For those defending the 17 Dems who voted against the Matthew Shepard Act

[FLAprogressive]

using various excuses like "their district is too conservative", etc.

Why is it then, that Republican congressman Mike Coffman (CO)...who is in TOM FREAKING TANCREDO's old seat....voted for it?

How about Republicans Bill Cassidy (LA) and Greg Walden (OR), whose districts are both R+10? Aren't their districts quite conservative?

"Conservative" districts are no excuse for homophobia.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-223&sort=party

[jesus_of_suburbia]

1. And they (the Dems) should vote for civil rights anyway.

[FLAprogressive]

2. Exactly.

[Ian David]

3. Only excuse is bigotry. Period. n/t

[Mari333]

4. there are people actually defending these dems?

what..in the name of bipartisanship and moderation???? geezus. how low have we sunk....

[FLAprogressive]

5. Oh yes, they're making fun of "party purity" and the like. Apparently the party should not take a

hard line on civil rights.

[Mari333]

11. sweet jesus on a pogo stick

its as bad as some of them defending the occupations in iraq and afghanistan..warhawks for obama
now civil rights is off the table for some of them because theseare frigging dems????
whats next...they will try to make Joe Lieberman POTUS?

[glitch]

25. Reprehensible.

I used to reserve that word for Republicans.

[dflprincess]

14. There are people who think the only point is to win elections

and how the candidate will vote is unimportant so long as there is a "D" after their name. It is not an attitude I understand and is why I use the sig line I do.

[Mari333]

18. sounds more like a cult nt

[Jakes Progress]

65. It's the high school football syndrome.

Winning is all that matters. You toss out language that speaks to higher purposes, but winning is it. Win and everything is okay.

[Greyhound]

28. "Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything." n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. Any one of them say (out loud),

"Well, my constituents are bigots and they don't want me to vote for any hate crime legislation because they think certain people just NEED killing."?

I mean, if you're going to use your district's "conservatism" as an excuse, let's not impugn conservatism, which doesn't condone hate, but let's lay the responsibility where it belongs - say it flat out - "I represent bigots, racists, and homophobes."

Weasels. All of them, weasels.....................

[dsc]

7. The only defense I will give Shuler is that he was honest

so I didn't give him money as I knew he was worthless on gay issues.

[FLAprogressive]

8. he's a dim bulb who is not worth a penny of any Democratic money.

[dsc]

10. trust me he didn't get a red cent out of me

though my aunt assures me he wasn't stupid back in college, she had him in a class when she was an adjunct at the university of tennessee.

[FLAprogressive]

12. Poor Heath must have been sacked one too many times......

apparently helmets don't work.

[MadBadger]

35. You could have stopped after worthless.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Had to check and make sure my Critter wasn't one of them.

But Harry Mitchell voted aye.

[Cha]

22. Mine voted Yay!

Michael Acuri-24th District New York.

Thanks to the OP for this link.

[Somawas]

13. Why is violence that is motivated by bigotry any worse than violence motivated

by any other cause? I'm serious about the question. In general, I do not understand the logic behind so-called "hate crime" legislation.

[nomorenomore08]

16. Think of it like the difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter.

The law already recognizes, in that instance and others, that motive matters. There's a difference between killing someone through recklessness (manslaughter) and killing them through malice (murder). So why shouldn't we make a distinction between crimes committed against an isolated individual, and crimes meant to "send a message" to thousands or millions of people considered undesirable? :shrug:

[glitch]

23. Well said. nt

[merh]

37. I wish I could recommend your post.

If you don't mind, I will use it when I write my congressman and tell him how pitiful it is that he didn't vote for the law.

[nomorenomore08]

39. Sure, go ahead!

nt

[myrna minx]

58. I wish I could recommend your post. Thank you. n.t

[Lance_Boyle]

63. murder is murder and manslaughter is manslaughter

they are not degrees of the same crime.

A murder intended to "send a message" should be prosecuted as a murder and as a terroristic threat, not as a special new class of murder. There are laws on the books (such as the terroristic threat statutes) that address the added dimension of "intending to send a message to a class of people." Why not use those existing laws in addition to the murder charge to cover the special circumstances?

[noamnety]

17. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. (nt)

[Two Americas]

19. intimidation

Hate crimes are intended to intimidate hundreds or thousands of others, to send a message, as the victim is used as a symbol. That makes it a more serious crime, a greater danger to society.

Motives and aggravating circumstances are routinely considered in the legal system. For some reason, the right wingers want to target hate crime legislation for special criticism and they try to portray it as unusual or unwarranted and unjustifiable, as being at odds with the principles of our legal system.

Looking for any person in a particular group to harm and then going out and killing someone from that group is different than other murders, just as murdering for profit is different then murdering in the midst of a heated argument with an acquaintance.

