Skip to main content

Here are the 20 Senators who 1) refused to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution passed yesterday, and 2) refused a roll-call vote so they'd have to put their name on the resolution.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
19 Republicans and 1 Democrat, a real wall of shame.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:09 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This Kent Conrad (none)
    intrigues me. Anybody have some info worth sharing on him?
    •  Bear in mind (4.00)
      I recognise this just a gesture that really does not resolve the current issues related to this and other ongoing atrocities.

      But if you are not even motivated to join in on a symbolic measure like this, you have to ask yourself if you are on of these senators:

      What are you and why are you here?

      •  Trent Lott = big time racist (3.00)
        Too bad Strom Thurmond wasn't around, he and Trent could have been arm in arm!  Of course some of those blacks lynched were probably related to some of Strom's black children, but that wouldn't stop Mr 24 hour filibuster against the Civil Rights Act.

        Call out the 19 Repug Racists!

        What does Howard Dean think about these Racist Repugs?

        •  Let's work on Conrad for now (none)
          Then Dean can let them have it, after we've convinced our one wavering Senator to rethink his non-co-sponsorship.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:36:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Conrad was out of town and Burns has signed on (4.00)

            I just spoke with Senator Conrad's communications director and what he said basically boiled down to:

            The Senator was out of the area over the weekend and had not had a chance to read the legislation before the vote. He is going to read it over, and he may sign on as a co-sponsor after the fact.

            I also talked with Senator Burns' staff, and they (the Washington staff, his local staff didn't know) claim that he signed on as a co-sponsor yesterday. So his name should be taken off the next version of the list.

          •  Kent Conrad is a Good Man (none)
            Give him the benefit of the doubt on this one until you've heard the full story.  

            I have met him a number of times, and he is a class act, and definitely one of the good guys -- big time.  

            You may or may not disagree with his policies, but if every Democrat had Conrad's character, we'd be a hell of a lot better off as a party, and as a nation.  

            StemPAC: Fight back on stem cells
            www.StemPAC.com

            by Hlinko on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:41:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not saying anything against him (none)
              I'm saying, whether his lack of support was an oversight or a deliberate choice, let's change that lack of support, so we make sure we get every Dem on board before we start hammering the GOP racists on this.

              This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

              by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 03:08:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fair enough... (none)
                I see your point... Judging by Kos's latest entry, it looks like it is in fact the GOP alone that is not signed on.

                Pretty weird for a party that's been crowing the last few days about its diversity...

                StemPAC: Fight back on stem cells
                www.StemPAC.com

                by Hlinko on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 08:09:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yup, THAT's the point (none)
                  Now that we've gotten Conrad on board (and let's just assume that, as his staff is explaining, he intended to all along), and now that we've got evidence that Fristie is the one who hid this vote in the middle of the night and behind a voice vote, now we have a nice opportunity to demonstrate the real racism of the GOP. Made to order, particularly given the recent flap about Dean's comments.

                  Thing is, WE KNOW the GOP want to avoid committing publicly on this, one way or another. So we know we can push it, and provided we get enough attention, we will be guaranteed to have good results. Either the GOP pisses off its racist supporters, or they kiss off their effort to attract more of the black vote.

                  This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

                  by emptywheel on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 06:41:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not surprised... (none)
          ...that Lott is on this list.  I am somewhat surprised, and dissapointed, that our other Mississippi senetor Thad Cochran is also on this list.

          I intend to write both MS senetors asking their position on this bill.  I'll post any answers I may receive.

    •  was he even in Washington? (none)
      He might not have been there.....until we hear otherwise from his office...
      •  I'm always one for objectivity (none)
        and making sure he was in DC is definitely something we need to do... but there were other Sens that signed onto this resolution back in Feb. and even some who signed on late... I know that objectively, there could be a thousand reasons why a Sen wouldn't know about this bill... but being the only Dem not to sign... it's a little fishy.
      •  See below (none)
        His office, as of now, has no answer for why he didn't co-sponsor it.

        They might try to come up with a compelling explanation if they received a few more calls:

        (202) 224-2043

        This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

        by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:32:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've got an explanation (none)
          North Dakota is probably one of the few states with a smaller black population (by percentage) than Iowa. This issue probably wasn't on his radar screen. I kind of doubt he spent a lot of time scheming about how he wouldn't want to offend racists in ND--I suspect he just doesn't pay much attention to racial issues, period.
          •  Dumb Explanation (none)
            I live in Vermont, both of my Senators co-sponsored it.  I haven't seen a black person since I moved here.  The apology was for the collective actions of the Senate in the past, not the actions of individual Senators for their states.  By that logic, during the time when lynching was going on, Conrad would not have supported a bill addressing it, because it wouldn't be applicable to his constituents.

            Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever has.

            by KevinL75 on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:56:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not defending him (none)
              I'm just saying that I doubt sensitivity to racial issues is Conrad's strong point. I would be surprised if he consciously calculated not to sponsor it--as opposed to those southerners who probably were deliberately trying to finesse an "awkward" issue for their base.
              •  Mmhmm (none)
                I was just commenting on it as a bad possible explanation, if he were to give it himself.  An explanation nonetheless, but a bad one.

                Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever has.

                by KevinL75 on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:32:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  "compelling explanation" (none)
          What possible explanation could there be?
          •  Absence from the Senate? (none)
            I agree there could be compelling reasons. So that's why I called. For now, I'd like to pressure him to at least make a statement on it. The other two Senators who didn't cosponsor (Reed and Bingaman) are at least saying they "supported" the statement. Conrad's office just plain doesn't know.

            This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

            by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:54:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The Spirit of Bipartisanship Lives! (none)
      Makes you proud to be an A-murican, don't it?
    •  He's a good Dem (4.00)
      A coulple of years ago, he caught a Repub staffer trying to insert an onerous bit of language into a bill without telling anyone. I forgot what the specific language was (any help?), but it was bad. It was removed after embarrassing the Repubs.

      Does we know if Conrad was even present? People need to stop focusing on the single Dem and start shouting about the 19 Repubs.

      The Media Is Dead. Long Live NewsCorpse.com

      by KingOneEye on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:17:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stop shouting about not co-sponsering (none)
        and start shouting about the voice vote.

        It's pure chickenshit for a house of congress not to have a roll call vote on a bill like this!

        Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

        by bawbie on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:20:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Peaking at your taxes (none)

        It was last year. There was a vaguely worded section of a large bill that basically gave the chairman of a committee (I can't remember which it was off the top of my head) the ability to look at (or to delegate someone else to look at) tax returns of pretty much anyone they wanted to.

        When it was made public the section was taken out of the bill, but it did create a bit of a stink for a short while.

      •  Exactly! (none)
        Conrad is a good man.  

        Enough with the Democratic circular fire squads -- focus on the right wingers, and we'll be a lot better off.  

        StemPAC: Fight back on stem cells
        www.StemPAC.com

        by Hlinko on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:43:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Just called and asked (4.00)
      "I guess I don't know" why he didn't cosponsor it, was the answer.

      I told the nice schlep who answered the phone I would keep calling. Perhaps some others might want to, too (particularly since I believe someone can go back and co-sponsor retroactively).

      (202) 224-2043

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:30:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kent Conrad (4.00)
        phone: (202) 224-2043

        Fax:  (202) 224-7776

        Online: http://conrad.senate.gov

        Email:  http://conrad.gov/webform.html

        Your hands are shaking, Popinjay!

        by Maine Atticus on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:35:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes - Absolutely (none)
        we need to shame everyone into co-sponsering it retroactively. Get it down to a couple that won't co-sponser and call them on the carpet for their reasoning.

        It would be great to get a race discussion going. It will give us a chance to flush the closet racists out. It will give us a chance to further fracture the GOP moderates away from the NASCAR set. Maybe we can even get it to the point where W has to go on record. Can you imagine W trying to tap dance around the issue, knowing full well that of the 40% of the country that still approves of him, a quarter of these are closet racists.

        Its a winning electoral issue for us, plus its the right thing to do.

    •  Cannot Believe Conrad Hates Blacks (none)
      Perhaps up in Dakota, you never know when you might need to lynch an Indian?

      Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party - DNC Chair Howard Dean

      by easong on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:02:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  hey, former Nodaker here - (none)
         - and knock it off!  There isn't any racism in NoDak (well, as little as there is in any state -)

         these are hard-working, sensible people, who are currently losing a lot of their neative sons in Iraq and getting very pissed off about it.  The REASON Dean put North Dakota in his first 4 states to organize and fund is that although they voted Bush for  president, all 3 of thier elected congressman are Democrats - we can get that state to go blue in 2008.

        ONE MORE TIME.  CONRAD IS A GOOD GUY!  (except for the bankruptcy vote. ) I"M SURE THIS WAS JUST A SCREW-UP!  Stop trashing COnrad and Nodak - at least until you know the facts!

        •  Just Reacting to the Facts (none)
          I'm sure Conrad ain't a bad guy. Now he's gonna have to explain to Big Ed whassup with lynching.

          Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party - DNC Chair Howard Dean

          by easong on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:42:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The White Christian Party (none)

      "You think you can intimidate me? Screw you. Choose your Weapon." Eliot Spitzer

      by bonddad on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:07:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kent Conrad is a GREAT Guy (none)
       - and I am SURE this was just some staff oversight on his part -(though I am going to call his office to make sure!)

      I am a NoDak native, and Conrad is a ferocious deficit hawk and all-around good guy - smart as a whip, very able -

      I will call his office, report back if I find out anything!

    •  Just heard from my sister who works for Kent (none)
      and he wasn't in DC last night so he wasn't able to co-sign then.  He will sign-on (and has/had every intention to do just that) when he get's back to DC.
  •  Why is there a democrat on this list? (none)
    There shouldn't be. Why did he refuse to sponsor this bill?
    •  Good question. (4.00)
      How would we be able to tell, without a clarifying comment, the difference between a Democrat who doesn't support the bill because they don't feel there's anything to apologize for, and a Democrat who doesn't support the bill because it's so easy to see the bill as ridiculous posturing?

      Seriously. How would we answer that? And if Conrad surprised everyone and said that was his reason, would we buy it? If not, why not?

      •  Gotta go with Kagro here... (4.00)
        There are reasons not to co-sponsor this bill that don't make one objectively pro-lynching, to paraphrase.  Like, one could feel that "apologizing" for something other people did is a morally meaningless act and is, as Kagro suggested (as a possibility, I don't know if he takes this position), ridiculous posturing.  

        And of course there are counter-arguments to that, and there can be good symbolic reasons to support the bill anyway.  But just because some Senator chose not to co-sponsor it is not necessarily evidence of anything in his heart.

        Trying to drum this up into a major political tempest is, I'm sorry to say, a little silly.

        •  We should at least get a statement out of him. (4.00)
          I mean, the truth is that nobody takes lonely stands against posturing anymore, so it's not all that likely that that's the reason.

          But before we kill anybody, let's get a statement.

          And this doesn't mean anyone has to shut up, either. This is the way to get a statement. Asking, "Hey, what's the deal?"

          Still, being that there's more than enough data and experience out there among Senators for Conrad to know that holding out for reasons of principle is going to hurt him more than help him, maybe we ought to ask ourselves how we feel about that? How we feel about having created an atmosphere where Senators have to sign on to something like this, no matter how useless in practical terms, or risk instant backlash, even before they've had a chance to make their case.

