Dan Choi Won't Vote For Obama After Administration's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Actions (VIDEO)

Lt. Dan Choi, a gay soldier discharged from the U.S. Army under "don't ask, don't tell," said Thursday that he won't vote for President Obama again due to a recently successful effort by the administration to freeze a repeal of the military protocol.

"You have lost my trust and I am not gonna vote for Barack Obama after what he did yesterday," Choi said in an interview with CNN today.

Earlier in the day, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett attempted to explain the recent undertaking by the Department of Justice to appeal a ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips which halted "don't ask, don't tell" as an unconstitutional practice.

"It is a law, and we are a nation of laws. It was passed by Congress and so we are looking for Congress to repeal it," Jarrett told CNN. "Until Congress repeals it the Justice Department is doing what it is required to do and that is to defend the laws of the land."

Jarrett went on to claim that there were members of the gay community who understood the nature of the situation and were working with the White House to pressure Congress to take up the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

Choi responded by telling CNN that he isn't one of those so-called people, and explained that he thought such a statement was ridiculous because it neglected what he saw as the true role of the courts in a system of checks and balances on the government.

"When Congress enacts a law that's unconstitutional, whose job is it to strike it down? The court's," Choi said. "I understand the judicial branch is now the only branch of government that is filling its mandate to the Constitution."

WATCH:

Comments

[delta7777]

10:22 PM on 10/29/2010

.
Lt. Choi:

with all due respect, your anger is overriding your common sense.
The Republicans, the Tea Party, and the Religious Right are dead-set homophobes.
If any of these gain control, not only will you not see repeal DADT--
you will see return of homosexual persecution as in the dark ages..

Perhaps you should calm down and think out
the consequences of a Republican government.
and of not voting in a manner to prevent it.

DADT under Obama will occur--unless blocked by "conservative" extremists.

America and our war-weary armed forces
desperately need all the talent that can be mustered,
as well as every person dedicated to fight for its preservation
--regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.--

.

[zetacplus]

11:21 PM on 11/10/2010

He didn't say he was voting for a republican or a teabagger. As a citizen he has the right to vote or not vote for whom he wishes and I support that. However, I'm also biased because I don't plan on voting for him again either. His administration has been an embarrassment not only to the gay community, but to progress in general. He gave up on the public option, refused to fight for real bank reform, refuses to take on the republicans for their psychotic lies and misinformation. He had so much clout and power after he was elected an it's all squandered. IMO, he's got some things accomplished but I rate his administration worse than Carter's. I will support a primary challenge and I can only hope we have another democrat running. Honestly, I don't believe he even wants to run again. I think (even before the election) that this was way more than he ever expected and beyond his ability. However, if he does decide to run and get the nomination, like Lt Choi, I will not be voting for him. I will find another candidate to stand with..even if they don't stand a chance in hell of winning.

[delta7777]

03:44 AM on 11/12/2010

.
the weapon of the soldier is the gun
the weapon of the citizen is the vote.

if you throw away your weapon in mid-battle
because you are frustrated,
you can not win your war.

If you are seeking Salvation,
go to Church, not to the election box.
every human has feet of clay,
no political candidate is perfect.

Every vote is a choice;
a choice only between available options.
Not to vote for a candidate
because of frustration
or choosing not to vote at all
is a choice that casts your vote
for the opposition candidate
who may espouse an ideology that is
anathema to your interests and ethos
far worse than the candidate that frustrates you.

to make an ignorant decision
because of frustration;
not to vote for the better candidate
among available options
or not to vote at all
is equvalent to "friendly fire"
on the battlefield of war.
.

[zetacplus]

11:24 PM on 11/10/2010

Furthermore, the gay community lived through 8 years of Bush and Cheney...how worse can it get?

[purplet]

10:47 PM on 11/11/2010

It just got worse- Many of the TP people have been elected-
Everything from making homosexuality illegal- to promoting the idea that Gays can pray their way to being straight- In Virginia the Repub AG removed language in employment protections for sexual orientation- and he has demanded that colleges remove anti discrimination for sexual orientation its on hold for now-
the list goes on -

[bratscheldn]

02:37 AM on 11/13/2010

You are irrational. Laws are passed by Congress, not the White House. The White House and the Dems have managed to push through more legislation in 18 months than the previous administration did in 8 years. Forty-five days before the Nov. 2008 election, Obama and McCain were both blind sided by the economic collapse of the country. Those in the know did not bother to inform them of the problem. Obama has saved major industries, saved unemployment benefits, stopped combat operations in Iraq, put the economy back on a positive (yet, admittedly slow) track, improved international relations, etc. He has also fought to repeal DADT. The Republicans voted NO, as a block, on all issues and announced on day 1 that they were going to destroy the Obama presidency.

