URGENT!! Save Hate Crimes bill NOW!

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/06/urgent_save_hate_crimes_bill_now.php



I just called - please call. That goes out to all the non-glbt posters that have showed up recently in the GLBT forum too - show your support and call please!

:shrug:

its not just the linked blog thats stating this... Ill do some looking around and post what I find.

Edit: here it is from the link in the article in the OP:

http://www.bilerico.com/2007/07/something_rotten_in_the_senate.php

There's some more explanations there.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11709/sens-sessions-durbin-show-ignorance-about-hate-crimes-law-during-testimony-by-ag-holder

I'm still reading but it looks like this may have been how it's been defeated before.

But there was a line in the Spaulding article that Starry linked to that gives me pause before calling again.

"Harry Reid recently said that he didn't have the votes to pass it as a standalone bill"

Presuming Reid isn't just being weak in his efforts to get the votes (which I'll admit is an awful lot of benefit being given over not so much doubt)... I'm left to wonder if pulling it from the appropriations bill will do anything more for its chances? (Delay it until there are enough votes rather than let it be used as a token something to be sacrificed in order to get the appropriations bill through? Is that a better alternative?)

I'm curious about your take on the better strategy... in the meantime, I guess I'll read through some more links.

Reid is LDS and while he is a Democrat that is sometimes sympathetic to equal rights, he belongs to one of the most vocal homophobic churches in the country. So I seriously doubt he will be doing much leadership for us when he does not have too. Thats why we need to call - so that the calls urge a vote on it. I think thats the best case to getting it passed - with it being attached to an appropriation bill its likely to die by the lack of the 60 votes like last time.

Here is Reids mixed record (he has become more supportive but Im sure the Church is urging him to take a more subtle approach to GLBT rights)

Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
Rated 67% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)

I was just wondering about stand alone vs. inclusion in appropriations. Further reading suggested that the last appropriation bill failed largely because of the Levin-Reed amendment (pull troops out of Iraq on a timetable...), so I was thinking that it might not be a problem this time.

If you think that pressure to pull it and let it stand on its own will put more pressure on a straight up vote... that's good enough for me (and, come to think of it... even Obama has been vocal about the hate crimes bill... more so anyway).

Time to make another call.

;)

the reason for feeling this way is that there will be no excises like come up with appropriation bills. An added benefit of putting the senators on record. We have 58 Dems - I think its a good idea to make them state were they stand (in the long run this will give us some targets to change minds or submit more progressive Democrats against them in the primaries). In the end I just want it to passed no matter how:) Im hoping someone is watching and checking Reids statements against reality - if its true he does not have enough votes he needs to ask for them and if he wont do that we need someone who will:).

On all points.

Feinstein's number was busy whenever I tried... I'm guessing her staffers had a hell of a day. (Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have enough faith in Barbara Boxer that I'll leave her staff to do their thing).

I'll try some more tomorrow...

We're trying to get a hold of Feinstein's office. Her line is busy.