          •  Try his office (none)
            (202) 224-2043

            The best I got was, "I guess I don't know."

            This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

            by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:35:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I got pretty much the same response (none)
              Along with "check his website" at which point I had to explain to the staffer that I just came from the website and it had no info.

              Of course then he wanted to know where I was calling from.  Was gonna lie, but decided to be truthful and let him know that I live in Jersey but that my father moved East from ND when he got married and that we have a bunch of relatives still there.  I told him to please have Senator Conrad clarify his position ASAP since I don't think my relatives would be voting for anyone who did not come out as strongly anti-lynching

          •  FWIW (none)
            The other two non-co-sponsors (Reed and Bingaman) are stating their support, although they don't offer reasons for not co-sponsoring.

            This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

            by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:56:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not so silly (none)
          This was a voice vote held late at night, the very same day that the news outlets were busy covering the oh-so-important Michael Jackson verdict, which to me screams, "We've got something to hide." Why not shed a little light on it, the exact opposite of what they want? Show our elected officials that they will be held accountable, no matter how much they try to operate in the dark.

          "But where are all the homosexuals?" -James Dobson in Hell

          by calitex on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:17:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And while we're at it (none)
            Show them that they can't use voice votes to hide from their constituents anymore.

            The Republicans--with the support of Kerry, Holy Joe, and Edwards--also held a voice vote on the $87 billion Iraq appropriation. First, it's despicable that we can release THAT MUCH money without a clear paper trail on who voted for it. And second, it should be clear to Sen. Kerry--who may have lost the damn election on his "I voted for it before I voted against it" that Republicans aren't going to return the courtesy of anonymity on these votes. So why give them cover in the first place???

            This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

            by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:32:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  In which case (none)
        I'd expect the staffers to be versed in giving this explanation to those who call.

        But seeing as how they're not (or at least the guy on the phone RIGHT NOW is not), I'm not sure I buy it.

        "I guess I don't know" is about as lame an explanation as I've heard from a politicians office of late.

        This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

        by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:33:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would be nice. (none)
          In a well-run office, when calls start coming in, the staff prepares the people who are answering the phones.

          Of course, calls have probably just started, and chances are good that you spoke to an intern, who may or may not be on his/her first (or nearly first) day on the "job," having gotten out of school for the summer about a week ago.

          •  Agree (none)
            It sounds like they've got a better answer now ("he was out of town").

            Let see how Conrad (and Reed and Bingaman, who also did not cosponsor) respond as the day goes forward.

            This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

            by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:08:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  reason for apology (none)
        The Senate wasn't apologizing for the fact that lynchings happened.  They were apologizing for decades of refusing to make lynching a federal crime.

        That's not posturing, that's decency.  

        "There's nothing like poverty to get you into Heaven"
        -Patty Griffin, "Poor Man's House"

        by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:36:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What can I tell you? (none)
          Some people apparently don't think so.

          More people seem to regard this in the way you do, which is why it's such an easy call to just roll over and go with the flow.

          It's not a defense, it's just an effort to have a little discussion about Senatorial thinking.

      •  Ridiculous Posturing? (none)
        Half of what the GOP does is ridiculous posturing.  And you know what - they win elections with it. Most recently, they won a Presidential election because of ridiculous posturing regarding gay marriage.

        So I don't care what it is, I just want more GOP Senators to stick their foot in their mouth and provide us with a ready made campaign issue.

  •  Curse Conrad (4.00)
    For making this slightly less starkly a Republican freakshow.
    •  Nail, meet head (4.00)
      This is exactly why it was so important for all the Dems to come together on this one. Especially since the pugs are absurdly trying to position themselves as embracing blacks into the party. No matter what Conrad's reason is, his non-support diminishes to a degree our ability to point to the pugs as hypocrites. And frankly, Conrad had better have a damn good reason for not signing on. Even if he tought this resolution was mere posturing, it still has powerful symbolic meaning to many people.
    •  God damn you Conrad! (none)
      Of course it doesn't matter that the Senate isn't really addressing race issues.

      Of course it doesn't matter that even posturing like this is done at odd hours on a voice vote.

      Of course it doesn't matter that the Democrats don't seem to be raising a fuss about the lack of a roll call vote or the timing.

      All that REALLY matters is that it's slightly harder to use this in a campaign ad. God damn you Conrad.

  •  The Republican Party... (4.00)
    ...Standing up for your freedom to lynch!
    •  A trip down memory lane ... (4.00)
      ...will, sadly, show that as late as the 1950s, a lot of Democrats - powerful Democrats - not only would have opposed an anti-lynching bill but also actively fostered a political culture in which lynching thrived. Since '64, and especially '68, that kind of Democrat has switched to the GOP as part of a conscious, explicit strategy by the Republican Party.

      **

      Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

      Visit The Next Hurrah

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:18:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We're (none)
      gonna need a bigger rope.

      No idea why that thought entered my brain.

      "The billboards shade the flags they wave. . ." -Bright Eyes

      by indiemcemopants on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:20:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Watch your frame ... (none)
      (I mean the collective "your")

      This is not anti-lynching legislation. Lynching is, and always has been, murder. Today, thanks to legislation passed by Congress and other legislative bodies, it would be considered a hate crime, which carries harsher penalties than just straight-up murder. This (pdf) is an apology by the Senate for not passing anti-lynching-specific legislation at a time when the President was urging Congress to do so and when the House of Representatives had already done so.

      Not that it would be a good reason, but Senators who have constituencies that are anti-reparation could be among the group who did not co-sponsor. There may be a reason - albeit not a very good one - as to why a current Senator would not want to add his/her name to an apology for a Senate no one current was in at the time. In what I was reading in the Senate transcripts, not being present isn't a good excuse. Fellow Senators can (and Landreiu and Allen did) stand up and ask that another Senator's name be added, presumably with that Senator's permission.

      By the way, Lamar Alexander introduced a resolution celebrating Black History Month on 2/8/05. He only had 35 co-sponsors. Hillary Clinton introduced a bill to "express the sense of Congress on women in combat," essentially stating that women play a critical role and that there should be no change in existing statues, regulations or policy that would decrease roles or positions available to women. She only had six co-sponsors: five women and Jack Reed. What's up with that? I don't know if either of these passed and I don't believe it would have an effect either way, but are we going to hold 64 Senators up as "anti-black-history-month" or 93 Senators as "anti-women-in-the-military"?

      So, it'll be interesting to hear why certain people did not support this, but since I don't know all the procedural issues, I'm witholding my bullhorn for now.

      /devil advocate, OFF

      BUSH: Like a rock...but dumber.
      Stewart/Olberman 2008!

      by mugsimo on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:34:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Presidents weren't so hot on anti-lynching either (none)
        A Pacific News Service commentary that ran in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle points out that of the 8 presidents between 1920 and 1968 who had the opportunity to push for anti-lynching legislation, only two - LBJ and Truman - made any kind of real effort. The writer, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, argues that even those two "didn't do so out of a moral epiphany or racial enlightenment" but because of pressure to act on high-profile cases. Also, Eisenhower and Kennedy made "half-hearted" efforts only, even though they had the muscle, and the mood of the country was shifting in that direction.

        I might quibble with his characterization of Johnson and Truman: Truman forced the integration the armed forces, even though it was highly unpopular, and LBJ pushed through and signed civil rights legislation, knowing as he did so that the Democrats would "lose the South for a generation" (a prediction that, if anything, was an underestimate). But the rest of the list sure looks accurate.

  •  I hope Kent has an excuse... (4.00)
    ...like he was encased in carbonite or something.

    "Summoned or not summoned, the god will be here" - Jung's tombstone.

    by BleedingKnuckleLiberal on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:11:42 AM PDT

    •  No Excuse (none)
      Thank you, Kent Conrad, for taking an issue right out of your party's hands.  A small issue, maybe, but an important and valuable issue.

      The Republicans are not all racists, but they all pander to them, and this is an example that we could have used had our party been unanimous.

      I am certain that Reid or someone talked to Conrad and explained all this, in the unlikely event that Conrad didn't already know it.  I'm really trying to imagine what that conversation was like.  

      Senator Conrad, how do you live with yourself?

  •  Why Conrad? (none)
    That is surprising. I wonder what his reasons were.
  •  Michael Crapo (R-ID) (none)
    That makes me sad, being an Idaho resident.  How can someone be against lynching?  I just don't understand why.
    •  He may be late... (4.00)
      I bet after he gets some 'counseling' he will sign on.

      Typically he tests the waters first. As to why he thinks he needs to test the water on this one; I have no idea.

      Either that or he is just going to prove himself a pompous ass.

    •  Its because... (none)
      He's a flippin idiot! [/napoleon]

      "In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -Albert Camus.

      by BrianL on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:25:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't mean to bismirch your State, (3.66)
      but isn't Idaho the whitest state in the Nation. Legendary home to white supremecists?

      Is Crapo afraid of a backlash from White Pride and their allies?

      •  CRAPo. Need I say more? (4.00)

        9/11 was the Neocons' Reichstag fire. "Patriot Act" = Enabling Act.

        by Bulldawg on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:42:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (none)
          Someone, generations ago, knew what this man would amount to.
          •  One could only wish... (none)

            ...that Idaho would cut the crapo.  He ran unopposed this past year, as I recall.

            Idaho's a great example of a one-party state - kind of like a Stalinist people's democracy in the 1950s: the people's republic of Idahohakistan.  No public health, no public services, no education.  High infant and maternal mortality rate.  Used to be the highest in the country - before Dick Kempthorne's 'don't shake a baby' campaign.

            Take a drive from Coeur d'Alene to Lewiston and see the poverty.  Deplorable.

            Oh yeah, and all the white supremacy groups, too...!

            "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

            by quaderni on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:44:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Called Crapo's office a little while ago (4.00)
      Staffer didn't have an answer on how he voted. Told them I would like an answer today. I'm calling them back in a few hours.

      Regards the poster equating this with the Aryans in northern Idaho -- it's not. Most of those clowns left the state when their compound was confiscated and sold out from under them. With Crapo, it's not a Neo-Nazi thing, it's a far-right Latter-Day Saints thing. He's senator of a section of Idaho so conservative it makes Mormons in Utah seem liberal.

      Crapo doesn't need to wear a swastika to be the grade-A, government-inspected assjack he is. It comes to him naturally.

      Tilting at windmills, with the proper armor and enough firepower, can be a productive effort. http://www.43sb.com

      by Serephin on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:55:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey! (none)
        I threw up something on Vasquez today (unfortunately, not literally)...

        Gonna try to start getting a bit more local.

      •  Clowns didn't leave the state... (none)

        ... in fact, north Idaho has become a haven for violent neo-Confederate groups.  Northern Idaho has had a string of violent race murders and other hate-related crimes that has amazingly alluded the mainstream media.  The Aryan nations were chickenshit compared to this stuff.

        Laramie, Wyo., got its own play and place in infamy.  We all know how the University of Wyoming failed there.  But at the University of Idaho, for instance, a gay student can be dismembered and no one mentions it - and university students can kill gay couples and no one notices.  

        More evidence?  A white supremacist group is holding a rally at the University of Idaho this summer.  Almost unbelievably,, the university is subsidizing the event to the tune of thousands of dollars.  Once again, no media attention.

        North Idaho is, by far, the biggest racist hell hole on the planet.  Yeah, the LDS crowd is freaky and conservative.  But they are by far one of saner constituencies in this state.