Apparently, you nor Dan Choi have any understanding how the government works. There are laws and three separate branches. The President cannot force anything to change. The representatives of the people make the changes.

I saw Choi on Chris Matthews Wednesday. He was frothing at the mouth and could not answer the only two questions Chris asked. 1. What did the Dems do wrong since they all (58) voted to support a repeal vote and not a single Republican would allow the vote? 2. Name one Republican Senator voting to support repeal. He had no answer.

Good Luck with the Republicans and the Tea Party. You and Choi are one issue voters willing to screw the rest of the country.

[carnitine]

09:05 PM on 10/29/2010

and I wont vote for any gay rights because of people like Choi who think everyone should only care about gay rights. I went from supporting gay marriage and DADT repal to the opposite because gays have become so..annoying,

[heroine addict]

12:17 PM on 10/25/2010

Perfectly reasoned and delivered! I agree 100% with Lt. Choi and won't be voting for the same reasons.

DADT - Obama's biggest Fail.

[lily31]

07:08 PM on 10/24/2010

I am sue you are frustrated beyond measure and should be.

However, not voting is a luxury none of us can afford, regardless of how disappointed we are in failure to act on this policy or any of the others that have been put aside or passed in a weakened state. The prospect of a Republican win by politicians who want to send us back to the dark ages on most every aspect of life as we know it, has to be avoided at all costs. We need every vote we can muster.

Please reconsider your position and spread the word to those who might sit this one out. Voting is a luxury we all need to cherish even when we feel so abandoned and even betrayed.

Thanks for all you have done on behalf of our country ~ I watched you on the Rachel Maddow program several times and always felt so fortunate to have you and men like you in our Military.

[jerryatthebeach]

07:02 PM on 10/24/2010

We're all voting Republican. We'll give them 1 chance. If they betray us we'll vote them out in the following election.

[kmich718]

07:01 PM on 10/25/2010

Um....we gave them a chance.. and they krapped all over us. Not giving them another, I'm still voting DEM.

[ecoflame]

12:16 AM on 10/28/2010

Go ahead - vote ReThuglican - and you'll know what will happen? They'll hang your azzes out. They don't like your gayness and they will NOT do anything to 'promote' it by giving you what they term 'special rights.' You think the heat is on now? Have you heard what's coming out of the mouths of Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, Carl Paladino - not to mention others who haven't made it to the national spotlight.

But go ahead - vote ReThuglican....deliberately vote against your own interests. See where it gets you. Personally, I think this is too vital to give even one ReThug a vote. I think it's far more important to vote Democratic and keep pushing for change with the Democrats.

In the late 70s I served with many members of my medical company who were gay. You'll never need to convince me of the importance of their contributions or the trueness of their values. I'd say the same thing to them IF they were intent on doing something this idiotic. This is NOT the way to go. Period.

[bryanzth]

06:17 PM on 10/24/2010

Oh, what's the difference anyway? 2050 will be here, and the frontier will be all different. DADT won't matter.

Don't get me wrong. I do disagree with this measure still being in effect. I do agree that we should have a military that reflects who we are. But there are some out there in the cloud who both want to go it alone and don't care diddley about 2050.

What's 2050? It's the date when all we are doing to get people to live together peaceably won't matter anymore. We will all be like a toasted marshmallow on a stick.

BZ.

[bryanzth]

06:12 PM on 10/24/2010

Then, Dan Choi is voting for worse than DADT. And Dan Choi better, like many of us, keep his passport all fresh.

Not to vote Democratic, not to vote at all, to vote for a third party, or to write in Mick Mouse won't cut it. All of those are votes for the GOP.

There.

BZ.

[Watcher from outside]

11:01 PM on 10/23/2010

Stay up all nnight thinking about that line

As said paid bloggers are everywhere....for those lines what did someone get 75 cents or?

How DO they get paid...

[JShankel]

01:26 PM on 10/23/2010

Sorry, make that 60. 60 Senators who will vote to break the filibuster on DADT. What are their names? I want a list.

[JShankel]

01:25 PM on 10/23/2010

Someone please give me the list of the 40 Senators who we can count on to break the filibuster on DADT if it goes back to congress.

Names, please.

[zelduh]

12:01 PM on 10/23/2010

Choi should be mad at Congress; not the president.

The case must be fully litigated, or Congress must act to completely overturn DADT, in order to finally resolve the matter for good. The Justice Dept. must proceed until Congress acts to cancel DADT.

If Congress does not act, or the matter is not fully resolved in the courts, and if president Obama were simply to ignore DADT, then the next president could choose to fully reinstate and enforce it.