The murder had but one victim, but the premeditation covered millions of potential victims. Should not premeditation be considered as a factor in murder? Is not premeditation that puts millions at risk more serious than premeditation that threatens one?

Killing or robbing from an upscale member of the dominant social group is almost always punished more harshly. Persecuted and oppressed groups should get protection. That isn't "special" rights, it is an acknowledgment and redressing of an existing power imbalance.


...

[Somawas]

31. Thank you. Of all the explanations I've heard given, that is the most convincing.

I still have to decide whether I really agree with it. But it is the most convincing and best.

[Two Americas]

34. we protect children

We protect the elderly. We punish those who seek out and prey on people in those those vulnerable groups more harshly.

We do not say "hey murder is murder, what difference does it make of the perpetrator was targeting children, hunting them down, and willing to kill any child they came across."

We do not say "so what if that guy who murdered an elderly woman was stalking elderly women, it is just another murder."

People who have difficulty understanding the rationale for hate crimes legislation may be having trouble empathizing with the people who are being targeted for hate crimes.

The right wingers want to deny that people outside of the dominant social group - WASP hetero males - lack power and access to resources, protection under the law, and are at greater risk. Denying that a power imbalance exists serves to keep the power imbalance in place. Some right wing commentators have come right out is recent months and overtly said that their agenda is to protect the privileges of WASP hetero males. Oddly enough, two of them are Catholic - O'Reilly and Buchanan - and so members of a once persecuted group who are now honorary WASPs. I guess that goes to show that there is no zealot like the recently converted, and that the persecuted from yesterday can become the persecutors tomorrow.



...

[FudaFuda]

61. We have always had sentencing ranges, judicial/jury discretion, and parole boards to deal with that.

Mandatory enhancements based on 'hate crime' laws is much akin to mandatory federal sentencing guidelines that punish more for crack than for powder cocaine.

[Two Americas]

67. not true

We have separate statutes to protect children, for example. It is not simply a matter of sentencing ranges, judicial/jury discretion, and parole boards.

[FudaFuda]

60. Don't worry, I agree with YOU. I don't get the logic behind hate crimes either.

I posted my thoughts on this in the "***SHAME***" thread here :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5563826&mesg_id=5568940


But basically, I guess I just feel that by requiring additional punishment for 'hate crimes', you diminish and demean the severity of the crime committed against a person who doesn't fall into a 'hate crime' category. A person who murders for the sheer, random 'fun' of it gets punished less than someone who murders a black man because of a racial bias??? A street mugger who picks out a gay man to rob because he hates gays gets punished more than a street mugger who beats an old woman senseless and robs her because she was a weak and easy target???

Punish the criminal for the act. Motive is a factor in punishment, but that's why we have judicial discretion, sentence ranges, and parole boards. There's no such thing as 'murder plus.'

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. A hate crime is when someone is targeted

because of something they simply are.

An assault of someone can just be an assault. But, when someone sets out to "get a queer," that's invoking a specific trait, and that places "the queer" in a special, protected zone, and therein lies your "hate crime" designation?

Did I make that clear? I tried...................

[Bluebear]

27. Because the violent act terrorizes an entire minority community. nt

[Two Americas]

66. yes

I can't understand people's inability - or unwillingness - to understand this.

[QC]

30. Here's a useful way to think about that.

1. Someone paints "Billy Bob loves Suzy" on the water tower.

2. Someone paints a swastika on a synagogue.

Should both of these acts be treated as simple vandalism? Or is there some very basic difference between them?

[ZombieHorde]

75. I think the two examples should be treated the same. nt

[omega minimo]

46. Now ask why violence motivated by bigotry toward women is not considered Hate Crime?

[dsc]

48. because women already have their own law with enhansed penalties

and federal dollars, the violence against women act.

[omega minimo]

62. That's a rationalization, not an answer. Rape is a Hate Crime.

[dsc]

64. The violence against women act does exactly what the hate crimes law is designed to do

increase punishment and fund investigation of crimes. The sole difference is the name.

[omega minimo]

69. Names matter.

[donco6]

49. I can avoid making enemies personally . . .

Pretty much anyway. I don't have to cut people off in traffic. I don't have to cheat people, or lie or be an asshole. But I can't do anything to protect myself against an unknown neighbor who just happens to hate gay people.

[Zynx]

54. Why is premeditated murder any worse than manslaughter?

When you answer that question, you will understand the logic behind hate crime laws.

[Djinn]

74. I'm personally on the fence a little about hate legislation

BUT, if you see a reason for a crime of "terrorism" or "aiding terrorism" over and above the crimes of murder, conspiracy to commit murder et al then I think you have an answer to your question.

Hate crimes are intended to hurt more than the IMMEDIATE victim but a whole community, it is essentially terrorism.

Personally I don't see any reason for "terror" laws (I'm for fewer laws not more) but if we have them I can see the attendant logic to hate crimes, although why the aren't simply prosecuted under terror laws I don't know.

