Obama will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[SCantiGOP]

I didn't visit here yesterday, so apologies if this has already been posted from yesterday's SF Chronicle

Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team's Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:

"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' "


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/MNTG159HHG.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

[Taverner]

1. In a way, Obama is a political genius

Unite a mass of disparate issues to run on, and then serve each issue, one at a time, so everyone feel satisfied

So much better than "Fuck y'all, I'm from Texas"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Early 2011.

Before the run
After the Honeymoon.
You'll know.

[BOSSHOG]

3. If

spouse abusing alcoholics who can't balance a checkbook can freely serve in our armed services, homosexuals should be able to as well if they choose.

Not comparing gays to the aforementioned just pointing out the absurdity of the policy. The military spends a helluva lot of money and resources dealing with the troublemakers who just so happen to be straight.

[Johonny]

4. I heard he's replacing it with

hay guess who's got a mustache policy

[MADem]

5. How can he end it without ending DOMA? You can't offer one set of military benefits to straights,

and a lesser set of benefits to gays. Well, you CAN, but it's opening up the whole Equal Rights agenda at the federal level.

I don't know if I want this particular Supreme Court making that ruling. There might be a need to "go slow" on the legal battles that will likely ensue.

If he does end this, it will be in the middle of his second term.

IMO.

Unless, by "getting rid of it" he means going back to the OLD policy--no gays allowed.

I don't think he means to do that.

I think Gibbs is transmitting, perhaps inadvertently and simply by inference, an overly optimistic timeline for this agenda. He didn't mention one, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

This topic was discussed a few days ago, in the context of a POLITICO analysis that quoted Gibbs' remarks, and also looked askance a bit.