         

        "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

        by quaderni on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:52:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  another Idahoan... (none)
      Crapo and Craig have got to be two of the most toolish of all the GOP Senators. Craig has a bill to limit some of the Patriot Act, Otter didn't vote for it, and Craig stalled an Air Force bill a couple years ago to insert some military pork for us, but I can't remember anything Simpson or Crapo's done that's been the least bit independent of the party. I guess here's Crapo's first steps to not tie his vote to Frist's, but it's one of the more shameful things to be out of step with Frist on.
    •  No sh!t. (none)
      I saw Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch together on the list and thought, "Oh, the poison twins held hands a voted again.  Precious."

      "One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal" ~ Bill Moyers

      by CJB on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:33:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  where is Strom? (none)
        too bad that Strom couldn't be there with his pals Lott and Hatch, quite the trio of racists.  How many black children do Lott and Hatch have?  We'll never know with the RWCM completely neutered when it comes to investigating Repugs.
        •  Strom would be different now (none)
          He actually changed over the years, I think because of his daughter that we all know about now. I may be wrong, but I beleive he voted for the MLK Holiday. Jesse Helms would have been a different case.
          •  um (4.00)
            Essie Mae Washington-Williams was born in 1925 when Strom was 22.  

            Strom never changed.

            "Let's put our heads together/And start a new country up/Our father's father's father tried/Erased the parts he didn't like" - R.E.M., "Cuyahoga"

            by Adam B on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:02:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No acknowledgement (or apology) (none)
              is as disingenuous as one from somebody who got caught.  

              I, too, believe that Strom died with the same stripes with which he was born.

              There is nothing noble about voting based on who Jesus tells you to hate. ~ JamesB3

              by CJB on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:17:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Why would anyone... (4.00)
    ... refuse to sign?  Is there a lobby for racist murderers?

    Liberty and justice for all

    by lovable liberal on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:12:44 AM PDT

    •  No Lobbyists Needed, This Is Pure Conscience! (none)
      It's nice to know that our Senators stand for something. Even if it is lynching.
    •  Really? (none)
      Are we really requiring ALL senators to sponser legislation now?  If they voted for the bill, who cares if they didn't sponser it? (Other than people at this site, obviously)

      Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

      by bawbie on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:24:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In a sense, I agree (none)
        This all seems a bit ridiculous, harping over every single Senator that didn't sign on.

        However, there is a little something here.  The Senate deliberately changed protocol here to avoid certain members being forced to answer Yay or Nay on this issue, and that seems underhanded to me.  It's hard for me to imagine the decision process these people go through, weighing the political choices of lynching, and being so afraid of voting one way or the other that they actively change the procedures in order to avoid the vote.

        So, to me, the number of signatures here doesn't matter.  What matters is the method in which the voting records were curbed in order to allow various members cover in not voting on the bill.  That is where the focus needs to be.  And it can be assumed relatively safely that the Senators who wanted to avoid the records have a correlation with the Senators who did not sign the bill.

        Of course, not signing does not mean one is pro-lynching, but the correlation of not signing and trying to weasel out of the vote is there.

        •  right (4.00)
          You're right on. Personally I see it as a sign of the nasty bunch that the GOP has aligned themselves with -- in this case, the same ones whom the Democrats alienated back when the civil rights act was signed into law.

          The GOP's current position of power is a result of careful alignment with several ugly interest groups -- racists, radical Christianic sects, and the corrupt super-rich.

          Even if a Republican politician starts out with a conscience and morals, he or she can only get so far. Getting elected to national office usually requires pandering to those groups... which is a deal with the devil. (Literally.)

          The mere fact that they sidestepped this and tried to go off the record is U-G-L-Y. Completely predictable once you recognize that their careers are based on the support of hate groups and those without any concern for humanity, but sickening nonetheless.

      •  because there is no record (none)
        The vote was a voice vote, so no record of who was for/against it exists.  The only way to gauge support is by co-sponsership.  

        And considering how painless this was - it's saying "I'm sorry" w/o actually trying to rectify anything - what exactly is the political downside unless you are/represent lynch-groupies?  Congress is an institution and has continuality beyond individual members, and Congress stood by and watched the gang-rape of a race, so it seems appropriate for Congress to apologize, even if the exact membership list isn't the same.

        You can't even really argue slippery slope to reparations because this is apologizing for not doing something;  I can apologize for not stopping somebody from stealling my neighbor's car, but that apology doesn't then mean I do the time for the robbery or have to pay him for the new car.

    •  Slippery Slope (none)
      I think a big reason for some of these guys not to sign on is that they think this is a slippery slope to reparations for slavery, which they are obviously against.
  •  Kent Conrad - FORMER Democrat (1.85)
    Call him what you want.  Dino, fake, phony, fraud.  He fits the bill.

    NO democrat would want their name on this list, therefore, this jackass isn't a democrat.  

    Not anymore.

    •  I wouldn't say that (none)
      until you know all of the information.....don't jump to conclusions....
      •  I just said it. There is no conclusion. (none)
        You either think lynching was evil, or you don't.  

        There is no nuance.

        •  What if (none)
          he just wasn't there to sign it?

          I don't know this guy, so if you have some background on him, that might clarify things.

          Hell even Sanitorum signed, you think he gives a fuck?

          This could be brain fart on Conrad's part.

          •  That's one hell of a brain fart. (none)
            Maybe his constituants should take some electoral Beano, and flush him out of their system.
            •  I don't think you'd like the alternative (4.00)
              Another Bush-lover.  ND has about 3 or 4 electable democrats -- two are in the senate and a third is occupying the lone seat in the house.

              Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry.

              by mndemguy on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:34:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I hope (4.00)
              Sen. Conrad wasn't at his mother's funeral or something like that.  

              There were a number of people here who were ticked off at some vote that Feingold missed a couple of weeks back.  Turned out he was his mother had died. Clinton didn't vote when the bankruptcy bill came up, and a lot of people pegged her as for the bill. Of course, Hillary was with Bill for his surgery.

              Don't jump on someone until you know why or where he was.

              Please link to & visit my blog: Penndit

              by Newsie8200 on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:53:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Might I point out... (4.00)
          that this wasn't a resolution on whether lynching was evil.  It was framed as an apology.  One could quite rightly believe that apologizing for someone else's error is a morally empty gesture.  Heck, you could argue it's not even possible.  

          Plus, for God's sake, we're talking sponsorship, not voting for the bill.  What, everyone's got to sponsor every good bill now, or we kick them out of the Democratic party?  That's just fucked up.

          •  Might I point out (none)
            That there is 1 democrat among 19 republicans on that list.  

            Take away that 1 democrat and it would have been 19 racist republicans lamenting about the "good ole days".

          •  this (none)
            is true. I hateto say it but without explanation as to why they decided not to co-sponser or hold a roll call vote, they could have had very understandable reasoning to back up their decision.
            Also, how many senators usually sponser a bill like this?
            Heres an idea. How about these Senators be required to write at least 25 words on every decision they make an post it on some government website. Hell, with all the staff these people have they could dictate or something to save time in their busy sceduales. Just an idea to further involve the public to the civil service...
      •  More importantly.... (none)
        the resolution was an apology for the failure to act in the past.  A better question might be:  Senator, do you support the failure of the Senate to pass anti-lynching legislation in the past?

        ""Look Daddy, I--" "Don't say anything. Sit down." "Look here, let's try to forget this. If you promise--" -- Song of Solomon, CW

        by chloe wofford is my fav on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:19:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As a Former N. Dakotan (4.00)
      I don't understand this.  He doesn't gain any political advantage in ND for not sponsoring it.  None.

      Conrad has been a good senator and I can't think of a single reason why he'd not want to get behind this.

      Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry.

      by mndemguy on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:19:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  another former NoDak here (none)
         - I talked to his office, he WAS out of town, I urged them to fix this, issue a press release, respond in some way -

        listen, there isn't a racist bone in the man's body - this was a pure and simple mistake, I'm sure - come on, folks, Conrad is a good guy - not a Lieberman or a Nelson - simple huan error shouldn't generae such vitriol.

    •  This is rash and uncalled for (4.00)
      I despise the tendancy at this site to praise or condemn any congress person for any one action or inaction.   Tomorrow, hypothetically, Conrad will stand up for Dean and he will be roundly praised on this site.   The next day he'll vote for Bolton and be roundly slayed.  

      It is quite unproductive in my mind.

      Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

      by bawbie on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My statement belongs to me, and me alone. (none)
        Free speech is a bitch when you don't agree with what the person is saying.

        I don't have any connections to "this site" other than my membership, and my ability to post a comment or two.  

        When Kos posts like I just did, then you can make a generalization about 'this site' being too negative, or whatever.  Until then, remember I am an individual, and that was my honest reaction. And frankly, I'm entitled to it.

        NO Democrat should have allowed themselves to be on that list.

        •  So I was generalizing... (none)
          thats a bitch too.  But when you see something happen enough times in a community, and that's what this is, and since you are posting here you are part of this community, I feel free to generalize in it.  

          You did do what I said though, you called Conrad a DINO for this vote and this vote alone without regard to the rest of his voting record.

          And it happens all the time.

          Biden is a hero when he stands up to Bolton, but a bum when he whores for credit card companies.

          Feel free to call and complain/praise every time.  But it seems silly to me to call someone a DINO one day, then a hero the next, when in truth they are neither.

          Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

          by bawbie on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only person I have ever called a Dino (none)
            Is this jerk that was too busy, or whatever the lame excuse will be, to sign on to this.

            I've never called Biden a dino, or anyone else.

            You can't agree with everyone all the time.  I realize this.  But this was something basic.  Something simple.

            He is 1 democrat among 19 racist republicans that couldn't be bothered with this.  

            Is he a racist or lazy?  Makes no difference to me.  He screwed up all the same.

            •  Kent (none)
              Is he the devil or merely evil?

              I guess you've made up your mind about his possible reasons for missing out on co-sponsoring.

              You're definately entitled to your opinion, but maybe you could wait oh, say an hour before setting up another Democratic circular firing-squad.

          •  The difference (none)
            The difference, then, is between disagreeing with a person's stance/vote on an issue and disliking the person based on his or her stance on a single issue.  It's possible to disagree with a person's vote but find them acceptable (or more) as a person or representative.

            Here, you may disagree with Conrad's lack of sponsorship of this bill, but that doesn't make him a total ass.  To be a total ass, he'd have to do it again and again and again while never doing anything of worth.

        •  I have no idea... (none)
          ...why Conrad didn't cosponsor this thing and apparently his staff has no idea either. I rather like Conrad since he's about as liberal a Senator as we can hope to get from North Dakota. He did vote against the Iraq War Resolution, so it's not like he's a bigtime DINO, either.
    •  Look (none)
      At what state he's from.  He had to do this for his constituents.  His state is Bush country.
      •  not quite like that (none)
        North Dakota is Bush country, but not Southern Bush Country.

        I assume there's another reason for this besides cold political calculation. Otherwise why would Byron Dorgan sign on and not Kent?

        I'll wait to see what he has to say for himself. But for now I'm supporting him. He's a pretty liberal guy for the most part.

  •  So we know they actually refused? (4.00)
    Just to be clear, all these Senators deliberately passed on the opportunity to sponsor the resolution and hold a roll call vote?