[Zodiak]

76. Because when you target a person because of race, religion, etc.

You are not just victimizing the individual, but terrorizing that minority community as well. It is committed to cause fear...to tell people "you are not worthy of living because you are a _________".

So the crime becomes a crime against that community as well as the individual.

Get it now?

[LuvNewcastle]

15. My congressman voted no (Gene Taylor).

I often wonder why he calls himself a Democrat. I'd love to hear what his colleagues think of him.

[Fridays Child]

20. Artur Davis? Why? I don't get it.

:(

[QC]

29. He has always been right wing.

For some reason, a lot of people on this site think that he's some sort of wonderful progressive, but he's actually Alabama's answer to Harold Ford. I used to live in his district, so I have no illusions about him.

[Fridays Child]

40. I know little about him but his questioning of Monica Goodling...

...led me to believe that he was an honorable congressman. That's why I'm perplexed regarding his vote on this hate crimes legislation.

[misanthrope]

47. He's about to run for governor...

...in a state where a substantial portion of the population is still trying to come to grips with the passage of the 19th Century. He's a politician. Do the math.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elshiva]

26. 17 Democrats FAILED!

[Toucano]

32. I hate to think there is any district in the country so hateful that a yes vote here

could not be easily defended.

I think it is a lack of courage, if indeed they voted no only for political gain.

I could have told ANY complaining constituent something like, "I appreciate your view, but I also represent a number of men and women in our district for whom this is a more important issue than it could possible be for you. For you it is only threatens your ideology, for some people in our district, it means life and death."

[QC]

33. Even my DINO congresman voted for it, and there is no district more conservative

than this one--it's the Florida panhandle, for heaven's sake, a place that makes Utah look like Berkeley. Boyd was the only Democrat who supported Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, and even he voted yes, so I don't want to hear any excuses.

[merh]

36. you won't find me defending them

I've been stuck with the damn blue dog congressman for years, I can't make excuses for him and he has no respect for Obama - he didn't support Obama and that is why he wasn't asked to supply names of potential US attorneys in his district - that office is still being operated by the same crowd even though lampton resigned.

[madfloridian]

38. Here is a list of no votes and those who did not vote who were Democrats.

No OK-2 Boren, Dan

No PA-10 Carney, Christopher

No MS-1 Childers, Travis

No AL-7 Davis, Artur

No TN-4 Davis, Lincoln

No IN-2 Donnelly, Joe

No IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad

No TN-6 Gordon, Barton

No AL-5 Griffith, Parker

No NC-7 McIntyre, Mike

No LA-3 Melancon, Charles

Not Voting CA-7 Miller, George

Not Voting PA-12 Murtha, John

Not Voting VA-5 Perriello, Thomas

No MN-7 Peterson, Collin

Not Voting MD-2 Ruppersberger, C.A.

No NC-11 Shuler, Heath

Not Voting CA-13 Stark, Fortney

No TN-8 Tanner, John

No MS-4 Taylor, Gene

Not Voting NM-2 Teague, Harry

This is a general hate crimes bill. How could they vote against it?

Link to a summary of the bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1913&tab=summary

[madfloridian]

41. Mostly Southern Dems....plus MN, PA, and IN

Southern Dems rule the day again.

[Divine Discontent]

42. yep. how can they vote against a general hate crimes bill - it doesn't give GLBTers marriage rights

it simply guarantees that there will be no question about people getting away with hate crimes because there's no law on the books. This needs to be passed yesterday, and here we actually have Dems voting against it. They don't deserve ANY support from any of us and they need told by people in their district that they're bigots - because they truly are. For example, I think ol' NFL quarterback bomb, Heath Shuler who didn't last long with the Redskins, just either has disgust about gays in his heart or doesn't want razzed by all of his close sports buddies about being gay - I'm guessing it's the first. He and the rest really oughta be ashamed of themselves.

We have Nelson's word he will vote for it, I'm assuming. I've written him before about it and I think the response was positive from what I recalled.

[readmoreoften]

44. Because their hatred of us has little to do with marriage. They want us extinguished

by any means necessary. The more sadistic of the lot prefer that we hide and cower in fear so that every now and then they can pull us out of the closet and use us individually as punching bags (literally) to solidify their group ties (i.e. gang initiation). The others just want us to disappear, through "cure", through humiliation, through arrest, through quiet disappearances if necessary.

None of this really has anything to do with marriage (of course this is why 95% of straight Democrats laugh at the notion that their families are threatened by us.) This has to do with the goal of eradicating an unwanted subgroup. Gay-bashing, so long as it is not ballyhooed about it in media, elegantly achieves that goal.

