Hate Crimes Bill Buckles Under

by on

I'm not a supporter of hate crimes bills, as previously noted (for example, here and here). But if I were, I wouldn't be a happy camper about this latest legislative fiasco.

4 Comments for “Hate Crimes Bill Buckles Under”

  1. posted by Brian Miller on

    It was very clever for the Democrats to attach it to an Iraq War funding bill, so they had cover for voting against it.

    Don’t think it wasn’t planned that way — Democrats don’t actually want the bill to *pass*. After all, since “hate crimes” and ENDA special-rights bills are the only two commitments to the LGBT community that the ‘Cratties are willing to make (since they don’t actually believe in equality under the law), passing one of those two would erode most of their gay platform.

    Whereas, if they continue their shenanigans as is, they have legions of useful idiots in the gay press and mainstream press alike who are willing to trumpet over what a “historical victory for gay people” a half-passed (and half-assed) ENDA passage in only one house is, and how “close to victory” the “hate crimes” bill came.

    I cannot believe that more people haven’t seen through this by now. They’ve been doing this for the better part of a decade now!

  2. posted by Avee on

    The bill collapsed because left-Democrats wouldn’t vote to fund the Iraq war, and right-Republicans wouldn’t vote to federalize (certain) hate crimes. Now, as soon as the hate crimes bit comes out, the Iraq funding bill will sail through (with centrist Democrats and total Republican support).

    So, the left-Democrats put pure symoblism (a substance-less vote against funding the war) above a substantive vote for the hate crimes bill.

    If the bill passes next year as a separate measure, with “moderate” GOP support joining the Democrats, Bush will certainly veto it. Whether he would have vetoed the measure embedded in Iraqi war funding will remain unknown — the left Democrats have seen to that.

  3. posted by Brian Miller on

    Like I said, the entire strategy is to walk a fine line on the few issues where Democrats are willing to work with gay people.

    The fine line is a line between looking like you support something, and also making sure that what you support doesn’t pass.

    If Democrats got this passed, as they could easily do, they wouldn’t have any more campaign issues. After all, they’re not willing to support real equality under the law in military service, adoption, marriage, immigration, tax treatment, pensions, etc.

    Thus, if their little symbolic initiatives (ENDA, “hate crimes”) get passed, they lose their bully pulpit with which to exhort gay people to vote Democratic, since the “contrasts” on gay issues they’re willing to take disappear.

    Ergo, you get results like this, along with a fancily-worded statement from Empress Pelosi communicating her “deep disappointment” with the outcome and talking about how she’s going to “fix” things, someday, when she gets around to it, and please-vote-for-us-and-give-us-more-money-now.

    Hilariously enough, the Democrats have also done this to the anti-war folks. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party could have ended the war in Iraq 12 months ago, but they kept voting for appropriations bills anyway. Now, suddenly, when the appropriations bill includes “hate crimes” provisions, they’re discovering their backbone and voting against it?

    If you believe that, I’ve got a great beachfront property in Nevada — right on the Atlantic. Small bills only, please.

  4. posted by -- on

    Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats did the correct thing by passing the Hate Crimes Act as a stand-alone measure. It was the Senate Dems who created this debacle by attaching Hate Crimes to the Defense Act. So now it’s time for Senate Dems to fix their mistake. Since the House already passed the bill standing alone this year, the Senate can still pass a Hate Crimes bill – standing alone – next year, and then send it to the President’s desk. There’s still a chance for this to become law before the election.

Comments are closed.