As the half-measure ENDA (H.R. 3685) snakes its way through the legislative process, the question comes up whether Democrats in the House are going to vote "no" en masse on the Baldwin amendment, to shield their own from exposure, or whether votes will parallel the sponsorship of the inclusive H.R. 2015, which had 171 co-sponsors, including 4 Republicans. I cannot believe that they would all swing the wrong way, but so long as non-discrimination isn't part of the party platform, it is politics, so the question remains ...
Meanwhile, with the Hate Crimes Bill already passed, Andrew Sullivan should be readying his "chocolates and flowers" for the HRC (yes, some of us have the 'video-tape').
The idea that Bush might not veto the bill - under ANY circumstances or language - is a severe underestimation of this President's demonstrated animosity to gays and lesbians, from his time as governor of Texas (if not sooner). Like the FRC, his actions all suggest that gays are bad for "civilization". If it is not that, then it will be his current enthrallment to Heritage Wing of the Party, who are his sole constituency now, while he polls in the low 30s.The reasons why demanding a phased end to DADT is an unacceptable piece of legislation in the 110th. It seems like "phasing" would be the end-run around the voiced objections to doing it now. Afterall, the military does rotate soldiers stateside, even during war-without-end, where they could get instruction on what the policy will look like when it ends.
Meanwhile, with the Hate Crimes Bill already passed, Andrew Sullivan should be readying his "chocolates and flowers" for the HRC (yes, some of us have the 'video-tape'). I think they prefer Belgian (I do). The flowers are a toss-up until the 2007 results of the ENDA "strategy" are in.