    I just want to make sure that there aren't any stuck-in-an-elevator situations or other circumstances that should prevent us from unleashing our full fury on them.

    A couple of these names are sort of surprising.

    My heavy metal has turned millions into rock-a-holics. They've become zombies.

    by BrooklynRaider on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:13:10 AM PDT

    •  I agree (none)
      Murkowski?  Hard to imagine she'd refuse to sign this.  It's not that I like her, or anything, but what possible interest would she have in refusing?

      George W. Bush -- It's mourning in America.

      by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:18:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know... (none)
        Having been born and raised in Alaska I can attest that it doesn't exactly have the legacy of lynching that a southern state would have.

        ANd I was pretty surprised about both WY senators too.  I have a lot of family in WY and they don't seem like the type that would put this kind of legislation against any senators.

        Odd indeed.

        Sorry, I have nothing else to add to this conversation.

        by DawnG on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:30:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Alaska has a lot of bigots (none)
        it is bizarro world up there.

        you are either a hair shirt save the bugs greenie, or mr. chainsaw everything.  most everyone lives up there to get away from everyone, yet they are mostly clustered around each other in these out in the middle of nowhere settlements (I include Anchorage in that class, BTW) where most everyone acts like, if the generator fried, they'd be able to mine the replacement metal and fabricate the replacement part, and

        not be dependent on the DOD supplied runway for the plane to land with the replacement parts from Seattle.  

        for everyone 1 Alaskan I have met who is realistic about their lifestyle, the other 9 are wearing rose colored glasses, to be polite.  

        whatever.  

        rmm.

        •  Oh, how wrong you are. (none)
          "you are either a hair shirt save the bugs greenie, or mr. chainsaw everything."

          This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've read so far this morning.

          •  I forgot to write that 75% of the people (none)
            I have met up there fall into some kind of extreme.  

            oh well. it is bizarre up there, and 90% of the people I have met up there seem seriously clueless about how dependent they are on the rest of the industrialized world for their comfort in the wild.  

            but, there are 5 or 600k up there, and I ahve only met a few hundred in 40 different places from southeast to nome.  

            rmm.

    •  Not so suprising (none)
      Look at their locations.  It's a real shame for Conrad, he's so worried about his seat he has to vote/non-vote with the likes of Trent Lott.
  •  Kent Conrad? (none)
    Really? I'm disappointed. It won't hurt him politically, but what a bullshit move. He should explain it.

    Conrad Burns should have damn known better and signed it, too. He has a lousy record of racist statements, and this won't do anything but add to it.

    The only plus side here - the Rush Limbaugh crowd will have to tread lightly the next time they imply Robert Byrd is an unreformed racist. He was willing to recant his past votes and support this. A third of the GOP caucus was not.

  •  A lot of names on that list ... (none)
    ...don't surprise me. Three or four decades ago they'd have had White Citizens Council meetings at their houses and a decade or so before that they'd have been Klansmen.

    But Grassley, Voinovich, Conrad? What's their excuse?

    **

    Writing dialog George Lucas so terrible at is. --Yoda

    Visit The Next Hurrah

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:13:36 AM PDT

    •  it's kinda upsetting... (4.00)
      to see voinovich on this list. he was just earning himself some respect for standing up against bolton... oh well. :/
    •  'course for (none)
      Trent, it wasn't thirty years ago he had the WCC down in Pascagoula... it wasn't more than fifteen.  If I remember correctly, the last time he spoke to the CofCC was in '92.  The CofCC came directly from the WCC and from a historical point of view, I've always seen them as different incarnations of the same group.

      As an aside, I'm only 25 and I distinctly remember seeing WCC signs at the outside of city limits - like the Rotary puts up at the city limits sign - in Vancleave and Hurley.  Those are just half an hour or so away from Trent's old stomping grounds in Jackson County.  I'm sure Grenada (Lot's home town) was no different.

      I know for a fact that the old WCC and the new CofCC still has supporters even in the more "enlightened" halls of academia.  Nationally recognized historians carry a torch for the old days when University Presidents tapped the phones of "leftist, integrationist agitators".

      Call me idealistic, but I can't even excuse Lott and Cochran for their behaviour.  For all their talk of bringing Mississippi forward, they do all they can to ensure that our old demons keep us back.

      "History drips in the dark..." Robert Penn Warren

      by khowell on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:58:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i understand why,,. (none)
    all of the southern senators felt the need to keep their names off of this. But why Murkowski of Alaska, Gregg of New Hampshire, amd Voinovich of Ohio? What do they have to lose from cosponsoring this bill?
    •  Southern Senators (4.00)
      should have been the first to sign onto the resolution.

      ""Look Daddy, I--" "Don't say anything. Sit down." "Look here, let's try to forget this. If you promise--" -- Song of Solomon, CW

      by chloe wofford is my fav on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:20:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point! (none)

        "The election's over. We won. It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting." Rep. Peter King (R-NY) at WH function, 2003

        by kathika on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:37:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely (none)
        Just as I have difficulty excusing ignorance of current issues because of age, ("Oh, go easy on your sister!  She shouldn't worry about politics and that war, she's only 18.") I can't excuse willful ignorance of a horrible period of our history because of where a person is from.  It's tantamount to saying "Oh, forgive Stalin for killing all those people in the purges - he's related to "Bloody Ivan" after all."  I absolutely cannot excuse such blatant disregard for history.

        Let's look at it this way, shall we -

        Lynchings, by state and race 1882-1968, from Tuskeegee Archives - victims are only specified as black or white.  

        TN -  47 W, 204 B, 251 T
        UT -  6  W,   2 B,   8 T
        MO -  53 W,  69 B, 122 T
        KY -  63 W, 142 B, 205 T
        MT -  82 W,   2 B,  54 T
        GA -  39 W, 492 B, 531 T
        MS -  42 W, 539 B, 581 T
        ND -  13 W,   3 B,  16 T
        TX - 141 W, 352 B, 493 T
        ID -  20 W,   0 B,  20 T
        WY -  30 W,   5 B,  35 T
        IA -  17 W,   2 B,  19 T
        NH -  none recorded
        AK -  none recorded
        AL -  48 W, 299 B, 347 T
        OH -  10 W,  16 B,  26 T

        What these numbers say to me is that Trent, Thad, and Jim (from my native state of MS and my new home in KY) don't care about the 786 people who died in those two states.  They didn't care for years when they wouldn't pass a hate crimes bill and they don't even care enough now to step up and sponsor a bill to say, "Sorry we forgot about you all these years."  That makes me incredibly angry.

        "History drips in the dark..." Robert Penn Warren

        by khowell on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Murkowski of Alaska (none)
      Because Black/African American People comprise only 3% of the total population of Alaska? Reference.

      9/11 was the Neocons' Reichstag fire. "Patriot Act" = Enabling Act.

      by Bulldawg on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:33:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  like I posted above RE Conrad (none)
      I suspect that for people like Murkowski, Gregg and Grassley, it wasn't so much about scheming to comfort their racist constituents as the fact that they don't give a shit about racial issues generally. They have few black constituents, their black constituents don't vote Republican, so this probably wasn't on their radar screen. Not an excuse, but an explanation. Lynching? Ancient history, and didn't happen much in their states anyway, so who cares?
  •  Chambliss (none)
    Chambliss is on the co-sponsor's list as of 6/13.  Did he withdraw?  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SE00039:@@@P
  •  Aside,,,,, (4.00)
    from sending letters of disgust to everyone on that list, letters should also be sent, with a copy of that list, to:

    newspapers
    blogs
    churches
    synagogues
    NAACP
    Every political talk-radio program on the air - spin this Rush/Sean/Michael etc.

    And any other organization or community/national group we can think of.

    There is literally NO excuse for not signing this piece of legislation.  If nothing else, this was a sign of solidarity to all minorities.  It is long overdue.
     

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 1700+ dead Americans, 100,000+ dead Iraqis, all on your head. WWJS?

    by Miss Blue on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:14:13 AM PDT

  •  Could it be? (none)
    Wait, this list can't be right!  It's got Trent Lott's name on it!

    You can laugh/A spineless laugh/We hope your rules and wisdom choke you - Radiohead

    by strannix on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:14:24 AM PDT

  •  3 Democrats (none)
    Earlier this morning it was reported that there were 3 democrats who didn't sign.

    Hey look George Voinovich didn't sign and neither did Orrin Hatch-I guess some things don't change.

    Looks like there are 2 from MS, 2 from NH, and 2 from UT. I'm very glad there are no NC representatives up there. I would really like to see John Sununu and Judd Gregg gone this coming election.

    "When the president talks to God/Does he ever think that maybe he's not?" Bright Eyes

    by McJagger on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:14:24 AM PDT

    •  Gregg and Sununu (none)
      Gregg just won re-election in 2004. Sununu isn't up until 2008.

      I suspect that they both refrained from supporting this out of the view that it is pointless theater, rather than serious public policy.

      I've got blisters on my fingers!

      by Elwood Dowd on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:42:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm betting that you're right (none)
        but we're talking lynching here.  If ever there was a case where pointless theater is good public policy, this is it.

        There is nothing noble about voting based on who Jesus tells you to hate. ~ JamesB3

        by CJB on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:23:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  MLK (none)
          I'm just remembering weren't we the last state in the union to recognize MLK as a holiday?

          Maybe we could work harder at fostering a pastey white image, it sure helps our chances of hanging on to our primary.

          Friggin idiots.

    •  Gregg isn't going anywhere for awhile (none)
      He was reelected in 04. We ran a 137 year old woman against him. Granted she is in better shape than me but still, you'd think we could get a better candidate in a purple state.

      I think we get a shot at Sununu in 06 but I don't know of any local dems who can beat him except maybe Shaheen if she wants to get back in the ring.

    •  Awesome news from NH!!! (4.00)
      A two-fer of stupidity!!!!

      I'm in the process of collecting votes and positions from Sununu so that when he runs again in '08 I can remind the good people of the newly blue Granite State how far to the right he is from the rest of us.

      This is going to be a real cherry on top of a cake loaded with piss-poor votes.

      I'm not sure many Repubs realize the rapid response that is out there for Dems and progressives right now.  I think they assume they can get away with this crap without anyone noticing.

      I agree up above that the vote is pretty much "theatre", but by golly, Gregg and Sununu forgot to learn their lines.

  •  I just want to know... (4.00)
    how incredibly stupid you have to be in this day and age not to sign on to a bill like this.  Oh, wait, Trent Lott and John Cornyn are involved.  That answers that.

    Yeesh.

    -----
    Mandate, My Ass

  •  Presumably, each of these people have a reason (4.00)
    I'd like to hear it. Out loud.

    Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving: it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.--Thomas Paine

    by peterborocanuck on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:15:30 AM PDT

    •  sure they do (none)
      ... same old same old... state's rights... claim that it is "old news".... and underlying it all a deep comfort with the racism of the past and a political calculation that there no profit in being against lynching even today.
  •  Pro-Lynching Senators (4.00)
    There is only one term for these folks:  The Lynch Mob of Twenty.

    My wife and I were steaming because the Oregonian newspaper didn't even report the fact that 20 people didn't cosponsor this... or even report Kerry's remark that those who did not sign "would not go unnoted."

    As far as I can tell if you are not against lynching you are for it.  It's very different from being Bush's "if you are not for the our side you are for the other side."  There are many sides to be on in a specific war.  But mob justice?

