Well said Nadine. We need to find out who is standing firm in support of an inclusive bill, who is wavering so that we can help them gain a spine and who is opposed so that we can possible change their minds.

IMOHO.
Geeze. Well this must be one of those “learning moments” for us.
Let me see. I don’t think Frank or Pelosi are evil doers, they are politicians. They have their head in a very different, albeit not entirely healthy place.
Looking over the facts as they appear to be, this is what I find.
Going back and adding Transgender protections is monumentally hard to do on a statewide level. On a national level? Doesn’t look easy at all.
And that really settles it for me.
Inclusion or bust.
Yes, that is a very different stance than yesterday for me. Education is a wonderful thing. So is a little time to think, look at the facts.
Additional thoughts;
1. Who needs these protections the most? Transgender people.
2. It’s gonna get vetoed anyway, so why divide the community?
3. It’s wrong, VERY wrong in principle. We are either for social justice or we are not.
4. What kind of message are we sending to our straight allies?
5. What kind of message are we sending the foes of equality?
6. What kind of message are we sending our politicians?
7. In 2 years, will the situation be better for EDNA? Me thinks yes. So, might it be better to be patient? Maybe we should put EDNA out there as is and come back again.

And for everyone out there ready to throw Barney, Nancy and Joe under the bus…. Five days ago, they where your heroes.

Now, here’s one I’m sure you all will be saying, WTF?
Perhaps it is up to us (GLBT) to lead the way for our country and politicians.

Welcome to the other side, banshiii. *grins*

Nadine, I have a question for you that I hope you can answer. What do you say in response to Barney Frank's quote here on the Project?

The main reason not to put this to a vote is our interest in ultimately adopting transgender protection. If we were to push for a vote now, knowing that the transgender provision would be defeated by a majority, we would be making it harder ultimately to win that support. As recent campaigns indicate, Members of Congress who are accused of switching their position on votes are pilloried, even when this is done unfairly as it was to Senator Kerry. Thus, forcing a vote on transgender inclusion now, which would without any question result in a majority against it, would make it harder to win when we have done better in our educational work, because Members who vote no now will be harder to persuade to switch their votes than to persuade them to vote yes in the first instance.

This is not quite as analogous as Barney would have people think, Bil. There is some room for changed positions on what are considered evolving issues -- especially if the legislator's original position is behind the curve of the constituents.

This is because the constituents will themselves have gone through a growth phase from one position base more in ignorance to a different, more enlightened one and they will tolerate a legislator who has done the same thing if it is explained to them in those terms.

Besides, people are tiring of that sort of Bush/Rove politics. At their core, they don't like being manipulated and are beginning to see the politics of it as exactly that.