the don't tell show

Biden Admits: Gay Soldiers Still Being Kicked Out As Part of Political ‘Compromise’

Joe Biden, de facto wingman of the Democratic party, which is celebrating a rebranding scheme, says he wants all those homogays kicked out of the military to be able to rejoin the armed services. But why, asks Rachel Maddow, is the Obama administration continuing to kick people out of the military? “Because that is the compromise we had to make to get the votes.”

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #don'taskdon'ttell(dadt) #joebiden #military stories and more


  • jason

    What compromise is Biden talking about? I’ve never heard of a compromise. All that he and his ilk are doing is stalling so as to not have to carry through on Obama’s promise to repeal. This DADT survey will be spun against us, mark my words. Obama will use it as an excuse to go back on his promise.

    The Democrats should be told loud and clear that, if they don’t get rid of DADT by the end of October, they will be punished at the polls. No gay in his/her right mind would want to vote for lying trash.

  • reason

    The compromise was to get the 55 votes needed for repeal. Congress is a coequal branch of government and the individuals there can vote what ever way they choose regardless of what the executive branch thinks. In order to get the votes necessary for repeal requires striking deals, the DADT study was part of that deal. We have seen the results of failing to strike a deal with congress in the Health Care initiative in the 1990’s that fell flat. Well if the Obama administration tried to force things through the same thing would happen and some in this community would be sharpening their pitchforks and claiming that they did this on purpose and they are traitors. No matter what they do there will be dissatisfaction. If the law gets repealed your going to say that they are not responsible for the repeal. The truth is the majority of LBGT people will be ecstatic when DADT is repealed and will support the democrats. The democrats fortunes will not be affected by gay rights, they will be based on the status of the economy.

  • ewe

    The democrats always talk about gay issues pre election. It’s all bullshit. The bus is parked and waiting for them to throw us under it again. Support third party candidates and boot all democants and repuglycunts out.

  • CJ

    Just 4.5 months ago Obama was dead-set against repealing DADT through legislation until his study was completed. Now, Biden is coming out and saying that he (Biden) wants DADT repealed through this defense bill. Are he and Obama on the same page OR did Obama change his mind on supporting DADT repeal before his study is complete? A few months ago Obama was adamant about finishing the study first. Maybe I missed Obama’s shift on this.

    Either way, DADT is yet another area where Obama is following vs. leading.

  • Michael @


    “The compromise was to get the 55 votes needed for repeal.”????

    Another one of your dumps of distortions and outright lies touch-typed while your head remains deep in Obama’s ass.

    HERE are the DOCUMENTED facts for those who didn’t get brain cancer from drinking all the Kool-Aid:

    First, I really like Rachel, but while she gets an “A” in passion, at best, she gets a “B” in journalism. Like The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld she keeps getting inappropriately rated higher by so many simply because she’s only competing with herself.

    As for Biden, I believe he’s sincere about DADT itself. He was one of the FEW Dems in 1993 to try to stop the creation of DADT.

    And he could sincerely BELIEVE the bullshit he spewed re how/why the “compromise amendment” happened. Since there’s no evidence I’ve seen that he was directly involved this time, I can well imagine his having gotten this spin from the WH pointless er point person on “repeal,” Rahmbo II Jim Messina.

    In any case, as she often does in the presence of Power, Rachel failed to come back with, to CHALLENGE him with the facts that were available in contemporaneous media.

    It was NOT anyone in Congress that forced the “compromise amendment” upon the White House. After all the hard work by Cong. Patrick Murphy and Sen. Carl Levin, they clearly believed they had enough votes to attach the REAL repeal/end discharges amendment, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act [MREA], to DEFAUTH, and certainly with some arm twisting of waffling Dems by the President.

    It was the White House that forced the “compromise” upon Congress, trashing the MREA and obviously making it clear they would continue to obstruct anything else, because Gates…in what amounts to a kind of one-issue military coup…DEMANDED it and his pissboy Obama backed him up.


    “Talking Points Memo,” May 26, 2010:

    “The final push [for ‘repeal’] CAME FROM THE HILL, where key members of Congress who support ‘repeal’, like Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made it clear that they were moving forward with repeal legislation WITH OR WITHOUT THE WHITE HOUSE’S BLESSING. ‘Levin and others made it clear that the train was leaving the station and the White House not only was not conducting but THEY WEREN’T EVEN ON BOARD’, Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, an advocacy group for gays in the military, said in an interview with TPMDC. ‘They were backed into a corner and it was blatantly obvious SO THEY FINALLY DECIDED TO GET ON BOARD’.”

    “The Huffington Post,” June 3, 2010:


    “Politico,” May 26, 2010:

    “‘At the end of the day, extraordinary power was given’ to the Pentagon.” – SLDN Director Aubrey Sarvis.