[Divine Discontent]

57. oh, that's right! I forgot. Yeah, I was reading some comments on youtube

and the young men were saying they want all gays to die. Talk about insanity and violent tendencies. Every parent should foster acceptance of different types of people in their young kids. Instead, a 1/3 of em are raised in judgmental households where they not only hear negative anger towards certain groups but, probably, a good 3/4 of those go to church/synagogue/mosques.

[FLAprogressive]

50. Well Pete Stark and George Miller are very good....they just didn't vote.

[autorank]

43. k*r We need to keep making this point. Thank you

On a larger scale, many who knew better, voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

You make the point well.

[leftofthedial]

45. good thing we have Specter in the Senate now,

huh?

[badgerpup]

51. Is my face red....

Just did something really dumb...:blush:

Got 'Congressman' confused with 'Senator' and thanked both of mine (both Dems) for voting "Aye" on this...simply because their names didn't show up on this list.
:dunce:

Does this have to pass the Senate as well as the house? Maybe they'll take it as a hint...but usually they're pretty reasonable.
Not spectacular, but reasonable...and the junior senator (Jon Tester) is a newbie...er...freshman.

[dionysus]

52. there actually are people here defending it? what morans...

:puke:

[Blue Belle]

53. Wow. Greg Walden voted for it....

He's the only Republican representative Oregon has.

[Vanje]

55. Poor Greg. He's an endangered specie

Oregon's last Republican in federal office.
Republicans in Oregon are an endangered species.
Sen. Gordan Smith ran his campaign , pretending not to be a republican. Never mentioned it.
Apparently Congressman Walden is a little bit worried.
I lived in Oregon Congressional district 2 for 34 years. In all that time, no Dem challenger ever got more than 1/3 of the vote in that huge conservative district.
Cowboy country , It covers a lot of sagebrush.
Even though I'm in Idaho now , I'm only 2 miles from Oregon Dist 2.

It wouldn't be a bad thing for Walden's constituents to thank him for his stand.

[northofdenali]

56. No excuses and no defense.

These representatives need to receive letter after letter and call after call from their districts.

This is DISGUSTING.

[RubyDuby in GA]

59. Even asshat Jim Marshall voted for it and he's the total SOB - the only Dem in the country -

that voted against SCHIP.

Dems in conservative districts still have the duty to protect all of their constituents and you can't tell me that these conservative districts don't have one gay person in them. There is no excuse to vote against this other than being a despicable human being.

[Bobbie Jo]

68. Hell, even my Blue Dog critter voted for it. nt

[TheBigotBasher]

70. Have any of them made a statement on their vote?

Do they still expect any gay Party Workers to help them?

Could they explain why a new voter should support not just a Republican voting Democrat - but a hate crime supporting Democrat over a Republican?

[FLAprogressive]

71. Because -- they have a D after their name. That is good enough for some here.

[Atman]

72. I'm a bit torn on your "no excuse" angle; are they REPRESENTATIVES or leaders?

While I completely agree that taking the lazy, politically convenient way out is, well...lazy and politically convenient, I don't consider very many of our Senators and House members to be any sort of "leaders." Most are purely followers. Followers of polls, followers of money, followers of anything that will allow them to keep their seat on the Congressional Gravy Train for the rest of their lives. Or at least until they land a sweet deal as a lobbyist for one of their corporate benefactors.

So the question deserves to be asked: do you really consider any of these people to be leaders? They were elected as representatives of their districts. This is a large part of why they always get re-elected; everyone hates every Congressperson except their own rep or Senator. Because they bring home the bacon. The crap that watchdog groups hold up as pork and earmarks, to a local constituent whose job depends upon the special earmark given to the turtle zoo or toothpick museum or even struggling manufacturing plant, those earmarks are his rent.

And he understands that in the end, the man actually paying his rent is one of the guys on that list.

Any one of them could easily call a town hall and try to explain to his constituents that homophobia and racism are outdated relics of a dark chapter in our history. Work to change habits, not excuse them. But that would require leadership. And bravery. These people aren't leaders. They're Washington teat-suckers.

Once you get all that free health care, the private subway system, the fancy office and kick-ass parties, the taxpayer funded junkets, it's pretty difficult to return to the lowly level of those whom you lead. Er, represent.

Too late to cut it short, but my point is fairly simple; is it really an excuse to say they couldn't get re-elected in their districts if they voted for this bill? After all, if they are representatives, shouldn't they be representing the people who voted for them? Even if those people are racist, homophobic assholes, if they live in a racist, homophobic district in a racist, homophobic state, doesn't our system of government provide them representation, too?

If they're still so uneducated, perhaps that is a larger indictment of our system. But I'm not so willing to brush off a vote against this bill as pure homophobia over old fashioned political expediency. Not all people are strong. Some are spineless, clueless and stupid. But if they can find people to represent them before Congress, well, sad to say...that's what our system is based upon.

[FLAprogressive]

73. Coffman, Cassidy, and Walden represent very conservative districts.