Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama Won’t Sign Executive Order Banning Gay Discrimination by Employers with Federal Contracts [View all]sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)69. You can say that again.
and some with let us say, a history which colors their commentary on these issues.
It's revealing, isn't it? Same thing with DADT and the same people demanding that those who were being asked to put their civil rights on hold then.
Just get out of the way if you can not support equality now.
'New Democrats' believe that Civil Rights for those who do not have them, are asking for 'ponies'. They made it clear around 2004 that 'single issue voters' (that would be Gays, Women and Minorities) were no longer going to influence 'The Party'. I was there, I remember it well. And the supporters of this 'new strategy', 'win at all costs' are alive and well. And I wonder about them, as I did then.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
92 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama Won’t Sign Executive Order Banning Gay Discrimination by Employers with Federal Contracts [View all]
Better Believe It
Apr 2012
OP
I can give you the reason why--It would kill ENDA, and Barney Frank still has a shot
msanthrope
Apr 2012
#6
um...Carney's press release posted in the prior thread on this matter discusses this.
msanthrope
Apr 2012
#15
ANd allowing LBGT persons to be discriminated against is a better choice? n/t
FreeState
Apr 2012
#82
I think that's more of an excuse for inaction, not a valid reason. The ENDA is dead for now.
Better Believe It
Apr 2012
#14
I'm not counting out Barney Frank just yet. When he says he can't get ENDA passed,
msanthrope
Apr 2012
#18
DADT was repealed in December 2010, when Democrats still controlled the House...
markpkessinger
Apr 2012
#43
It's not a signing statement. It's an Executive Order that remains in force beyond his term.
Better Believe It
Apr 2012
#16
Name the pending bills you claim were superseded by EOs? Barney Frank's bill is still
msanthrope
Apr 2012
#20
You propose that President Obama sit on his thumbs and do nothing, waiting on a bill that won't pass
Better Believe It
Apr 2012
#27
I want him to listen to Barney Frank. When Barney Frank says he can't ENDA passed
msanthrope
Apr 2012
#28
From your quote: "legislation that Republicans in Congress refuse to let pass"
SunsetDreams
Apr 2012
#21
I'm more surprised people don't see the parallel of this situation to the DADT situation.
vaberella
Apr 2012
#34
I see the parallel and it is not a good one. DADT could have been passed in January of 2009.
sabrina 1
Apr 2012
#60
Yes, it is. When it's not your civil rights being put on hold, I guess it's not a big deal.
sabrina 1
Apr 2012
#45
He could have done both with DADT. But they held it up in order to use to explain
sabrina 1
Apr 2012
#48
I don't understand the point you are making. If something is okay with the public then why
sabrina 1
Apr 2012
#59
DADT was held up in order to use it to get the Bush Tax Cuts passed. It was a cynical
sabrina 1
Apr 2012
#61
How did it work out, it caused untold numbers of Gays in the military to suffer the loss of
sabrina 1
Apr 2012
#64
Obama supported administrative action against anti-gay discrimination before he was against it.
Better Believe It
Apr 2012
#63
That's not a good excuse because pools show huge public support for workplace protection.
Better Believe It
Apr 2012
#68
It was used as a political football to get the Bush Tax Cuts passed. It was delayed, for almost
sabrina 1
Apr 2012
#80
That's not what he thought in December 2010. Why the change in position? It's an election year!
Better Believe It
Apr 2012
#89
Are you implying that the majority of voters do not support whatever it is you think the
treestar
Apr 2012
#90