If Democrats cannot support a limited Executive Order

[ruggerson]

Last edited Sat Apr 14, 2012, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

banning discrimination against gay and lesbians for federal workforce contractors, then why are they Democrats in the first place?

ENDA, which is a much more comprehensive anti discrimination measure, has the overwhelming support of the American public.

So why the pushback on a far more limited EO?

Equal rights for all Americans should be near the top of the list of our concerns as a party.

This is one of the main reasons we are Democrats and not Republicans.

Isn't it?

[msongs]

1. courage and leadership are in short supply in the republican-lite party nt

[Occulus]

2. You are seeing what you're seei.g because

Several DUers hate gay people and are opposed to gay equality.

That is the whole and unvarnished truth.

[saras]

3. Wow. The whole national issue is caused by "several DUers"? That seems like an easy fix.

I can't quite see HOW these few DUers are responsible for the attitudes of all the wingnuts and homophobes, and the centuries-old religious ranting against it, and the attitudes of people in Africa and Asia, let alone the violent psychos, but I guess I'll take your word for it.

[Occulus]

4. Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I meant.

[mitchtv]

6. congratulations, your post survived the challenge

I was juror 6

[Occulus]

7. The fact an alert was sent is proof of the truth of the post.

[Posteritatis]

9. Yep. (nt)

[cali]

13. no it's not. that's absurd.

I'm not doubting the accuracy of your initial post, but no it isn't proof.

[ruggerson]

14. why would someone alert on it?

I find it hard to come up with benign motives.

[Occulus]

15. 'Zactly.

Only a 'phobe would alert on calling the bigotry what it is.

[Marr]

37. More like they're indifferent.

They'll talk about it if it helps the party in some way, but if not, they'd prefer gays just stfu.

[bigtree]

5. they're trying to get support for Barney Frank's bill instead, to make the change permanent

. . . this is much like the period before DADT repeal passed. There was certainly cause to provide cover and relief for those caught in the way of the regulation, but there was also a serious effort to get support for permanent legislation so any future president couldn't just undo the change with a stroke of his executive pen.

The WH said that this is a position they're taking, 'for now, which means this President isn't going to wait forever for the legislative process to produce a remedy. I understand the relief an executive order would provide, but I also understand the political shitstorm that would follow an executive decision by this President in an election year. That could very well put the lid on the Frank measure for good. So, I can understand this position if I think back to the effort to repeal DADT and I focus on what it will take to advance Rep. Franks measure.

[ruggerson]

11. You apparently are not familiar with the history of ENDA

Which has been kicking around DC for twenty plus years.

If Congress were going to pass ENDA they would have done so when we controlled both houses of Congress, just two years ago.

Now, with a Republican house, there is no chance whatsoever that ENDA will make its way out of Congress.

The argument that Obama can't sign a federal workforce EO, because he's waiting for ENDA to pass is, frankly, an utterly specious one that insults a rather large part of the Democratic party's base.

[bigtree]

22. makes no sense

Your entire argument is based on your notion that this President isn't interested in changing the law. I don't think that's correct. The WH hasn't precluded executive action, so I believe the attacks and despair may be understandable, but nonetheless, premature.

Ridiculing people who disagree with your cynicism (and support the passage of permanent legislation) and questioning their candor is a curious exercise. Good luck with that.

[joshcryer]

24. While I think he does want to change it, I'm unconvinced an executive order would hurt it.

I think in this case an executive order would actually bolster its chances.

I think he's doing it solely as a political move.

[bigtree]

28. of course it's political

but this administration has delivered on a similar effort on DADT repeal legislation -- as well as shown they aren't shy about executive action (which they haven't ruled out).

Consider this as an election issue. I think an executive order now would take the pressure off of any campaign for the passage of permanent changes, and shift the pressure back onto the administration in the form of defending against attacks from the right. it would be much harder to defend as a 'President Obama' issue than on its merits. It's a good campaign issue as it stands, I think, especially when framed as an argument for a Democratic Congress.

[joshcryer]

38. Yes, I have no doubt had he had the Congress back he would deliver EDNA. No doubt.

I do consider it an election issue but I don't see any significant downside to signing the EO, since most of the bigots who hate it wouldn't vote for him anyway.

One could argue that it would liven up the right wing base because he'd be pushing their buttons, too. But Romney is such a stale candidate that I don't see that happening.