    There really are only 2 sides, and we know where the Lynch Mob of Twenty stands.

    •  String up the twenty! (none)
      Ooops.  Sorry.

      9/11 was the Neocons' Reichstag fire. "Patriot Act" = Enabling Act.

      by Bulldawg on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:35:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  However loyalty oaths to any principle are bad... (none)
      Sorry for all the misspellings in my Lynch Mob of Twenty post.

      In spite of the fact that these folks are reprehensible, I think we should consider the idea that introducing resolutions in support of any generally accepted principle of morality and then excoriating those who refuse to sign is problematic.

      Suppose someone introduced an "America is the Best Country on Earth" resolution and then published a list of those who refused to sign it?  Well I can think of lots of reasons a patriot might not want to cosponsor a ridiculous resolution like that, and yet you can bet that refusers would be singled out as unpatriotic.

      So putting up "test resolutions" about general principles and then castigating those who refuse to sign on is a problematic strategy... a bit like a loyality oath.  

      HOWEVER, it doesn't seem to be a problem here.  In the case of lynching and the U.S. Senate's long history of failure to condemn it, the Lynch Mob of Twenty deserves to be well known for it's decision.

  •  WTF?? (none)
    Sununu? I know New Hampshire has lots of Archie Bunkers with Pepperidge Farm accents, but pro-lynching? Is he on Lithium or something?

    The others are the usual suspects. Oh, and fuck Voinovich, by the way.

    Also Lamar Alexander is the head of the RNCC Presiden't Dinner tonight, so he gets the credit for letting the porn star in through the gates.

    •  Hey now. (none)
      I think you mean crack, not lithium.  Lithium balances your mood, crack makes you bat-shit crazy.
    •  Sununu AND Gregg... (none)
      I really don't understand this one.  Both my NH senators refusing to sign, even if the thing is non-binding...

      What is there to lose??

      "You're either with us or against us in the war on terror." - George W. Bush
      "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi Wan Kenobi

      by Stymnus on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:37:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Vote them Out (none)
        I don't understand how NH has 2 republicans in office but please vote them out. I've been through new hampshire a few times and it seems like it would be a liberal area, especially considering the states near it.

        "When the president talks to God/Does he ever think that maybe he's not?" Bright Eyes

        by McJagger on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:43:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NH is historically conservative (none)
          and Republican, as was Vermont (believe it or not) until fairly recently.

          But it is a traditional libertarian leaning conservatism, totally out of touch with the current insanity of the GOP.

          Granite State Repubs are a people lost in the wilderness, and Gregg and Sununu's votes just confirmed that.

          We are and will be reachning out to them for the future.

          I love the color blue.

          •  Libertarian Party may be the futureof NH (4.00)
            They beat the hell out of today's Republicans.

            http://www.freestateproject.org/

            NYT 10/27/2003:

            Libertarians Pursue New Political Goal: State of Their Own  

            By PAM BELLUCK (NYT) 1711 words
            Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 4

            ABSTRACT - Upstart movement called Free State Project aims to turn state of New Hampshire into laboratory for libertarian policy by recruiting libertarian-leaning people to move there and jump-start political change; so far, 4,960 people have pledged to make the move; leaders of project figure 20,000 people would do the trick; New Hampshire is chosen over nine other states in heated contests over Internet; plan is to field candidates in elections and become active in schools and community groups, sowing libertarian ideals of curbing taxes, minimizing regulation of guns and drugs, privatizing schools and reducing government programs; New Hampshire, with reputation for flinty individualism, has only 400 dues-paying Libertarian Party members; Gov Craig Benson, Republican, meets with visiting members of movement and encourages them to move to his state; photos

          •  GOP upside down (none)
            I agree with you. I don't know what happened to the idea of republican's being "fically conservative" and upholding state's rights? It is complete insanity and basically the GOP is now a party of zealots and fanatics that are more interested in creating a religious state than anything else. I think this is the result of the "sports" mentality behind today's politics.

            I don't think people understand that politics aren't like the yankees and red sox and you don't have to cheer for one team. In politics and government there is a right and wrong and people need to be able to step back from cheering and take a glance at the state of the nation

            because no one is winning!!!!

            and sadly everyone loses as a result

            "When the president talks to God/Does he ever think that maybe he's not?" Bright Eyes

            by McJagger on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:41:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  How to push this story? (none)
    This is really just a total jaw-dropper. If there's any justice in this world, this oughta do to Trent Lott's objectively pro-lynching colleagues just what his Good Ol' Boy nostalgia for the lynchin' days did for him.

    But of course, it'll probably be dismissed by news editors as a ho-hummer, since everybody in Washington already knows that the GOP gets all misty-eyed whistling Dixie. Unless, that is, we kick up a real stink.

    Does anybody know if any news orgs are chasing this? If not, how can we encourage them? What are the Dems (notwithstanding Conrad) playing this? They should dump Conrad like a hot shit.  

    "Senators, you polish a turd/Here in the city we got a word for those who'd bed their beloved Big Bird and make a mockery of our freedoms/It's Hey, MF" -L Reed

    by Septic Tank on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:17:16 AM PDT

  •  can we get rid of Trent Lott now... please? (none)
    The Thurmond statements. The White Citizens Council disgrace. Now this.

    Add in an uber-scummy governor whose unpopularity should drag down the whole Republican Party in his state, and can't we at least mount a credible challenge to this racist shitbag next year in Mississippi? We need a serious Dem voter registration campaign there.

  •  I am confused (none)
    Why would you be against this?
    Why would I not run against these guys and not use the following

    "Insert Senator" voted to protect lynchings I "Insert Candidate" do not support lynchings and will  fight to stop lynchings when I am elected.

    Where is the upside in voting against this legislation?

    •  There is no one accused of voting against it (4.00)
      The hubbub on this site if about certain senators not co-sponsering the bill.

      Now a better questions is why it was allowed to pass on a voice vote so we don't know who voted for and against it.  

      I'm not sure on the procedure but I thought it only took one dissenting voice to require a roll call vote.  So why didn't any democrat stand up and demand that all these senators vote for this UP OR DOWN?

      Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

      by bawbie on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:29:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think from a practical standpoint, (none)
        You'd have 80 Yeas, and 20 abstentions, and it would still pass, and you'd have 20 senators claiming to have been in the bathroom when the vote was taken.

        Political Protest Techno by gee dub bee. Yes, techno. No, really.

        by geedubbee on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:29:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I make the point above (none)
          That the Dems should know better than this.

          The famous $87 billion Iraq appropriation was actually ALSO a voice vote, with 5 Senators voting for (most Dems) and Byrd the sole vote against.

          So you'd think that, since candidates Kerry, Holy Joe, and Edwards, had been so accommodating to the Republicans who were catching shit from their constituents about the size of this appropriation, that discussions of the $87 billion appropriation would just be OFF LIMITS, right? No one could bring it up to help or hurt either side?

          Sure, tell that to Mr. "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Gee...none of the 14 moderates... (none)
    no wonder Owens, Brown and Pryor passed without a whimper.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain

    by Liberal AND Proud on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:17:59 AM PDT

  •  Interesting (none)
    only 4 from the deep south (MS, AL, GA), 3 from the kinda south (TX, TN, KY), the rest from mostly rural states. Most from the west/plains, the great bastions of white supremecist groups.

    And they don't like the rethugs being branded as the party of white 'christian' males? How about we start branding them as the party of the KKK? Would they like that better?

    Think of it this way, this is almost 50% of the rethugs in Congress. Almost half of them couldn't be bothered to go on the record as against lynching.

    Doesn't that say something?

  •  Orrin Hatch (none)
    true colors shining brightly.

    Listen all of y'all it's a Sabotage! - Beastie Boys

    by See you out there on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:18:17 AM PDT

  •  Region seemingly unimportant (none)
    Only 7 of the 20 are from the South. If they don't even have brute electioneering to blame, what's their excuse?
  •  I think they just... (none)
    ...want to make sure they have a backup plan in case Hilary wins in 2008.  

    (Except for Conrad -- what's his deal???)

    "Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan

    by Roddy McCorley on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:20:56 AM PDT

  •  Shelby on Lynching -- Depends on Who It Is (none)
    Then: "I think we should not lynch him." --Richard Shelby (R-Ala) on the controversy over Trent Lott's longing for the pro-lynching candidacy of Strom Thurmond (12/15/02)

    Now: About 80 senators co-sponsored the [Senate resolution apologizing for lynching]. But Sens. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, both Alabama Republicans, were not among them. --Montgomery Advertiser (6/14/05)

    Cross-posted on my blog.

  •  Wow (none)
    To this day Republicans still argue to me that my party is more racist than theirs, using Rice (lol), the Civil War, Byrd, The Civil War, "Affirmative Action is racist!", The Civil War, etc.

    I hope they see this.

  •  Conrad's web site lists.... (none)
    "At 6:30 p.m. on Monday, the Senate will proceed to S.Res. 39, relating to anti-lynching. That resolution will not require a roll call vote and therefore there will be no roll call votes on Monday."

    I can't tell whether or not that is text that is automagically pulled in or if they have to put it in themselves.

  •  Get a rope (4.00)
    make that 20 ropes...
  •  35% of Senate Republicans (4.00)
    There's a powerful number!

    Canadians care too...

    by jbalazs on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:23:22 AM PDT

  •  I got a different list (Non CoSponsors) (none)
    Richard Shelby (R-AL)
    Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
    Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
    Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
    Michael Crapo (R-ID)
    Kent Conrad (D-ND)
    Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
    Gordon Smith (R-OR)
    Jack Reed (D-RI)
    Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    George Voinovich (R-OH)
  •  Is Conrad just giving the Repugs cover for the (none)
    sake of maintaining comity within the Senate? That's not a good reason to not sign on to the resolution so I don't understand why he wouldn't support this.  

    Reality is just... a point of view - Philip K. Dick; Beautiful thing, the destruction of words. (from Orwell's 1984)

    by LionelEHutz on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:02 AM PDT

  •  AND (none)
    Bobby Byrd is on the list.

    I can't speak for other minorities, but as a Jew, he has officially atoned sufficiently for his earlier career.

    Any GOP talking head referring to him as a KKK member should have the lynch mob of 20 thrust back into their face.

    •  oh thank you (none)
      ..for using my "Lynch mob of 20" meme.

      And I agree that Byrd seems like a genuine baal tshuva, a pennitent, regarding his earlier beliefs, although the pork he brings home still isn't exactly kosher.

  •  Imagine (4.00)
    Opposition lynching should be as noncontroversial as, say, supporting the troops.  Don't you think every Senator would sign on to supporting the troops?  So, the explanation of their failure to unanimously support an apology for lynching has to be racism, doncha think, at least of constituents they want to mollycoddle.

    Liberty and justice for all

    by lovable liberal on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:27:52 AM PDT

  •  Looks like Kay Bailey saw the light (none)
    and changed her mind. Being labeled pro- lynching can't be a plus when you're running for gov.

    Maybe, it was my e-mail.

    Maybe, her conscience.

    More likely, her ambition.

    •  are we sure she's not? (none)
      All the lists I saw this morning, she was on.

      Not surprised about Cornyn.  Turtlef*cker

      The feminist movement happened in the 60s and the 70s but right now we're living it. We're figuring out how it works.~~~Martha Wainwright~~~

      by jeebs on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:17:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sen Voinovich, WTF? (none)
    I'm very dissapointed. I thought we had something of a tenuous ally with him.
  •  Richard Shelby (R-AL) (none)
    Makes me sad that I live here.

