With three Republican co-sponsors, especially one as well-placed at Ros-Lehtinen, I think the time it might actually happen.
I’d put good odds on it ending. The military needs every warm body in Iraq it can find these days, and tossing out folks for not being heterosexual isn’t enough reason otherwise.
Could be. As the article mentions, a gay Sergent with a purple star in the US army just came out, basically daring the military to fire him. I imagine that, unlike in the 90’s when most of our soldiers hadn’t seen combat, there will be several more cases in the near future where gay military men who have served in Iraq/Afganistan will come out. The bad PR from discharging a bunch of guys who have taken bullets for our country because of what they do in private is going to be increasingly intense.
Finally, the army is having a lot harder time retaining troops then it was in the 90’s, so the fact that we’re turning down people just based on sexual orientation is becoming impractical. There was a case a year or so ago where two arabic interpreters, an area where the army badly needs more people, were discharged due to being outed. Again, handicapping the war on terror because of unrelated sexual issues that people in this country are increasingly unconcerned with is providing terrible PR for the army and this adminstration.
Someone is gonna have to 'splain to me how this is different from don’t ask don’t tell.
That is don’t ask, don’t tell. The bill proposed will allow gay folks to serve openly.
There’s no way lawmakers from conservative states can afford to endorse this. The “he wants gays in the army” ads are already being made before they ever vote. Plus with George W. “You know Bob, I don’t know. I just don’t know [if homosexuality is a choice]” Bullwinkle as Commander-in-Chief it’ll probably be vetoed anyway. I’m not optimistic.
Yeah, three Republican House members can’t override a veto. Zero chance that it’ll happen until at least 2009, when there’s someone else in the White House. If its a Republican, they can pull the “Nixon goes to China” maneuver, in which a Republican does what Democrats would be raked over the coals for doing. If it is a Dem in the White House in 2009, it could well be a repeat of the bungling that led to DADT in Clinton’s first year.
I’d expect this to die in the Senate. And, Bush couldn’t get re-elected if he signed this.
This is his second term. He can’t get re-elected if he walks on water.
Ah thanks for the clear up.
shakes fist at writer
When you use “it” to begin a sentance it refers to the subject of the previous sentance damn it!
Duh. :smack: Let me rephrase that to say that Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008) will be seriously tarnished if Bush signed such a bill.
And Republican Senators and House members would get creamed in the next primaries if they voted for this.
You know, you really shouldn’t scare me like that. Give a guy some warning if you’re going to posit a Cheney candidacy!
Seriously, Cheney would never be elected President. Bush at least has some kind of charisma and apparently is considered charming by a large proportion of the population. Cheney is the original Nosferatu. Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric dust that has so much as brushed past someone with charm won’t even settle on the man’s body. He’s the anti-charisma.
The incumbent VP usually get the party nomination. I presume you are a Republican? As a Democrat myself, I consider the enelectability of Cheney in the general election a Good Thing. 
Why do you presume that? Cheney’s age and health are major stumbling blocks, and the man has the charisma of a cardboard standee.
Cheney won’t even run. You heard it here first.
It could be that recruitment problems might force the abandonment of this policy. Whatever the reason, this could only be good for gays. Acceptance in the military would be a big step towards better acceptance throughout society.
Couldn’t the President (and I’m talking in general here–I don’t see Bush doing this or any first-termer of either party) just force it one way or the other by executive order, like Truman forced integration?
Cheney has already announced categorically that he will not run in 2008, not that anyone seriously thought he would.
2008 will be the first wide wide open presidential election in a long time, with no incumbent president or former vice president running. In fact, I think the last one was 1952, Eisenhower vs Stevenson.
Back to gays in the military. Given the manpower requirements for the army, discharging volunteers just because they are gay makes even less sense than it did before the Iraq war. As for the contention that a Republican congressman would be in trouble for supporting it, well, as Nixon used to say, if the president does it it is not illegal. If the President signs on, suddenly the conservative talking heads will turn on a dime and talk about how inclusive and statesmanlike and patriotic it all is.
The well-oiled right-wing media machine could easily sell “legalizing” gays in the military to the GOP’s core voters. Just pitch it as King George’s infinite generousity for the 21st century and you’d be done by lunch.
No Cheney. Let me fifth that.
And I see the fact that three Republican’s are endorsing this as a cry of military pain. This can get through congress if it’s sold in a ‘we need to keep recruitment up’ way.