A reader writes:
You can’t threaten to suspend military funding in time of war. It would be irresponsible to the troops. Many prominent Democrats on the hill have already said they won’t do it under any circumstances. And threatening to cut funds in the name of gay rights, would give opponents a windfall issue of Rovian proportions. Try to picture what Brownback, Gingrich, Coulter, Limbaugh, Santorum, et al would do with the issue. The issue right now in the minds of most Americans is, "Is it fair to discharge excellent soldiers who happen to be gay". Start attaching spending riders and the issue becomes, "Is it fair that our military can’t buy protective gear for soldiers because gay activists are upset over don’t-ask-don’t-tell".
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is the way to go. SLDN says so, as does Margarethe Cammemeyer.
So when do the Democrats intend to move on that bill? The defensiveness of the reader strikes me as part of the problem. I’m tired of being told by groups like HRC that they cannot risk outcry from the anti-gay right. They’ve been intimidated. They shouldn ‘t be. Another reader adds:
What a fabulous idea, to attach language suspending the ban on gay men and women serving in the military to a spending bill. It would be perfect if the appropriate language were attached to the military spending request currently before Congress for a few reasons: 1) the Democrats would be doing a parliamentary maneuver that the Republicans have done for the past few years — attaching Amendment B to Bill A when B is not really related to A at all, and 2) Bush would be put in the hot seat — if he vetoed the military spending bill because of his opposition to ban suspension, the base would be hugely livid (not to mention all the "support the troops" people), and if he voted for the spending bill, the base would be livid because he signed something that called for the ban to be suspended. It’s a win-win, I tell you! Ach! What am I saying? Bush would sign the spending bill, and then issue a signing statement saying he didn’t have to abide by the provision to suspend the ban.
I’d usually leave these tactical questions to groups like HRC. But I fear their tactical objective in the next two years is to elect Senator Clinton, not to advance gay rights.
The Dish 