[ruggerson]

30. I think, unfortunately, politics trumps courage for the President right now

And, of course, most of your post completely mischaracterizes my position. I have never said that Obama doesn't want the law changed. I think he does. I think he also is frightened of highlighting the issue in an election season, because he alone takes the heat for an executive order. I don 't believe any of the twisted logic they're throwing at us as to why he won't sign it now, because none of it makes any sense. The 72 house members who wrote him asking to sign it now, and both the House and the Senate LEAD sponsors of ENDA who have also urged him to sign it, believe that the EO would help the process along and bolster the prospects for ENDA down the road. We expect Democratic Presidents to step up to the plate and do what's right. I believe his political calculus is dead wrong here. Both the right thing to do AND the politically smart thing to do would be to sign the EO.

[bigtree]

32. I don't agree with making the WH (and Barack Obama's unilateral order) the issue in this election

I think it would hurt, rather than help, the prospects for a permanent law.

The prospect of an EO is still being held as an option under active consideration, and that stance serves as pressure on Congress to craft their own solution. That said, I don't believe the President will wait indefinitely for Congress to act.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. The ENDA has come up in Congress each session less one, since 1994

So what is 'indefinitely' in the language of the moderate heterosexual when arguing for the further delay of other people's rights? Working on 20 years already.
Myself, my Senator and at least 70 other Congressional Democrats do not agree with you that it would hurt they correctly see it is a step forward and a way to kick start this slow turning engine.1994.
It is telling that you do not offer so much as one reason for your opinion that the order would hurt the prospects of the larger law. This is not a temporary and the ENDA a permanent, this is a partial, this is what the President can do without the Congress. Which he's not doing. For no good reason at all.

[ruggerson]

40. Congress is not going to be doing anything on ENDA for a long, long time

unless we once again control both chambers.

There is a rich history in our country of (mostly) Democratic Presidents using the legitimate power of the EO to build and strengthen a more just society.

The proposed EO amends EO 11246 by adding sexual orientation to the list of those already afforded equal opportunity under the law.

History of Executive Order 11246

On September 24, 1965-more than two years after the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have A Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and more than a year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became the law of the land-the Nation took a historic step towards equal employment opportunity when President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246.

For the first time, EO 11246 charged the Secretary of Labor, a Cabinet-level official with strong enforcement authority, with the responsibility of ensuring equal opportunity for minorities in federal contractors' recruitment, hiring, training and other employment practices. .Until that time, such efforts had been in the hands of various Presidential committees. EO 11246 continued and reinforced the requirement that federal contractors not discriminate in employment and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity based on race, color, religion and national origin.

Signed by President Johnson that early autumn Friday 45 years ago, EO 11246 became a key landmark in a series of federal actions aimed at ending racial, religious and ethnic discrimination, an effort that dated back to the anxious days before the U.S. was thrust into World War II.

EO 8802

As America geared up its industrial might for what proved to be its inevitable entrance into a global war, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded to leaders, such as A. Philip Randolph and Baynard Rustin, who protested that African-American workers were blocked from taking jobs in segregated war production factories. On June 25, 1941, FDR signed Executive Order 8802, outlawing discrimination based on race, color, creed and national origin in the federal government and defense industries.

EO 9346

In 1943, President Roosevelt broadened the coverage of Executive Order 8802 by making it applicable to all government contractors.

EO 10308

Nearly a decade later, on December 3, 1951, President Harry S. Truman's Executive Order 10308 advanced the achievements initiated during WWII by creating the Committee on Government Contract Compliance. The committee, as its name implies, was tasked with overseeing compliance by federal contractors with the non-discrimination provisions of Executive Order 8802.

EO 10479

President Dwight D. Eisenhower took a further step on August 13, 1953, by creating the President's Committee on Government Contracts under Executive Order 10479. This reorganization furthered the principle that "…it is the obligation of the contracting agencies of the United States Government and government contractors to insure compliance with, and successful execution of, the equal employment opportunity program of the United States Government."

This Executive Order made the head of each contracting agency of the federal government responsible for obtaining compliance by their contractors and subcontractors with the nondiscrimination provisions of the contracts into which they entered. Coordination would be provided by the President's Committee on Government Contracts, housed in the Department of Labor, and comprised of representatives of major contracting agencies, the Labor and Justice Departments, and the General Services Administration as well as eight Presidential appointees. The President designated the Committee's chair and vice chair.

EO 10925

By the time John F. Kennedy was elected President, it was evident that to advance equal employment opportunity federal involvement needed to be broader and more proactive. On March 6, 1961, shortly after JFK took office, he signed Executive Order 10925, opening a new chapter in achieving access to good jobs by requiring government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin."

Executive Order 10925 gave federal contracting agencies authority to institute procedures against federal contractors who violated their EEO obligations-including contract cancellation, debarment from future contracts and other sanctions.

It also created the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, which upon passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 became the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee. The President's Committee was chaired by Vice President Lyndon Johnson and later by Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The Committee's vice chair was Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz.