This is the process.

Who is Dan Choi going to vote for if he does not vote for Obama? A Republican? A Tea Bagger?

[JShankel]

01:19 PM on 10/23/2010

Then the administration should stop promising that the policy will end, because Congress is never ever ever ever ever ever ever going to repeal this law.

It's the courts or nothing. And Obama is on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the right outcome in court.

[robert4la]

11:44 AM on 10/23/2010

Hey, slow down here! Daniel Choi has his issues too. DADT was an attempt by the Clinton administration to mollify a growing problem in the military. That made more sense back in 1994 when the U.S.was not involved in any major wars of the scale of our present ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Choi chose to purpose a military career and got admitted to West Point. He wanted to be a career officer and that's the beef here--some gay people want careers in the military. So be it! However some of us don't agree with the U.S. foreign policy goals or the enormous cost to the U.S. taxpayers of these misdirected ventures launched by the U.S. government to support "American interests" abroad--meaning corporate interests and those especially of the oil industry. Choi is a bit naive if he doesn't realize this--but he joined the army and wanted a career as a military toady. The Pentagon is the most over-sized bureaucratic mess in the world and we all have to pay for it. The Roman Empire went into decline due to to over-extended wars that broke the financial back of the empire. Soon we will be repeating that pattern. And the DADT issue will be a footnote in the history books, not stage center like Daniel Choi believes. After all, you and I paid for him to learn Arabic at West Point.

[DreamWeaver2nd]

11:35 PM on 10/22/2010

This for many is so awfully painful and an outrage to most of us that this is still a problem in America. It shocks the senses to witness such cruelty and denial of what's right. Our president should have taken care ...

[kmich718]

07:04 PM on 10/25/2010

He's gotten a few things right though. Granted that DADT is a huge issue, be he still has 2 years left in this term. Can't we give him a little more time? After all, this has been an issue for a very long time and you don't change things quickly ......apparently,....in the government.

[DreamWeaver2nd]

10:09 PM on 10/25/2010

Our president has gotten very many things right in a short time; while Americans might not be aware of it because of the White House's poor messaging and no media cheerleader, only media negativity (mostly). The DADT and the intransigent old-school military could have been handled much, much better than this ... Overall, I support our president. His job after Reaganism, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II & Cheney is the worst job with the biggest problems, some intractable, that any other president has had to deal with. I know. I would push him harder ... to give up negotiating with bad actors, for instance. If I had my way ...
Thank you for your support of our president and speaking up.

[UberUber]

09:18 PM on 10/22/2010

Holy hell, Choi. The justice departament is not a part of the Judicial branch. They are part of the Executive: they defend the laws from the courts repeal, which is exactly whqat they are supposed to do. There is reasoning behind DADT -- even if you disagree with it -- and it is the JD's role to present that arguement before the court in as favorably a light as possible. This is how law works. What use are checks and balances if people expect one branch to just lay down for unpopular laws? The courts are doing their job; have a little faith.

[meko]

06:31 PM on 10/22/2010

Obama could temporarily let gays serve while waiting for the courts or Congress to act by using his stop-loss power, which was explicitly granted by Congress in 1984 to override military discharges if troops are needed.

Stop-loss authority is a statutory authority enacted by Congress. It gives the president authority to suspend any law that involves the discharge of service members. In times of national emergency there might be lots of reasons.

Given all the accounts of valuable servicemen and servicewomen, such as Arabic translators, being discharged under DADT, it would seem a fairly straightforward case for Obama to make. That would buy a couple of years for Congress to act or the current legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court.

But he chooses not to act. Obama makes a choice.

[JShankel]

08:42 PM on 10/22/2010

He could have allowed the ruling to simply stand and this whole mess would be over. No one has standing to appeal the ruling except the federal government. No Republican group can just come along and appeal a ruling where they are not the defendant. The defendant in this case is the US government and if the government abides by the ruling, the case is closed.

This phony baloney nonsense about "doing it right" in congress amounts to saying "it's perfectly constitutional to discriminate against gays, we're just going to choose not to because it's in poor taste." That's not equal protection. That's a favor or a discretionary privilege. That puts gays in the military in the same category as school lunches and funding for the arts: a nice idea if it's not too expensive.

And this other phony baloney idea that you NEED SCOTUS to make any ruling final and what the administration is looking for here is a LOSS amounts to "I am going into court with the intention of not representing my client but rather throwing the case to plaintiffs," which is to say the least unethical.

There's no way to square this circle: if Bush was doing what Obama is now doing we'd be calling it homophobic persecution, because that's what it is.

If Obama succeeds in what he is attempting, DADT will be the law of the land until the Senate grows the f*ck up. Which is not going to happen.