O'Reilly to Obama: Stop Enforcing DADT

Comments

1
That's politics... If O'Reilly were the President instead of a cable news guy, DADT would never be repealed.
2
OTOH, it's good to have hard right talking heads on your side about something. It's another sign that we're winning.
3
At this point, Obama has a lot of convincing to do that he's not just the placeholder stooge before the total takeover of the government by the theocratic fascists.
4
Damn. Obama really needs to grow a pair.

5
I am afraid some top brass has told him they will resign en masse if he does. We could use alot less top brass in my opinion.
6
Just issue the executive orders and have the Chiefs salute you.

Those who don't should give you their resignation by morning.

Period.

oh, and in case everyone missed that Dorsol Plants is running for City Council (maybe for "Pay For My Tunnel, Pretties!" Conlin's seat?) - he is.
7
When fucking O'Reilly of Cluster Fox says DADT needs to be put to an end, you really have no excuse for not ending that damn policy! Obama is fucking up...

Lol, he calls Beck "Unique". Even an asshole like O'Reilly knows Glenn Beck is full of shit.
8
Jay Leno. ugh.
9
So when the previous administration used executive signing orders as social engineering it was evil and horrible, but now you want the same method to be used to do something you like?
I'm all for the repeal of DADT and DOMA and plenty of other shit put in place in previous years, but I'd rather see the process of legislation and the separation of the branches of government respected, even if it means it will take more time to get the result we want.
I want a government that works, not just a guy with the same agenda as myself playing with the power of his office to do things I like. Because that way the results are more likely to last more than 4 years.
10
@3 his inability to order the military to end DADT demonstrates that we are presently living in a fascist (crypto-)theocracy.

See Mikey Weinstein's work at the MRFF.
11
Well, DADT is one area where -- because of Obama's tardy action -- our agenda and O'Reilly's actually converge. We are unhappy with Obama; O'Reilly wants us to be unhappy with Obama so that we'll stay home in 2010 and 2012. You won't see O'Reilly repeat the same thing on his show, because no one on the left watches his show -- there's no one to wedge.
12
I suspect O'Reilly wants Obama to do this by fiat because he knows it will help fire up the Republican base just in time for the fall elections. Remember, O'Reilly has no political convictions of his own -- his talking points are produced in think-tanks, vetted through GOP strategists working with the Fox editorial board, then handed down to him. His gift is making it sound like he believes whatever comes out of his mouth, even if it directly contradicts what he fervently "believed" last week.

This does not speak to the rightness or wrongness of administration policy on DADT. Just saying don't bother taking O'Reilly's public statements at face value. There's no percentage in it.
13
Make sure it's a MANLY cupcake Dan. Sign the damn executive order President Obama. And this is probably my one and only high five to Bill O'Reilly. Okay, maybe just a thumbs up, I wouldn't want to actually touch him.
14
2nding BakerB and adding:

i would prefer to see DADT repealed through congress than via an executive order. i want it to be a messy, drawn-out affair where all the failures of this ugly policy are publicly aired and its proponents' bigotry publicly shamed. if that puts me to the right of bill o'reilly (which it doesn't, it just means we would like to see the same ends achieved via different means), i would be okay with that. but it doesn't. executive order = canon fodder for everyone else at fox news except o'reilly.
15
#9, it's great that you respect the "process of legislation" so very much that you're willing to sacrifice the careers of people who aren't you, but the fact is that DADT is an injustice that has destroyed the careers of thousands of innocent people. Personally, I think we should value the correcting of injustices with as much speed as possible over the incompetence and disingenuousness that comes with the "process of legislation."

Having faith in bureaucracy rarely brings about less oppression by the state.
16
#12 FTW
17
@12: Well spoken.

The trouble is this: if the Prez signs the order, it'll be a lot harder to repeal the law formally. The argument will be "oh, it's not even enforced, so why do we need to go to the trouble of taking it off the books?"
And then the next Republican president we have will go all fascist about the still-existing law.
18
@9: Alternately, you could read executive orders as a check on the legislature; after all, if they (and at least nominally we) want them gone, they can get rid of them through that legislative process you're so gung-ho about. I'm sick of the Democrats thinking that taking the high road is the same as complete inaction and inefficacy. Executive orders are a tool; they can be used for good or evil. The fact that Bush was using executive orders to execute his office in the Executive Branch wasn't the issue; the CONTENT of the orders was. Politics is dirty, and our government/legal system is SNAFU at this point; do what you can to make things better. that's not a problematic nor even hypocritical course; it's THE ONLY EFFECTIVE COURSE.