Like its predecessors, EO 10925 gave each federal department and agency Executive Order enforcement responsibility for its contractors, and each developed its own organizational approach to carrying out these responsibilities. The President's Committee oversaw issues of policy and the Department of Labor played a coordinating role.

EO 11246

President Johnson's vision of creating a "Great Society" led to a host of endeavors that sought to change the political, social and economic landscape of the U.S. In his 1965 commencement address to graduates of Harvard University, LBJ gave voice to his vision, declaring, "We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result."

At LBJ's request, Vice President Humphrey led a comprehensive review "of the activities of the various federal agencies involved in the field of civil rights." Humphrey's conclusions and recommendations, articulated in a memorandum to Johnson, were based on the principle that "…whenever possible operating functions should be performed by departments and agencies with clearly defined responsibilities, as distinguished from interagency committees or other interagency arrangements. That principle is particularly applicable to civil rights programs where it is essential that our objectives be pursued vigorously and without delay that frequently accompanies a proliferation of interagency committees and groups."

The Vice President continued, "The Secretary of Labor, as Vice Chairman of the [President's] Committee [on Equal Employment Opportunity], has had primary responsibility for reviewing complaints and, through the contracting departments and agencies, insuring compliance by government contractors with nondiscrimination requirements. With all the experience gained over a period of years by the personnel involved in this program, responsibility should now be vested directly in the Department of Labor, and I so recommend."

Thus, on September 24, 1965, President Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, making the Secretary of Labor responsible for administering the order's non-discrimination and affirmative action provisions. Soon thereafter, Secretary of Labor Wirtz established the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. Edward C. Sylvester, Jr. was appointed as the agency's first director.

Today, Executive Order 11246, as amended and further strengthened over the years, remains a major safeguard, protecting the rights of workers employed by federal contractors-approximately one-fifth of the entire U.S. labor force-to remain free from discrimination on the basis of their gender, race, religion, color or national origin…and opening the doors of opportunity through its affirmative action provisions.

http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/about/History_EO11246.htm

[bigtree]

45. you do know that Johnson's executive order came AFTER passage of the Civil Rights Act?

Almost a year after President Kennedy's assassination, Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress and signed it into law. One of its major provisions was the creation of the 'Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.' The law provided for a defense by the federal government against objectionable private conduct, like discrimination in public accommodations; authorized the Attorney General to file lawsuits to defend access to public facilities and schools, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, and to outlaw and defend against discrimination in federal programs.

So, Dr. King and others in the civil rights effort, had done their part in agitating and promoting through demonstrations, the notion and the ideal of advancing equal opportunity into action and law. The passage of the Civil Rights Act was, by no means, the end of advocacy by black leaders. Neither was it the end of the political effort by Johnson and others committed to advancing and enhancing black employment and establishing anti-discrimination as the law of the land.

On September 24, 1965, President Johnson originated and signed Executive Order 11246 which established new guidelines for businesses who contracted with the Federal government agencies, and required those with $10,000 or more of business with Uncle Sam to take 'affirmative action' to increase the number of minorities in their workplaces and keep a record of their efforts available on demand. It also set 'goals and timetables' for the realization of those minority positions.

The passage of the Civil Rights act was advantaged, tragically, by the death of Kennedy, as he had introduced it to Congress months before his killing. Who knows what the political effect would have been on passage of the Civil Rights legislation? You can't just interpose the two Congresses or the presidencies and make a reliable analogy. There were too many other mitigating factors. But, Johnson's EO definitely built on the law the he got passed. He went for the legislation first, then the fine-tuning. It's not as if you can put his and Kennedy's presidencies together and make a valid point about the political landscape President Obama faces on this rule in his office and with his legislature.

[Occulus]

12. "now is not the time"

"Wait until after the election"

"Repubs will use this against us"

We will never be equal if we listen to "friends" like you!!

[bigtree]

23. remarkably similar to the attacks on supporters of LGBT rights during the DADT repeal debate

. . . who were advocating for a permanent change in the law. What a stupid exercise.

[joshcryer]

25. While those are stupid arguments they don't mean someone is anti-gay.

It means they're stupid.

[ruggerson]

31. well they could be both

Certainly anyone who is anti-gay is, ipso facto, stupid.

[joshcryer]

34. True!

[joshcryer]

27. Can you outline how it could put a lid on the measure for good?

[bigtree]

29. the issue would be framed as some battle against Obama and his unilateral action

. . . instead of on the merits of the act and the republican's opposition to these rights.

. . .just my opinion, stupid me.

[joshcryer]

35. Executive orders are well within a Presidents right, across the board, no question.

Instead I see that federal workers would get extended rights and the sooner it is implemented the sooner it becomes de facto. It's hard to take away rights once people have them.

