05/03/2007
President Bush Threatens Veto of Hate Crimes Bill
In about an hour, (1pm EST) the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Hate Crimes bill introduced in mid-April.
The religious right has gone into overdrive, spreading misinformation to defeat the bill. Judy Shepard published an op-ed piece on The Politico today to combat their "bald-face lies".
An excerpt:
"One group spreading misinformation to its membership -- the so-called Traditional Values Coalition -- has even gone so far as to put a picture of Jesus on a 'wanted' poster, implying that religious people who speak out against homosexuality could become the targets of criminal investigations. Obviously, that's just not true. The people spreading this type of propaganda are blatantly lying to their members out of fear that the federal government might finally legislatively recognize that gay Americans exist, and need the same rights and protections the rest of us take for granted. Even worse, the Traditional Values Coalition is misleading and manipulating its members to make these phone calls to Congress, even when they know in their hearts that they are spreading lies. This type of behavior has nothing to do with real traditional values."
The President today threatened to veto the bill should it reach the oval office:
"The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and 'there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement.' It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk 'his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.'"
UPDATE: Hate Crimes Bill passes House by a vote of 232 to 180.
Below, a video from HRC outlining some of the misinformation being spread by the right wing:
Posted 12:05 PM EST by Andy Towle in Crime, George W. Bush, Judy Shepard, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I can't fucking believe this. Why does anything that evil human terd do STILL surprise me?
Posted by: Ryan | May 3, 2007 12:21:30 PM
Politically, it would be smarter for Bush to sign the damn bill. Then the Republican presidential candidates could cozy up to the base by loudly criticizing his action.
Is Rove asleep at the wheel?
Posted by: 24play | May 3, 2007 12:26:39 PM
The irony of this line from the post is almost too much to bear:
" The people spreading this type of propaganda are blatantly lying to their members out of fear that the federal government might finally legislatively recognize that gay Americans exist, and need the same rights and protections the rest of us take for granted."
Federalizing hate crimes doesn't do grant us the "same rights and protections the rest of [America] takes for granted". Pot, meet Kettle.
I'd rather folks just discussed the merits of the law, and didn't trot out the flag, the bogeyman, or the religious right...
* gah *
Posted by: Zachary Fish | May 3, 2007 12:36:34 PM
Thank you for the HRC link... unfortunate that the only people who care what the HRC has to say are gays and liberals, meaning that the message will be lost.
24play, I concur with your assessment; if the Fuck-in-Chief wants to help the next round of Reich-wing leadership, he should sign the bill.
Posted by: Rad | May 3, 2007 12:37:13 PM
"It'd be a heck of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship. Just so long as I'm the dictactor!" George W. Bush. So I'm thinking that for the next two years, absolutely nothing in the federal government is going to get done. I hope one of these investigations turn up something criminal so we can get rid of this asshole.
Posted by: TroyTooner | May 3, 2007 12:38:16 PM
Even though I don't see this classification as a deterrent to anyone who wants to commit criminal acts, the traditional values scene is shrewd to squash a bill that accurately indicts much of its own constituency.
Posted by: 000000 | May 3, 2007 12:40:02 PM
If this moron vetoes this bill it will mean that during his tenure thus far he has vetoed stem cell research, withdrawal from Iraq and a bill to protect a minority group. What an idiot. The hatred I feel for this man knows no bounds.
I wonder if the Chimp-In-Chief would feel compelled to sign a federal hate crimes bill if it included moronic fascist theocratic leaders among the protected classes?
Posted by: peterparker | May 3, 2007 12:46:04 PM
And on further consideration...
If that spot is typical of HRC's work, then it's no wonder they have so little to show for all the millions their events raise.
Joe Solmonese is a lousy speaker. The spot should be 30 seconds long not 5 minutes. There's no need to give paragraph–long quotations from every wingnut imaginable. The music, which should be dramatic and inspiring, instead is reminiscent of a 4th-grade science film. And the graphics and typography suck.
These are our highest-paid DC lobbyists?
The message should be, "This bill is about fighting violent crime; it does not restrict thoughts or beliefs in any way." Accompanied, of course, by a montage of well-chosen, appalling images of hate crimes. Call your congressperson. The end.
Posted by: 24play | May 3, 2007 12:52:49 PM
I hate him.
Posted by: Pugzz | May 3, 2007 12:57:34 PM
"and i think to myself....what a wonderful world..."
Posted by: Jeff | May 3, 2007 1:02:01 PM
PeterParker: I agree except for the veto on the Iraq bill. If you check the Constitution you will see that the President, not Congress, is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Congress was trying to force an action that is reserved for the CiC. My fear is that if we start f-ing around with the Constitution we will wake up one day with an anti-gay amendment. Then I'll have to move - and I hate packing.
Posted by: shane | May 3, 2007 1:10:09 PM
Shane, the President does not have constiutional authority to send troops to harms way for as long as he sees fit. Only Congress has the right to declare war - and only congress has the right to fund the military.