Google "crapsack world" and "lawful stupid" if you need to knock your idealism down a notch before you can swallow pragmatic measures to stop continuing oppression here and now.

@12: You're probably right, but I don't think it matters. The "Republican base" has never left a fired-up state since late 1999: there's a 24-hour propaganda stream assuring that. We need to start treating the FOX drones like the marginalized zombies they are, and they stop mattering so much. Recapture the public discourse, and you can start de- or re-programming them. The messages they're getting from FOX, and therefore their voting patterns, and therefore their reps' voting patterns are not going to change no matter what you do, so you might as well get somethign useful done. We wasted eight fucking months of legislative sessions pandering to a Republican voting bloc that wasn't going to vote for health insurance reform no matter what happened. We could have have universal coverage, or even government hospitals. Instead we got a 10-year extension of Medicare (you know, that government-run insurance program that's so popular), a 7-year extension of child coverage (2 years for dependent children), and a few important protections for insurance customers, at the cost of a guaranteed 100% buy-in to private insurers, with a bunch of tax dollars that were previously going to Medicare and Medicaid now going to private insurance companies. We should have been able to get those things, at minimum, WITHOUT funneling public funds to private companies that provide the service of trying to take your money without ever giving any back, and without mandating individual buy-ins to them (which is, frankly, illegal).

Stop wasting more time because you're concerned about what the Christian-fundamentalist-slave-state assholes think. If Obama's going to be a right-of-center president (and he is, just barely), and the Democratic legislature is going to pass bills the Republicans write (without, amazingly, and Republican votes), we might as well have elected McCain and a Republican legislature; they'd at least be denied their scapegoats. Who knows, maybe the "only enough government to protect private property rights and enforce behavior consistent with warped Christian fundamentalism" mind-control spell would break once unemployment hit 25%.

Then again, maybe not. Look at 1930's Germany: maybe we're better-off with the slower road to fascism that still has a few speed bumps on it.
19
So, is this a defacto military dictatorship?
20
As much as all you sheep might mindlessly hate O'Reilly, he's a solid libertarian on GLBT issues. He supports civil unions for ALL couples, gay & straight. And now he's come out against DADT. Please clean up after your exploding brains.
21
@20 Yeah, and he also thinks we're (gays) are all potential child molesters and has said numerous time "I wouldn't let my children near them." So pardon me if I don't think his half-assed attempts at appeasing/appealing to some more socially liberal segments is worth a "straight ally" cake.
22
As much as all you sheep might mindlessly hate O'Reilly, he's a solid libertarian on GLBT issues.

Not really. "O'Reilly's Ark: Gay marriage could lead…
25
In sum, O'Reilly is no kind of "libertarian" on gay issues. He hates gays, and he hates Obama. @12 has it absolutely right: it's a bad idea for Obama to halt enforcement of DADT by executive order, and that's why O'Reilly is trying to help tempt him to do it.

Full Congressional repeal is the only way to go. An executive order would take the urgency and pressure off of Congress, and make us lose when we are so very close to winning.
26
Why are you shocked that a Democratic President is playing the usual game of "I like the Gay's money but I don't want to piss off the right because maybe someday they might like me and name an airport after me!"
27
OK, my attempts to show all of you losers that the world ISN'T black & white are over. I'm done here. Goodbye.
28
Chris: If you make an assertion without evidence, then decide to take your toys and go home when someone presents evidence against your claim, you won't be missed.
29
Leno's little, "Put his ass on the line...errrr, bad choice of words" comment can be shoved right up his ass. What a tool
30
@27: Wow, butthurt much?
31
My cynical liberal homosexual brain is telling me O'Reilly is only saying this to set a trap for Obama. He wants Obama to do this so that whackos could use it as ammunition.
32
@ 12 - That possible. It's also possible that it's just low-hanging fruit; enough of the country is against DADT that O'Reilly might be using the opportunity to show that he doesn't always toe the Republican line. He's done it before - he once bit a guest's head off for insulting Michelle Obama, he defended Kerry after the flubbed "get [us] stuck in Iraq" joke, etc. He just tends to do so with obvious/relatively uncontroversial topics, to maintain at least some farce of "balance."

