Frank Urges White House to Be Clear on DADT

ROBERTPLANK There's a saying: We get the government we deserve." In many places in the world, people do not have the right to do or where they do it is not really a free vote. If we do not want "incompetents," then we should not keep on electing them. The implication from your comment is that you are competent. What is stopping you from running for office?

ROBERTPLANK I wrote my first college paper favoring natiional health insurance in September 1969. That was a couple of months after I participated in the "Three Days of Rage" following Stonewall. I am an activist who has participated continuously in campaigns to achieve equal rights for LGBT for 40 years. But the fact is that a health bill will benefit more people -- numerically and financially -- than equal rights for Gays. If one wishes to place LGBT rights ahead of all other agenda items, one has a right to do so. Just be honest about it.

McCain was against marriage equality in his own state. He has been vociferous in his denunciations of Secretary Gates' (semi) efforts to move forward on a repeal of DADT Don't Pursue (some cretin suggests McCain would have quietly repealed the policy by now, had the country gone insane and elected MCain and that tundra talibangelical he ran with.) If you examine McCain's record on the full array of g/l issues over his Senate career you will see he is anything but pro gay. Perhaps the usual, sad, lying Republican partisans here have confused Sen. McCain with his daughter.

John M. I think you are ill informed and paranoid. 1) The most liberal justice John Paul Stevens was appointed by President Ford a Republican. Justices Seuter and Kennedy who wrote many of the pro-gay landmarks were appointed by President Bush (1) and Reagan. McCain was a moderate who voted against the anti-gay marriage amendment. So pretending like in 2008, the gay community faced the choice between concentration camps or total equality is a bit paranoid and idiotic. What is important is the end result. Ultimately in terms of real rights and progress (not just intentions), the difference between McCain and Obama are marginal at best. However, the difference between them on economic policy are substantial. So when the choice is to vote for a nice guy that achieves nothing except economic disaster( Obama) or a not so nice guy (McCain) that would do nothing for or against the gay community, but at least doesnt raise taxes and hurts the economy, I would lean in favor of McCain.

Good save, Barney. I guess this illustrates the old saying about a gaffe being when a politician inadvertently says the truth.

bama O you are either an idiot or completely misinformed. I agree O'bama's presidency is not a huge success, but McCain/Palin would have been a disaster. McCain is the leading US Senator opposing the repeal of DADT. Get real and wake up. McCain would never have appointed a justice like Stotmayor who will vote for marriage equality, and Mccain would never have appointed a Secretary of State like Hillary who has extended spousal benefits to State Department employees. We would have gone backwards under McCain, not made the incremental progress (albeit to slowly) that we have under O'bama,

I agree with @thats all, we needed someone strong, not charismatic. Sorry for the word choice, but polite words escape me right now. We needed a bitch or asshole in the White House. Someone, who isn't afraid of twisting arms, and making enemies. Washington isn't the place to be Mr. Nice Guy. Obama hasn't stopped campaigning. He hasn't stopped running for president long enough to be the president. I know this is not done, but the Democrats need to have someone run against Obama in 2012. We needed someone who was actually going to get something done. He and his team keep sending me emails about healthcare reform. Screw healthcare reform; I want equality. With marriage equality, a lot of LGBT families will be able to get healthcare insurance through their spouse. There is a step toward your healthcare reform. Sorry about the rambling, but like most of you, I get emotional about these issues.

Hi Robart, Guess what? Obama is incompetent on appoint federal judges. There are hundreds of vacancies and he is a 100 judges behind Bush in the same time in office. Bush worked really hard and efficiently filled up hundreds of positions quickly. We also have to remember that the Democrats had majority in the senate in the first 2 years of Bush. So if you hold hope for the judiciary, obamsa will disappoint you there too. sorry

Do you really think Hillary would have wasted all the time Obama has singing koom-bye-ya? She would have rammed her agenda through with her 60vote senate supermajority and twisted any democrats arm who tried to block it. Hope you all see now how much pretty words do not make up for hard political experience. We dems deserved to lose our supermajority and we deserve the losses we'll take come november.

I did vote for Obama. However, I think his presidency is going to accomplish nothing of consequence. The democrats in Washington probably couldn't agree on what to have for lunch. I don't know if the problem is with the administration or congress. I do know that the combination of the two brings a whole new meaning to incompetence. We're not going to see anything real happen in regards to Healthcare reform, Banking oversight/reform, DADT, ENDA or DOMA. Our best chances for change exist in the courts.