Ending The Ban

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.

Kristol and the Christianists

Bill seems to be having second thoughts about the invasive moralizing of his religious allies. Maybe he should have thought of that, say, a decade ago, when he did all he could to integrate Christian fundamentalism, with its corrosive effect on the right to privacy, into the Republican party. But better late than never, I guess. I can imagine Bill Clinton reading this column and completely losing it. As well he might.

My Alliance With The Christianists

HRC is now accusing me of being a tool of the religious right! Money quote:

HRC’s vice president for programs, David Smith, went a step further, accusing Sullivan of advancing the interests of anti-gay groups from the religious right. "There’s nobody happier about what Andrew Sullivan is doing than Tony Perkins and James Dobson," Smith said.

LOL. HRC’s executive director, Joe Solmonese, has said that I am a "a conservative Republican who’s never been willing to acknowledge that Democrats are any better than Republicans for our community." Readers know that I am not now and never have been a Republican, that I endorsed Kerry in 2004 and the Democrats last fall. When I endorsed Bush in 2000, I did so while fully conceding that Gore was better on gay issues. But I’m not just a one-issue person. I do, however, care passionately about gay equality and was working hard for it while Joe Solmonese was an Emily’s List operative. All I am asking for is basic transparency and accountability from the biggest gay group out there. My five questions stand. I will publish HRC’s full response to them at any length they choose, with no commentary from me. Smearing me is not a response. It’s an avoidance mechanism. Answer the questions:

What do you regard as your three most significant legislative or organizational achievements in the last five years?

What percentage of the 2006 budget for all of HRC (both foundation and lobbying group) was taken up by fundraising, events, mortgage payments and administration?

What percentage was devoted to lobbying and organizing?

What are your goals for the 2007 – 2009 legislative session?

How many people are on your bi-partisan board and how many are registered Republicans?

Are these simple matters of fact an unreasonable request?