    Further, Rachel let Biden get away with not answering her question about a freeze on discharges. In fact, she asked the wrong question.

    Rather than only for now, she should have asked him why Obama didn’t freeze dicharges using his Congressionall mandated powers under 10 USC 12305 – “Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation” – the day he was sworn in.

    Given the majority of the public already supported ending the ban, despite the shameless predictions [read: lies] of the Obambots that it would have stalled repeal, it would have been a cake walk to justify it in the name of national security, adding something like this:

    “In addition, my fellow Americans, to use just one example, twenty-five MILLION of your tax dollars went to train highly decorated LtCol Victor Fehrenbach, a weapons systems officer on the F-15E Strike Eagle, who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan but is now grounded because, after nearly 20 years in the Air Force, he’s been recommended for discharge simply because he’s gay. In this economic crisis, in any economy, does it make sense to not only squander your investment in him but also spend another $25 million to train his replacement?”

    Framed in such a red, white, blue, and green narrative, even McShame might have not dared stick his red neck out. Even he had, he would have only lost credibility for urging damage to national security, and wasting tax dollars…something Repugs like him are always screaming about.

    And, in addition to upwards of some 800 gay servicemembers not having been shitcanned since then, including Dan Choi, Sandy Tsao, and Jonathan Hopkins, Katie Miller would still be at West Point, and Fehrenbach would not be hanging by a thread.

    And after a year and a half of open service during which the sky did not fall and no straight riots and rampages of rape by ‘mos erupted, passage OF THE MREA would have been a cinch.

    I get that not everyone focuses on this issue as much as I do, but an astonishing number of LGBTs continue to believe that Obama has been a tireless, 24k gold champion for ending the ban….some of them permanently docked here. Rachel is paid to know the facts. For whatever reason she let Biden get away with the Offical Obama Nostra Version [whether or not he believes it], and, thus, did nothing to shoot down that both childish and craven myth.

  • alex

    Michael, you assumed that the previous commenters were right in linking the “compromise” comment to congress, but Biden could have very well intended that the military establishment (i.e. gates even by your own addmission above wanted the survey first) as the other partner in the compromise.

    in other words military + executive = 1-year delay


    legislative + executive = 1-year delay

  • reason

    @CJ: Were have you been for the last year. The intent had always been to end DADT through legislation which is why some in this community have been bashing the president for not issuing stop loss. Even though stop loss is worthless in the case of DADT and actually will not prevent expulsions from the military under the DADT clause. When the administration realized they couldn’t get full buy in from the military for an outright repeal they had to change tactics. Several blue dog dems in the U.S. House and Senate refused to go along with repeal if they did not have cover from the military feeling that it would be politically toxic for them. The White House decided to strike a deal rather than letting DADT die in committee. As time passed people in congress pressured their colleagues to move earlier as it started to sink in that after November their would be a lot less democrats around. The other thing they realized is that the Republicans are not making a big fuss over this becuase they have enough ammo from the stagnant economy and the outrage from their libertarian and tea party base. Part of the deal was with the military telling them that DADT repeal would be orderly and not a system jolt, which is the purpose of the implementation study. Though Reid has gotten the votes to keep Repeal in the bill the Dems that changed their mind will bolt if the study is abandon and their is the notion that responsible repeal in a time of war has been abandon, just not good politics. Governing is not easy which is why every president has some major failures and some have failed presidencies. Being the President requires a mastery of compromising and finding the channel that leads to some sort of passage even if the path is torturous and is going to infuriate the people that you are dragging along with you. The people in congress lookout for themselves first and the demands of their district not the party or the president, granted they have to run and win to be reelected in their district (albiet Alabama Mississippi, Conservatown USA) they don’t get to thrown in liberals voters from CA, VT, NY to help them out. Their demands complicate things. Pundits always speak about the public finding the sausage making process (legislating) revolting, it is becuase with all of their schooling they still don’t understand that the President is not a monarch and it is extremely difficult for him or any one person in congress to get what they want and impossible to get it uncompromised and without jumping through rings of fire. You seem to want the President to tell you something and have it go down perfectly without any IED’s along the road, that is just not going to happen. If you can’t stand the process don’t pay attention to it.

  • The Artist

    I’m amazed at how the commentators seemed to be educated about how things work in the beltway. We can try to understand, but quite honestly it is beyond most Americans comprehension about how our government works. Most CANNOT answer simple questions, like who would be next in line for President after Biden, unless it comes from TV or internet. Thinking out loud doesn’t mean going off on something you know absolutely nothing about. PEACELUVNBWILD!

Comments are closed.