    "The billboards shade the flags they wave. . ." -Bright Eyes

    by indiemcemopants on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:31:13 AM PDT

  •  Was Conrad even in DC? (none)
    I remember he couldnt vote against Gonzalez cuz he needed to be in ND, cuz Bush was going there for a fake town hall.

    Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and Watergate Burglar G. Gordon Liddy dont like Mark Felt. Mark Felt is truly a great man -Jon Stewart

    by jj32 on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:32:21 AM PDT

  •  Moveon could make one powerful ad against them (none)
  •  More on the GOP Confederacy of Dunces (none)
    Here's more history on the GOP Confederacy of Dunces.

  •  confusion (none)
    Markos, what is your source?

    The link you gave last night lists several of the Senators you mention in this post as cosponsors: Bond, Bunning, Burns, and Chambliss.

    Here are those who did not sponsor:

    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Reed (D-RI)

    Alexander (R-TN)
    Bennett (R-UT)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Gregg (R-NH)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lott (R-MS)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Smith (R-OR)
    Sununu (R-NH)
    Thomas (R-WY)
    Voinovich (R-OH)

    So maybe some of those somehow supported the resolution further in the process.  But it seems that those four Rs are off the hook, at least somewhat.

    •  Reed's office (none)
      He didn't cosponsor, but did sign "the letter." Not really clear what the letter is, but when I asked WHY he didn't cosponsor, the person on the phone responded that "he hasn't come out with a position on that yet."

      For those who want to call and see whether he has now come out with a position:

      (202) 224-4642

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:50:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bingaman's office (none)
      "He did not co-sponsor the statement but he did support it."

      No comment on WHY he didn't support it.

      If you call, you might want to ask HOW we can take an aide's word that he supported this when there was no roll call on the vote?

      (202) 224-5521

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:52:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stop Legitimizing George Allen (none)
    This peice of legislation is an important piece, but the way it is being inacted and why it is being inacted now makes me less mad at these people and more mad at:

    Senator Goerge Allen

    The Senator, while practicing law had a noose haning from a tree outside his office.

    The Senator who wants to become President and wants that fact to be overshadowed by this legislation.

    The game is not just who isn't sponsoring it but who is and shouldn't even be allowed to, like Senantor Allen.

    With our party it's "change vs. more of the same"

    by kmthurman on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:33:59 AM PDT

  •  Interesting that Lamar Alexander did not sponsor (none)
    yet his colleague from Tennessee (and essentially his BOSS) Bill Frist did .  
  •  Inspired by Steve Gilliard's (4.00)
    "American Swastika" meme:

    It's far better to uphold the Constitution and burn the flag than it is to hold up the flag and burn the Constitution.

    by beemer on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:34:45 AM PDT

  •  BLAME (none)
    WHY DO YOU PEOPLE INSIST ON BLAMING AMERICA?
    This is so typical of the "Blame America First" Crowd!

    ;-)

  •  Question (none)
    Has anybody called Conrad's office for a comment?

    60% is 6 of 10 in a focus group. Change 1 mind, it's a dead heat. Change 2, it's a landslide. This campaign's a mechanism of persuasion. -WW

    by ssg012 on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:35:12 AM PDT

    •  Yes (none)
      "I don't know why he didn't cosponsor" was the brilliant response I got.

      Clearly not an office coached to be prepared for a lot of questions about this. Or one that didn't even bother to come up with a legitimate excuse.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:46:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Out of town (none)
        A very nice lady just told me he was out of town and asked me if I was from his state. After telling her 'no', she informed me that she would pass my advice onto him to get onboard. Very pleasant. Usually when they find out I'm not from a particular lawmaker's state, they blow me off.
  •  Reconciling Lists (4.00)
    Think some reconciling/research needs to be done. Kos has 20 names on their list. AmericaBlog has 17 names.
    One example: Chambliss is on Kos, not on AB., and last I knew he was a sponsor.
  •  Just because somebody din't co-sponser a bill... (4.00)
    ...doesn't mean they don't support it. Co-sponering a bill isn't the same as voting for it. Co-sponsering is a way to take credit for a bill or resolution you didn't write yourself.

     Maybe Conrad felt that co-sponsering would look like he was trying to use the families of those lynched for political gain.

    I don't understand all of the fuss. Kent Conrad is not a racist. Geez!

    •  If there is no voice vote, then co-sponsor (4.00)
      The only way to show your support for a bill is to co-sponsor if you know there will be no voice vote.  It is as simple as that.  That is what happened here.  Signing on as a co-sponsor is how you show that you are aligned with the provisions of the bill.
  •  As others have expressed... (none)
    I don't understand the upside to NOT sponsoring this bill. Sure, the bill probably is just symbolic, but it makes an important statement nonetheless. As Dean already said: It is hypocritical for Repbulicans to court Black voters when they won't support the Voting Rights Bill. Now, they won't support an anti-lynching bill? How can they even show their faces to their non-white constituents, let alone ask for their support in up coming elections? These people are showing their true colors (no pun intended), and I hope Dean, the Dems, and the Black community nail them for it!
  •  Just a thought... (none)
    but wouldn't our energy (and the Senate's energy) be better spent in dealing with present problems instead of trying to rewrite the past?
  •  Yes, let's fight about pointless symbolism. (4.00)
    I am amazed by the level of anger that arises over something so symbolic.

    The Senators who are there now (with the exception perhaps of Robert Byrd and a few other geezers) had nothing to do with promoting or continuing lynching.  And the entire Senate was not at fault, only those Senators who failed to fight lynching.

    Besides, feel-good symbolic resolutions have little to no material impact on anyone's life.

    I hope someone can try persuading me otherwise by citing real-life examples.

    •  Okay, I Will Try (none)
      Symbolic votes abound in politics.  For illustration, review the Republicans' votes on the amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage, the Schiavo case and, the best example ever, the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

      None of those votes were intended or expected to have any material impact on the lives of Americans.  They were intended and expected to make a bold statement with respect to the proponent party's image and beliefs.

      Sure, the anti-lynching resolution is not as big as those, but racism is a big issue, pandering to racists is a big issue.  

      •  Gotcha politics at its worst (none)
        As several other comments on this string have pointed out, both this and the Schiavo vote were about appealing to the "base" of the respective parties without producing any real material change.  Not to mention that they put the opposition in an uncomfortable position.  I feel that this use of symbolic votes to manipulate the base is crude and cynical.  

        I can just see all the ads that professional consultants are brewing up for the African-American community: "Senator X isn't opposed to lynching."  The question at hand, though, isn't whether lynching was wrong, but whether the Senate as an institution should apologize for it.  On this question, I would have to say no.  Failure to stop lynching was the fault of elected members of the Senate, most of whom are now dead.  Thankfully, we live in a putative democracy where things change for the better.

        •  Crude, Cynical (none)
          I don't agree with your characterization and I don't think that you understand how these things work through the public consciousness.  

          It isn't crude, it's simple.  There is a difference.

          There is nothing cynical about making public declarations, from time to time, that define who we are as a party, and in this case more importantly, who we are not.

  •  disgusting (none)
    On the diary entitled "The Nazis Never Killed Jews", someone commented 'hey, the Republican party is not based on paramilitary groups' so the comparison to Nazi fascism wasn't relevant.

    And yet, here we have 20 - TWENTY folks! - U.S. Senators who are so worried about offending their white separatist and rascist supporters that they will NOT condemn lynching. What does that tell you about where many Republican office holders see their base?  Twenty U.S. Senators will not condemn lynching. That's something to worry about.

  •  In Louisiana, the shameful lists usually include (none)
    my Senators.  How nice for once to find that they both voted in a way that makes me proud, and that Senator Mary Landrieu was even the main sponsor!  ;-)

    Well-behaved women rarely make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    by jaysea on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:45:37 AM PDT

  •   New Hampshire (none)
    Both Rethugs from NH go along to get along.

    Pukes.

  •  reading this post and the intro (none)
    to c&j consecutively made me want to listen to billie holiday's strange fruit.

    don't look back america; something might be gaining on us.

    he that hath no stomach to this fight let him depart

    by 2nd balcony on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:47:19 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, heavy song ... (none)

      Well-behaved women rarely make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

      by jaysea on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:06:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  lyrics (none)
      Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
      Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
      Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,
      Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

      Pastoral scene of the gallant South,
      The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
      Scent of magnolia sweet and fresh,
      And the sudden smell of burning flesh!

      Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck,
      For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
      For the sun to rot, for a tree to drop,
      Here is a strange and bitter crop.

      "Strange Fruit" was recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939.

      Well-behaved women rarely make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

      by jaysea on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:09:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cassandra Wilson (none)
      Does a fantastic recording of this on "New Moon Daughter".  The whole album's great.
  •  States of Shame: UT, WY, NH, MS (all 8 voted no) (none)
    It's bad enough that any senator doesn't sign, but two from the SAME state:  these are the states UT, WY, NH, and Mississippi (Trent "strom's segreation platform was right" Lott).
  •  By the way, kos (none)
    How do you know that these Senators refused a roll-call vote?  There's no record of that of which I'm aware.
  •  Confused... (none)
    Americablog has Chambliss (R-GA) as a cosponsor.  Whats up?
  •  meanwhile in Canada (none)
    We celebrate our first military (base) gay wedding. We've come a long way baby.

    http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/14/militarygaywedding0614.html

    Man, I sure hope this dosen't freak out W and Cheney cause I think we just gave them a reason to shock and awe our ass.

  •  Grassley (none)
    I called Grassley's office and his representative, a guy from the judiciary committee said that Grassley supported the resolution but just wasn't a co-sponsor. He said it was a voice vote, which we knew, and that Grassley voted in favor of it.
  •  Just called Sen Conrad ... (none)
    and told his answering person that altho' I'm not a NDian, I was dissappointed to see him as the only dem on the list  .... response was that he was out of town and she will pass along my comments and he may make a statement on this ....  vibe was that he is getting tons of calls.
  •  Bastards. All of them. (none)
    There's no reason not to support this resolution. Not this week, not ever. (Juneteenth, anyone?)

    All of the people named on this list are cowards or assholes or both.

    Blog this! Visit me at K Street Blues. It will change your life.

    by AggieDemocrat on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:54:59 AM PDT

  •  Conrad (none)
    Receptionist said he wasn't in DC when the bill was being discussed.  
    •  Note (none)
      That's a different explanation than they were offering a few minutes ago.

      If you call, and you get the "out of town excuse," you might want to ask for more details. Since, around noon, they DIDN'T KNOW that he had been out of town.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:01:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Chambliss family has a long reputation (none)
    of white supremist practices/behavior,  according to a 60 yr old friend of mine, who grew up in the South and happens to be Black.
  •  The Lynching-Filibuster Link (none)
    George Allen had two very cynical reasons for pushing the lynching apology:

    1. Whitewash his own past of displaying a noose and a Confederate flag at his home.

    2. Tar the Democrats as the party of the filibuster.  That is, southern conservatives filibustered anti-lynching legislation until, that is, they became Republicans.
  •  LOTT? (none)
    Trent Lott refused to get on board with this?

    My God, the man really has no clue.

  •  More on the Lynching-Filibuster Link (none)
    This graphic helps explain why George Allen and the GOP leadership is focusing on past filibustering of anti-lynching legislation.


