we shouldn't take it personally since everything else on the Dems' agenda is a total clusterfuck failure.

One party is corrupt and insane, while the other is corrupt and incompetent. What to do, what to do...

@ 5,

Unless I'm missing something, the article quotes Barney Frank as stating “That’s because they don’t want it done this year, not because they want it done separately.”

"One party is corrupt and insane, while the other is corrupt and incompetent."

Yep, that about sums it up, Andrew. I'll go for "corrupt and incompetent" every time, because I really don't think there's any actual malice there, but I admit it's nothing to get excited about.

patience
my little lady-man.
patience....

@7: Uh, Barney Fag* is about the last person we should be taking seriously.

For years, Frank's had some serious freak-out over anything that, as @10 hit, relates to transsexuals (or in his case, anything that isn't cissexual and cisgender at the same time). I haven't been able to take the fucker seriously since the first time I heard him go there in '98. I know he represents a district in a state where there are some seriously fucked-up, very scary, and very loud-mouthed trannies and miads, but to pivot on that alone for his policy position, unwavering for at least a dozen years, is just patently unacceptable. To me, he looks no better than a representative who has voiced her or his homo-enmity publicly.

It's because of Barney boy that I think ENDA is stupid as fuck and is tantamount to the skim milk of what the cream of comprehensive human rights legislation could be. Then again, such legislation not germane to where I live now, but the sentiment doesn't exactly go away even when the jurisdiction has.

* sticks and stones — just ask Dan . . .

It will be announced right before Xmas.

After the elections but when most people won't care.

Which, to be frank, is PERFECT timing.

Orders from the Commander-in-Chief should be rare - and followed with speed and a firm salute.

@ 12,

The current version of ENDA, co-sponsored by Barney Frank, covers the transgendered:

H.R. 3017 If signed into law, it would protect equally individuals whose sexual orientation is heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian, or gay, and whose gender identity is cis-gendered or transgendered.

@13 That may prove more tricky than you think.

The selfishness continues, it's just never enough, more and more until the complete list of demands are met. I do hope the President gets to see this and what his compliance to the homosexual lobby has gotten him, "product of incompetence", not only is the lobby a very diminutive electoral group but the President should once and for all understand that he has no friends whatsoever amongst them no matter how much he does for them.

@14: And nothing on/for transsexual people. It falls under neither traditional meaning of sexual orientation nor any realm of transgendered.

Should an aggrieved party, under a passed ENDA written like H.R. 3017, speak under oath in discovery that they are transsexual, not transgendered or lesbian/gay, then all a defendant, represented by an employment law firm, must prove to the court is that a transsexual person is not covered under sexual orientation, under gender, under "gender identity", or under sex — because "change of sex" (the argument defence that a defendant can parry) isn't covered or defined by any of these criteria. And the court will very likely rule in the defendant's favour, as the test for ENDA or Title VII cannot be proved or met.

Don't think for a moment this is merely a hypothetical, as it's already happened in states — and in the last decade — where human rights law far more robust than this version of ENDA was parsed at the high court to specifically exclude transsexual people. The legal precedent already exists.

On ENDA: sorry, no sale.

@LC, If we are the barely registered blip on the radar screen you suggest we are, such a diminutive electoral group, advancing interests you have time and time again declared reviled by the general public and thus doomed to failure, why do you bother to come to this corner of the internet constantly? Are we not already doomed to failure in your eyes?

Do you think you are going to save our souls? All you do is sharpen our teeth for the real battles beyond the internet and reaffirm our sentiments that intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form intolerance.

@11: FUCK! Again, Barack Impostor makes an entrance just as soon as he knows I'm out of booze. That's two extra drinks I need to take next time he rolls around. WHY??????

@9: Well, the Democrats are at least competent here and there, mostly on local scales. Local Republican politicians tend to be just as bad as their state- and federal-level counterparts.

@13 - go to hell.

There are many ways to promulgate the order, and many ways to accept the immediate resignations of any senior officers who do not say "Sir! Yes, Sir!" when given the order.

A firm hand is all you need. The Army wasn't thrilled when it was told women could serve, nor was the Air Force, nor was either thrilled when told Blacks (or was it Brown back then, can't recall) could serve.

You give the order, you ignore the hue and cry from Congress, and it gets done. If necessary, you suspend the Congressional Directive due to "operational necessity during wartime".

Any Commander-in-Chief can do it.

If he has the balls.

Wow. Will in Seattle told himself to go to hell.

Surprises never cease to amaze.

sorry, I meant @15. my bad. LC for the loss.

@22: If you've actually finally come around, thank you. We appreciate that.

OTOH, if someone has managed to hack Loveschild's account, I congratulate you on your success, but I cannot approve of your decision to pursue it.

Barney Frank is a fan of four-letter words.

DOMA, DADT and Cash. They're all the same to him.

Unsurprisingly, Frank is now saying that he was misquoted.

Loveschild, have you ever read A Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass? In it, his master's wife was teaching him to read, and when his master found out, he threw a fit, because (he said), the one thing you never, ever do is teach a slave to read, because the slave won't ever be satisfied again. He'll become "discontented" and will end up wanting more and more-- if you give him an inch, he'll take a mile. And you know what? Frederick Douglass said that his master was EXACTLY RIGHT. Reading was his first taste of something better. Once he learned to read, every single "privilege" he got (to wear decent clothes, to hire himself out to work if he paid his master most of what he earned) just made him want more; made him want freedom, made him want to have everything his masters had, made him want equality.

You are absolutely right about gays and lesbians always wanting more. The cat's already out of the bag; gays and lesbians won't stop 'til they get equality. I, for one, fully support their "uppity" behavior.

Well, I think even if Obama wanted it really bad congress is still a bunch of old white dudes who are mostly in denial of their sexuality. He's probably worried about mid-terms, maybe even just didn't want to do it this early...but that sucks. I mean like, what are you supposed to say? A whole group of our population is going to continue to be second class citizens because a majority of people think that being gay is a choice. The argument is flawed on so many levels, because it's not about if gay is a choice or not, even if it was, so while I understand where his political head is at, I don't think many people voted for Obama because he was willing to leave aspects of our country the exact same, I remember this constant reminder of change, and how little about our policy on gays is going to be changed. Gay people would be better off voting atheist, you can be as religious as you want, but only an atheist would truly give a shit, and bypass all political conditioning. Have no doubt the religious lobby is pounding Obama's behind so much right now, and he's just taking it.

@15: Why is wanting to serve in the military selfish, exactly?

+1 on that. But LC's a troll, so nothing more needs to be said.