The legislation that congress passed was legal simply because it was about Iraq War funding. Bush does not have authority over matters of funding. Democrats have every right to keep Bush from funding this war of his if they so choose - and I dare say the American electorate elected them to make sure that happens.
Posted by: Ryan | May 3, 2007 1:16:13 PM
Shane: Which Constitution have you been reading, because the one I did gives Congress the authority to declare war, not the president.
Someone needs a basic Civics lesson. Aren't they teaching that in high school anymore?
Posted by: Tread | May 3, 2007 1:18:14 PM
This administration is a hate crime.
Posted by: Marco | May 3, 2007 1:29:39 PM
Over at www.americablog.com, John has a video of an amazing speech on the floor from Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). It's beautiful and highly recommeded.
Posted by: Kyle Childress | May 3, 2007 1:33:31 PM
Shane: Which Constitution have you been reading, because the one I did gives Congress the authority to declare war, not the president.
Someone needs a basic Civics lesson. Aren't they teaching that in high school anymore?
Posted by: Tread | May 3, 2007 1:37:48 PM
This administration and its pandering to wingnut fundies is a shame. Shame, shame, shame!
Posted by: xavier | May 3, 2007 1:39:11 PM
For me, this no longer is a democrat/republican issue, the fact that Bush even has the nerve to say in public that he is treatening to veto this bill reflects the hatred and the bigotry that is in this country at the moment. President Bush is only part of the problem because in a couple of years he will no longer be in office, but the hatred and bigotry towards the Gay Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community (GLBT) will remain. Attitudes and thoughts have got to change in the United States towards the GLBT community. Sorry if I sound like I am preaching from a soap box, but this is how I feel about this.
Posted by: matthew | May 3, 2007 1:54:44 PM
It passed the House -- 232-180
Posted by: David | May 3, 2007 1:55:39 PM
I disagree on a lot of the stuff said on this blog but I don't see any harm that passing this bill can cause. Everyone deserves equal protection from crime. It is a win win for everyone involved.
As far as the Iraq war is concerned. These people have been fighting for thousands of years. We have had several troop surges in the pass. Yes things get better but only during the surge. It's like a cop standing on the front porch of someone who is beating his wife. He isn't going to beat her while the cop is there. As soon as we withdraw the civil war will continue. This is our generations Vietnam/Bay of Pigs.
Posted by: Matt | May 3, 2007 1:57:33 PM
Well, at least this mealy-mouthed sssssssspokessssssperssssson was posing next to an American flag rather than the usual HRC flag [yes, they have one] as if he were the Queen of Equaltopia. But as has been well-addressed, this is simply more preaching to the choir [over really trite, irritating music], and, of course, ended with passing the collection plate yet again to keep the Human Rights Champagne flowing. Can I get an Amen?!
If HRC had actually been doing its self-identified job for the last 26 years this bill would have passed long ago, we would not still be scrambling a defense at the last minute for the repeated assaults on our civil liberties and safety, our enemies might still be strutting their lies but no one would be listening, and any who suggested that physically attacking us was “holy” would be shamed and shunned into silence. Yes, there are still huge numbers of people who have similar attitudes about Blacks and Jews, and occasionally they crawl out from beneath their rocks. But for the most part they have been marginalized and however racist and anti-Semitic others might internally remain they know that expressing it in the public square will not be tolerated.
WHY is that STILL not true about those who hate us? In large part because Joe Solmonese & HRC are to sociopolitical power what GI Joe is to the Green Berets.
Posted by: Leland | May 3, 2007 1:58:14 PM
The problem with hate crime laws is that they are difficult to prove in court, are highly subjective, and don't make anything illegal that isn't already illegal. On top of that it gives the lying paranoid christian right yet another talking point they can yell from the pulpit further uniting their base. And it accomplishes no real goal but to make you feel better about yourself. I really don’t know why Bush is still pandering to his base – he is out of office in less then two years.
I am reminded of the irrational reasoning behind these laws by a recent event that happened locally in Moorehead. Someone gets beaten up, cries hate crime, and later admits it had nothing to do with it. Assault is a crime and I hope the perpetrators get throw in jail about it but honestly I suspect his entire story after crying the ski is falling…
Posted by: yoshi | May 3, 2007 2:06:42 PM
Leland,
This is your favorite troll. I agree with you 100% on the effectiveness of GLAAD/HRC. But my question I pose to you is who do we donate too? Who do we support?
Posted by: Matt | May 3, 2007 2:07:33 PM
Matt, I agree with your question "who do we support" because GLAAD/HRC obviously are not doing what they are supposed to. Maybe you and I should start a group of our own? :)
Posted by: matthew | May 3, 2007 2:17:28 PM
Matthew,
If we did, you would have to be the face of our organization b/c i'm a troll on here lol.
Posted by: Matt | May 3, 2007 2:21:36 PM