  •  Conrad et al (none)
    This does not surprise me. Watching closely what politicians do (or don't do) will tell the story...

    Conrad is on the list below. Also Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is cozying up to James Dobson of Focus on the Family. http://www.politics1.com/ and Last month, Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were the only Democrats to break ranks and support the move to have an immediate final vote on Bolton. All on the list as well as Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/11886812.htm

    Below is the entire list of Democrats who voted yea on the bankruptcy bill (or did not vote):

    Baucus (D-MT), Yea
    Bayh (D-IN), Yea
    Biden (D-DE), Yea
    Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
    Byrd (D-WV), Yea
    Carper (D-DE), Yea
    Conrad (D-ND), Yea
    Inouye (D-HI), Yea
    Johnson (D-SD), Yea
    Kohl (D-WI), Yea
    Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
    Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
    Nelson (D-FL), Yea
    Nelson (D-NE), Yea
    Pryor (D-AR), Yea
    Reid (D-NV), Yea
    Salazar (D-CO), Yea
    Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
    Also:
    Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting

  •  Sign on...NOT (none)
    borin snatch (R-UT)...didn't surprise me that this prompus wind bag didn't sign-on the anti-lynching resolution...man
    (sic) is a real low life

    Just don't do something...stand there

    by anamorphic on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:05:01 AM PDT

  •  picture them with their "property" (none)
    Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and, of course, Janice Rogers Brown.

    would they stand back and watch "property" lynched?

  •  YOu missed two other Dems (none)
    Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

    I wouldn't open fire on them just yet--we can only hope they were out of town.

    •  Their offices (none)
      Both said they supported the statement but didn't co-sponsor.

      I told them I'd be calling back to find out why the Senators didn't co-sponsor.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:14:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  conrad et al. (none)
    conrad and the other 2 dems should be ashamed.
    being out of town is excuse that doesnt fly.

    lynching is lynching and lynching is wrong.
    and the senate should have unanimously said so.
    the fact they can pass  other more controversial statements unanimously shows how ridiculous this is.
    the republicans:
    the party of white christian america.

    the confederate south
    the bible belt
    and anyone else with an IQ lower than 50

  •  Cornyn (none)
    I just contacted John Cornyn, my senator, and inquired as to why he did not co-sponsor. I was bounced around, finally transferred to someone named Alex who explained to me that he voted for the resolution, but did not co-sponsor. He did not have an answer as to why the senator did not co-sponsor, but stressed that the measure did pass unanimously.

    There is a lack of class in all that.

    •  Unanimous (none)
      Weren't there like 6 people in the room?

      I'd like to get a sense of who those 6 were. Because I almost guarantee you that Cornyn wasn't working late to apologize for lynching.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:16:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cornyn (none)
      I called, too--his WA office, so I wasn't bounced around at all.

      You were a heck of a lot nicer than I.  I can't remember my exact words, but something to the effect that he's an ebarrassment to our state.

      And that's saying alot these days.

      This sux.

      All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. ~Voltaire

      by TexH on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:34:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oops (none)
        WA office--where'd I get that?

        meant DC.

        d'oh

        All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. ~Voltaire

        by TexH on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:42:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  angry (none)
        I'm angry too, and I feel downright helpless between Burgess, Perry, Hutchinson, and Cornyn.

        I just try to restrain myself when I call; I have found that I am not taken seriously when I show too much emotion.

        •  You're right (none)
          I am usually much more diplomatic.  Today, my words were a bit harsh, but I kept my tone even.  

          I can't help it though.  I have just had it up to "here" with this guy.  I've got a buddy that works in the state's Attorney General's office in Austin and Cornyn used to be his boss, so I guess I know just a little too much.

          All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. ~Voltaire

          by TexH on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:00:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Don't blame Bunning! (none)
    In Senator Bunning's defense: it is unlikely that the Senator knew what he was voting on, or what day it was, or what planet he is on.  

    The fact that he has been in this condition for quite some time did not prevent his fellow Kentuckians from reelecting him last November.

  •  I'd like to hear the reasons (none)
    On the one hand, I think the senators all should have signed this resolution.

    On the other hand, I can see the possibility that someone might not sign for some reason of principle that might make sense.

    Examples: Maybe someone out there thinks that Congress should, on principle, stop passing resolutions, or that Congress should, on principle, avoid passing judgment on the actions of people who lived in the past, or that this particular resolution was somehow an hypocritical effort to make many wingnuts look reasonable, or something like that.

    Also: are we absolutely certain that Conrad knowingly refused to sign the resolution? Could it be that someone in his staff screwed up?

  •  Witch Hunt (none)
    Can you please indicate your source for why these Senators refused to sponsor this bill?  As in: they were asked to and refused to do so.

    Furthermore, what is your source that these senators blocked a roll call vote?  I did not think that was possible.  I thought it only took one senator to request a recorded vote.

    •  good point (none)
      I hope we remember to not become the mob what we're after.

      Listen all of y'all it's a Sabotage! - Beastie Boys

      by See you out there on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:24:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Roll Call (none)
      unanimous consent - A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.  

      roll call vote  - A vote in which each Senator votes "yea" or "nay" as his or her name is called by the Clerk, so that the names of Senators voting on each side are recorded. Under the Constitution, a roll call vote must be held if demanded by one-fifth of a quorum of Senators present, a minimum of 11.

      If a recorded vote was so important to Kerry and other Dems, why didn't they push for one?

    •  Agreed (none)
      What is the history of this resolution?  When did Mary Landrieu start working on it?  Was this something that just popped up this week or was everyboday aware of it for months now?  

      I have no idea of the answers to these or DaveOinSF's questions, but they really need to be answered before we can race to destroy anyone.

      •  since FEBRUARY 7 (none)
        Landrieu proposed it on february 7 (part of black history month) and it been out there ever since gaining cosponsor.  Every senator has had more than ample time to sign on...there's just no excuse (other than sherr incompetence) that any senator would have been completely unaware of it.  It's even been on the Official Senate Legislative calendar for several days now....no excuses except that they didn't want to be cosponors...one example, all 100 senators were able to sign on as cosponsors to a resolution expressing sorrow over Sen. Moynihan's death a few years ago http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.res.00099:
        If they all had time (or the desire) to sign on to that, there's no other excuse for not cosponsoring the anit-lynching resolution except for NOT WANTING TO

        "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." - George Bernard Shaw

        by corrsman on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:15:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Southern Senators Who ARE Sorry (none)
    Apparently some Confederates are sorry about all the lynchings. Which proves that all Repuglicans are not assholes all the time. Damn, I knew an example of that would come along eventually.

    Isakson (R-GA)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Dole (R-NC)
    Frist (R-TN)
    Warner (R-VA)
    Allen (R-VA)
    Martinez (R-FL)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Vitter (R-LA)

    And all our surviving sounthern dems did the right thing:

    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Landrieu (D-LA)

    Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party - DNC Chair Howard Dean

    by easong on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:21:04 AM PDT

    •  GA (none)
      As an southern expatriot, this doesn't surprise me.  Saxby Chambliss does seem to be a racist @$$hole.  For instance, he's the one who made a comment that was something like it being ok to shoot any middle eastern looking person after 9-11.  Don't remember the exact comment.  But like Trent Lott, he always seems to be walking the line between patting the Klan types on the back while not letting his racist heart show.

      Johnny Isakson is a realtor from the north side of Atlanta.  A bit more urban and apparently a bit more sensitive to the idea that its not ok to shoot or hang anyone who isn't a white looking good-ol-boy.

      To me, its absolutely amazing that any Senator could think that supporting a resolution that apologizes for letting people get murdered would cost them votes.  Says a lot about the attitude of these senators.  It also says alot about the state of mind of many Americans.

  •  Compromise (none)
    Think about it though, if the Senators were good on other issues, but they would lose their seats if it came out that they co-sponsored anti-lynching legislation, is it worth it? Especially if they figure the legislation will pass anyway? Shouldn't energy be spent on senators that such all around?
  •  Not to get too technical (none)
    but it depends on the color system you use.

    There's additive color (like your RGB display) where white is ALL colors (255 R, 255 G, 255 B, where 255 is the max amount of color - it's a hexadecimal system) and 0,0,0 is black.

    Then there's subtractive color (like CMYK printing) where white is the LACK of color (0% C, 0% M, 0% Y, 0% K, where the colors used are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black - obviously, percentage of total ink), where 0%,0%,0%,0% is white.

    Basically, you use a black base in additive color systems and a white one in subtractive color systems - when your computer screen is off it's black, and a blank piece of paper is (usually) white.

    Of course, you can make a white ink/paint, and when you put it on something white (like paper), it's invisible. ;-)

  •  Up or down vote..repeat 100 times. (none)
    We should push Frist for an up or down vote. Republicans proved it polled and focused grouped well. Now its our turn to use it.

    You only regret the things you don't do.

    by DailyLife on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:28:14 AM PDT

  •  USE THIS (none)
    Numerically I think it is just over 35% of Republicans not supporting this resolution.  Why?  Since they have 55 seats and 20 didn't support it  I think we should round up.  Dean and others should scream it from the rooftops!  "Almost 1/2 of Republicans didn't support (insert inflammatory language here)!"
  •  "Strange Fruit" (none)
    Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
    Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
    Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,
    Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

    Pastoral scene of the gallant South,
    The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
    Scent of magnolia sweet and fresh,
    And the sudden smell of burning flesh!

    Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck,
    For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
    For the sun to rot, for a tree to drop,
    Here is a strange and bitter crop.

    "Strange Fruit," the haunting song about lynching in America that was written more than 60 years ago, was first recorded by the famed jazz singer Billie Holiday in 1939. Since then it has been recorded by some three dozen other performers, including black folk singer Josh White, the great jazz artists Abbey Lincoln, Carmen McRae and Nina Simone, pop performers Sting and UB40, operatic soprano Shirley Verrett, and contemporary vocalists Tori Amos and Cassandra Wilson.

    The almost iconic status of this unusual song--not in the folk-song tradition, not quite jazz--was reflected in the inclusion of a segment of Holiday's rendition of it in Ken Burns' flawed but nonetheless comprehensive "Jazz" history broadcast on public television last year. The song has also been the subject, within the last couple of years, of a new book as well as a film documentary.

    "Strange Fruit" has been called the original protest song. It is simple, spare but effective poetry. At a time when political protest was not often expressed in musical form, the song depicted lynching in all of its brutality. The three short verses are all the more powerful for their understated and ironic language. The juxtaposition of a beautiful landscape with the scene of lynching, the smell of magnolias with that of burning flesh, the blossoms more typically associated with the Southern climate with the "strange fruit" produced by racial oppression--this imagery conjures up the essence of racist reaction. Racism in America stands indicted and exposed by these lines, with no need at all for a more didactic or agitational message.

    "Strange Fruit" was released on record in 1939, and quickly became famous. It had a particular impact on the politically aware, among artists, musicians, actors and other performers, and on broader layers of students and intellectuals. David Margolick's book, Strange Fruit: Billie Holiday, Café Society and an Early Cry for Civil Rights, quoting numerous prominent figures, demonstrates how the song articulated the growing awareness and anger that was to find expression in the rise of the mass civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.