Honestly, O'Reilly hosted "Inside Edition" for years. The man knows how to pander to a crowd. I don't think for one second he believes everything he says; he's a showman - he's in it for the $$$. As opposed to most of the Fox News team, whom I really think are "true believers."

@ 27 - Hate to break it to you, hon, but "Screw you guys, I'm going home" isn't actually an argument.
33
To be fair, I think I'd probably refuse to do anything John Aravosis demanded me to do also, just to watch him and his little troop of weirdos have glamor fits on his self-important little blog.

With that said, yes DADT should be repealed and if Obama can really do it, he should.
34
Sorry, but POTUS can't just end a federal law with an executive order. That's not how it works. To miss this point in your story is ridiculous.
35
O'Reilly says a lot of great things, when he's not on Fox News.
36
DADT is nonsense and always has been. However, it would be better for the country for Obama to wait until he has a bill before him. DADT is a Congressionally mandated law and while the President may disregard laws in time of war, I believe that would continue to expand the power of the Presdident and continue the Bush legacy.

That being said, I would appreciate it if he spent more political capital in arguing it be passed. Executive order is not the way.
37
Great, so lets turn DADT into the next Abortion funding ban. When a Democratic POTUS is in office gays can serve openly, when a Republican is in office back in the closet you go! No thanks. I want the Uniform Code of Military Justice updated. That takes an Act of Congress.
38
Gosh, now why would part of the right-wing punditry call on Obama to unilaterally overturn the will of Congress on this?

1) To stir up the anti-gay GOP base.

Big DUH on that one.

2) To a lesser degree, to spare GOP reps and senators from having to openly vote against the will of the people as they pander to the base.
39
@34 -- I don't think DADT is a Federal "law." I believe it's just a "policy" put into place by Slick Willie. OTOH, Federal law is what was being used to discharge GLBT service members for being who they are. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654…
40
Oh fuck you Dan!

Bill motherfucking O'Reilly is just trying to screw Obama more. The dude has a lot on his plate and his administration doesn't move with him. He simply DOES NOT have the same powers as Bush, Bush had a huge, powerful cabinet of like minded assholes that pushed things around.

LETS FUCKING FACE IT, IF OBAMA HASNT DONE IT YET THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT HE CANT.

Keep up the pressure, stop using your teeth.
41
Really? I see this as Obama dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's the way a responsible President should do before signing executive orders en masse and dictating what he believes should/should not be done regardless of what the rest of the country thinks/believes. I see him taking the necessary amount of time to let the military handle this internally and then allowing Congress to repeal DADT. i realize that this issue is one of civil rights and I personally believe it should never, ever have been enacted as it is discriminatory and anti-American in the very least, but to call this President a liar because he won't jump when you say jump and sign an executive order because you want this done now, now, now!!! is just nonsense on your part, Dan.
42
O'Reilly is trying to play a trick. DADT is an executive policy regarding implementation of 10 USC 604(b), which bans gays in the military. If Obama reverses DADT without a repeal of the statute, gays can and will be immediately outed and discharged pursuant to federal law.

O'Reilly isn't "left" of anyone. He is playing on the fact that to the popular mind, "DADT" refers to the entire ban on gays. Most people don't make the technical distinction between the statute and the policy.

It's a trick. Don't fall for it. DADT should remain in place until the statute is amended.
43
O'Reilly is playing a trick, relying on the fact that most people thing that DADT refers to the entire ban on gays in the military. It doesn't. Repealing DADT without repealing or amending 10 USC 604(b) will result in immediate discharge of all gays in the military.

That's what he's after. He's not left of anyone, he's as far right and as dishonest as ever.

10 USC 604(b) is a federal statute that bans gays in the military. DADT is, strictly speaking, an executive statement of policy directing the military on the application of that statute. If the executive policy is ended, then nothing stands between the statutory ban on gays in the military, and immediate expulsion of all gays. Nothing would prevent the military from investigating and outing gays, either.

It's a trick. Don't fall for it. The statute needs to be amended or repealed before the executive policy can be lifted.
44
Hmmm ... don't know why that posted twice. It was a good post, but not THAT good!