The fact is the act will never pass without the House and Senate in control of the Democrats, anyway, not without sacrifices in other areas.

[mmonk]

8. Election calculations are their only concern, not what is right or wrong.

That is why the party has been too weak in recent years to turn the tide of our current injustices.

[Posteritatis]

10. "Recent years" being "all of the years since the last election." (nt)

[Doctor_J]

16. More like "since 1994"

weak, and that is why their supporters are so poorly motivated. They don't get any support in return.

[Doctor_J]

17. Their calculations are way off

they'd do better in the elections if they would stop trying to attract those who despise them

[Warren DeMontague]

19. I'm gonna agree with the Doctor, here.

I think brave leadership would play better.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Same reason they're still letting the DOJ throw cancer grannies in prison for pot smoking

when the majority of Americans support legalizing pot for consenting adult recreational use.

[Honeycombe8]

20. I'm not sure about the EO, but I do know that the public isn't crazy about EOs....

and it wouldn't look too good in some ads in a political year. Despite the goodness of the EO. A lot of people like to see that sort of thing passed by legislation.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. My only pushback is the target of the push-forward.

I'm absolutely convinced right now that President Obama is honoring a request from Democratic Congressional leaders to not issue a limited ENDA EO in order to protect conservative Democratic members of Congress and thus help enable a Democratic takeover of Congress.

Holding President Obama's feet to the fire for this is wasted effort without finding the waffling Congresspeople and lighting a fire under their feet as well, and that goes for Pelosi, Hoyer, Wasserman Schultz, Reid, and Durbin as well.

No one should be let off the hook for this. Equal pressure for all will get the limited EO signed faster than blaming Obama alone.

[joshcryer]

26. I agree. And this is why Democrats are weak.

They capitulate to the factions within the party which we as a nation are unable to overcome because demographically we're a right wing warmongering bigoted nation.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Only one hand in America can sign that order.

And if he's playing games as you suggest, then the price of his ploy is rampant, unhindered criticism of him and anyone in Congress who is joining him in this. It's that simple. If some unhinged tactic is going down as you suggest, well they can pay the price, starting now. No one rides free. I'm sure if the President is doing such a rotten thing, he is aware that it will not go without criticism. It is the deal he wanted to make, the soup he ordered.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. And there are many things that hand must take into account.

And a direct request from Congressional party leaders is something not lightly overruled.

The ultimate goal is ENDA, and the only way to get there is a Democratically-controlled Congress, and losing any members only delays ENDA another two years.

Bringing pressure on the vulnerable members, the Congressional leaders, and the President is definitely the way to get a limited EO. But I've heard a distinction in marital arguments between arguing to save the marriage and arguing to tear the other person down. And the way you seem to be going at it isn't arguing to save the relationship. That's something you may be quite fine with. But it's not likely to get you what you want anytime soon.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. This is all a fantasia not a set of facts....

Yet if such a thing was going on, then yes, sorry in fact the POTUS is not required to do as anyone asks, there is nothing to overrule.
The EO does not hinder the ultimate goal. The electorate supports the EO and ENDA. The only person claiming that people in Congress hold EO power is you. They don't. The President does. They are not part of that process. It is his authority alone. Thus, any use or non use of that authority lies with him. If he wishes to let others influence his use of his own authority, that is his choice, still his authority, still he is the one making the decision, and thus, any criticism for the use of that authority is his and his alone, just as the authority is his and his alone. The power of the EO exists in order to work around the Congress, and they do not dictate the use of it at all.
If you want to keep making this argument, you need to come with some facts that this is the case. Get the President to say that Hoyer asked him not to sign it, so he didn't. If he will not own that, or you can not otherwise support it, you need to admit that it is a fantasia, along the lines of 'I think Cheney made him do it with a laser mounted on a shark'. Just something to say, not something you know, and not something that actually makes much sense.
If you need a story that tells you the President is pure of heart and cares for our rights, tell it to yourself, tell it to the Marines for all I care.
It is creepy to me that you start speaking of relationships and tearing people down. This is politics. This is not personal, and to make personal cracks like that is not called for.
Instead, why not support your theory here with a shred of fact? How's that?

[Bolo Boffin]

43. This discussion moved from my thread to this one.

And that's something you know because you've posted in mine and this one.

I'm basing all this on the 4/12 press conference with Jay Carney.

The fantasia is your "President stands alone" indulgence.

[LonePirate]

44. Even if Obama wins re-election and we retake the House, I doubt ENDA survives a Repub filibuster

What will Obama do then? What excuse will he have for not signing the EO after ENDA fails to clear the Senate?