    Nevertheless, few of the millions who have heard "Strange Fruit" are aware of its genesis and history. It was written in the mid-1930s by a New York City public school teacher, Abel Meeropol, who was at that time a member of the American Communist Party, and who later became better known as the adoptive father of the two sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the Jewish couple who were executed in 1953 for the alleged crime of giving the secret of the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union.

    more here:

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/frut-f08_prn.shtml

    Well-behaved women rarely make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    by jaysea on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:32:12 AM PDT

  •  Lynchings by State (none)
    Here's a list of total lynchings by state. Mississippi and Alabama ought to be sorry.

    Lynchings: By State, 1882-1968 *

    Alabama 347
    Arizona 31
    Arkansas 284
    California 43
    Colorado 68
    Delaware 1
    Florida 282
    Georgia 531
    Idaho 20
    Illinois 34
    Indiana 47
    Iowa 19
    Kansas 54
    Kentucky 205
    Louisiana 391
    Maine 1
    Maryland 29
    Michigan 8
    Minnesota 9
    Mississippi 581
    Missouri 122
    Montana 84
    Nebraska 57
    Nevada 6
    New Jersey 2
    New Mexico 36
    New York 2
    North Carolina 101
    North Dakota 16
    Ohio 26
    Oklahoma 122
    Oregon 21
    Pennsylvania 8
    South Carolina 160
    South Dakota 27
    Tennessee 251
    Texas 493
    Utah 8
    Vermont 1
    Virginia 100
    Washington 26
    West Virginia 48
    Wisconsin 6
    Wyoming 35
     ____   

    Total 4,743

    *Statistics provided  by the Archives at Tuskegee Institute.

    http://www.legendsofamerica.com/LA-Lynching11.html

    Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party - DNC Chair Howard Dean

    by easong on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:52:58 AM PDT

  •  Lamar Alexander (none)
    I just spoke to a representative of my senator's office, Lamar Alexander (R-TN).  The senator sponsored a resolution celebrating Black History month in February.  A resolution which notes among other things:

    Whereas African Americans were enslaved in the United States and subsequently faced the injustices of lynch mobs, segregation, and denial of basic, fundamental rights;

    Whereas in spite of these injustices, African Americans have made significant contributions to the economic, educational, political, artistic, literary, scientific, and technological advancement of the United States;

    So instead of co-sponsoring the lynching apology, he sponsored S.Res 44 (with 35 co-sponsors).

  •  Take real action (none)
    What does it mean for the Senate to "apologize"?  If it's widely accepted that lynching was an abhorrent practice, how does it help for the Senate to say so.

    This just seems like lame symbolism at its worst.

    If Democrats really wanted to do something, rather than just scoring points in the African American community--as Allen seems to be attempting to do--then the Senate should fund renewed investigation into what happened, send the DOJ into sheriff's offices to open up cold cases, etc.

    That would be real action, not political BS.  Not to mention that the GOP would really be on the spot on something that makes a material difference.

  •  Michael Crapo??? (none)
    Who's Michael Crapo?  What a name.
  •  Cornyn makes sense (none)
    One would figure that the pro judicial assassination Senator would be pro lynching too.

    1984: Orwell wrote a cautionary tale. George Bush mistook it for a manifesto.

    by mungley on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:07:47 AM PDT

  •  aravosis (none)
    has it down to only 16 senators, 1 democrat among them.  scratch bond-chambliss.
  •  hollow apologies, only the guilty should apologize (none)
    How is this simply not pandering to a bloc of voters that are "leaving the plantation." Is this going to solve the race problem, will white people that had nothing to do with slavery finally be forgiven for the acts of others? How many white people on this blog had something to do with slavery, shouldn't you be the ones apologizing.

    Just think if the hundred plus posters on this thread each and every one gave a black family $10,000 of their own white money, wouldn't race relations be improved. Why do you think that more words from rich white politicians will do any more than the other words like "all men are created equal" and all the other empty words that have been said.

    If the goal was to single out each and every slave owner or those that contributed to the problem via either by threat of force or filibuster, cool, I'm all for that. Punish the people that contributed to the problem.
    But to blame white people that had nothing to do with the problem is disingenuous. Imagine your 18 year old child did something wrong, you show up and apologize, of course you feel better but the person that should have apologized is being given free pass by the people that feel the guilt. Guilty people hide behind the apologies of others. Of course I feel bad for slavery along with a multitude of other wrongs, but I will NEVER apologize for the actions of another. It's not my place. I did nothing wrong. What did YOU do wrong to feel the need to apologize? Can someone apologize without assuming guilt? Once guilt has been established, what comes next. Imagine you walk out of your house and see your car dented, you neighbor comes over and apologizes for denting it. Do you then expect someone else to pay for the damage, isn't that exactly what is going on here.

    Keep letting the government apologize for you if you want. If as a white person you feel guilty for slavery, I challenge each of you to step up and assume the responsibility to improve the lives of blacks without waiting for the rich white politicians to do the right thing.

    "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"

    (Go ahead and troll rate me, I apologize for not following the party line and blaming it all on the republicans)

    •  Knock Knock anybody there? (none)
      The resolution was an apology for the failure of the Senate to pass anti-lynching legislation 3 times in the past when it came up.  It was filibustered by Southern Senators after passing the House 3 times. Oh yeah, and SEVEN presidents asked them to end the lynching in the past.  So they are apologizing for their own inaction.

      Also reading your comments, it sounds as if you are assuming all the posters here are white.  You're 0 for 2.  You really should stop assuming things.

      All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. ~Voltaire

      by TexH on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:33:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  $money$ (none)
      Ok, I admit I'm white.

      My family is German immigrants who came over after the Civil War and settled in southern indiana.  They were fleeing the Prussian-French wars of the 1870's.  I come from a long line of draft dodgers.

      Slavery was over before my ancestors ever left Germany.  I don't have the list of lynchings by state up right now, but I can't imagine that the German immigrants in southern indiana were lynching many blacks at around the turn of the century.  

      So how do you come up with that I owe some black family $10,000?  I don't think anyone in my family ever benefitted from slavery.  

      BTW, my ancestors came over after the Civil War.  But many other German immigrants came over before the Civil War and fought for the Union side to abolish slavery.  See for instance the XIth corps of the Army of the Potamac, which was almost all German immigrants.

      So, should the descendents of people who came to this country and who gave the ultimate sacrifice of dying or being maimed in the fight to eliminate slavery .... do those people now owe a "black" family $10,000?  For what?  For not getting enough family members killed to free the slaves?

      You can't do this on "white" vs "black".  Anyone who tries is spitting BS.

      •  In (none)
        Now that I can scroll up, I see Indiana had 47 lynchings in 86 years.  And I'd still bet the rural farm country south of Indianapolis had very few of those.  Much more likely that those occurred up around the part of Indiana that's close to Chicago.
      •  Old senators should be apologizing (none)
        COBear replied to me-
        So how do you come up with that I owe some black family $10,000?  I don't think anyone in my family ever benefitted from slavery.

        My point exactly. If not for political reasons, why is the current senate apologizing for others. And I wonder HOW the old senate was able not to pass the laws, what method did the dissenting members use to silence the vote.

  •  Arrrgggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!! (none)
    Is this a new level of irrelevant political correctness or what?  

    Maybe we should just resolve this entire moral crisis by issuing a sincere blanket apology (complete with crying, violins, dirges, mourning clothing etc.) for all evils in the universe, past, present and future.  

    Then this foolishness will be resolved for eternity and anyone who brings it up again can be committed to a nice rest home.

  •  FYI re: Kent Conrad (none)
    My really-left 81 yr old aunt from North Dakota called Conrad's office as soon as I told her about this...the Bismark office patched her through to Conrad's DC office and they said that while he wasn't there for a vote, he was a co-sponsor of the bill...and they will be doing a press-release/rebuttal story soon...they must have been getting LOTS of calls on this.
    •  yeah (none)
      I couldn't imagine Conrad being on the list except by accident. However, I am so very not surprised to see my two senators there: Bennett and Hatch. Blehblehbleh.

      utahgirl

  •  By my reading... (4.00)
    Of the 78 co-sponsors to join Sen. Landrieu, 44 signed on in February, and 34 signed on in June.

    Here are the 21 non-sponsors, assuming Thomas is correct and up to date:

    • Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
    • Bennett, Robert- (R - UT)
    • Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM)
    • Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)   
    • Conrad, Kent- (D - ND)   
    • Cornyn, John- (R - TX)   
    • Crapo, Michael- (R - ID)
    • Enzi, Michael- (R - WY)   
    • Grassley, Chuck- (R - IA)
    • Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)   
    • Hatch, Orrin- (R - UT)   
    • Hutchison, Kay- (R - TX)
    • Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ)   
    • Lott, Trent- (R - MS)   
    • Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK)
    • Reed, Jack- (D - RI)   
    • Shelby, Richard- (R - AL)
    • Smith, Gordon- (R - OR)   
    • Sununu, John- (R - NH)   
    • Thomas, Craig- (R - WY)   
    • Voinovich, George- (R - OH)

    But, what did some of the non-sponsors have to say on the floor of the Senate?

    Sen. Jon Kyl [R-AZ]:

    ....

    Lincoln declared: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God, cannot long retain it."

    I support Senate Resolution 39 in the name of honesty and national unity. As Senators representing Americans of all colors and creeds, we ought to give due recognition to past injustices. Even more importantly, we ought to live today by Lincoln's dictum. We must make sure our laws and our practices always reflect our belief in individual worth and equality under the law. This belief held in common is what has helped Americans--whatever their race, religion, or background--to succeed.

    Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]:

    ....

    Ours is the story of a people establishing high ideals, and then struggling to reach them, often falling short, rarely achieving them, but always recommitting ourselves to trying again. This is why we continue to say that anything is possible in America, that no child shall be left behind, and that we will pay any price to defend freedom, although we well know that we will never quite reach such lofty ideals.

    Perhaps the most ambitious of our goals is the proposition, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. . . . ." Our most conspicuous failure to reach this goal is the treatment of African Americans. Slavery, lynching, and segregation are all disgraceful examples of times when this Nation failed African Americans, when we failed to live up to our own promise of that fundamental truth that all men are created equal.

    However, for almost every time that we have failed, we have then struggled to come to terms with the disappointment of that failure and recommitted ourselves to trying again. Where there once was slavery, we enacted the 13th and 14th amendments abolishing slavery and declaring equal protection under the law for all races. After segregation, came Brown v. Board of Education and the Voting Rights Act. There are so many moments like these in our history. We should celebrate these moments, but we should not stop there. We celebrate and remember our history so that we can learn its lessons and apply them today. Today's wrongs are begging for attention. African Americans in this country face significant and often crippling disparities in education, health care, quality of life, and other areas where the Federal Government can play a role.

    There are different ways to acknowledge those times when Americans have failed to live up to our lofty goals. The Senators from Louisiana and Virginia, who are also co-sponsors of our Black History Month resolution, have chosen to apologize for the actions of some earlier Senators as a way of expressing their revulsion to lynching. I also condemn lynching, and this Black History Month resolution condemns lynching. But, rather than begin to catalog and apologize for all those times that some Americans have failed to reach our goals, I prefer to look ahead. I prefer to look to correct current injustices rather than to look to the past. Maya Angelou once wrote, "History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again."

    There is no resolution of apology that we can pass today that will teach one more child to read, prevent one more case of AIDS, or stop one more violent crime. The best way for the United States Senate to condemn lynching is to get to work on legislation that would offer African Americans and other Americans better access to good schools, quality health care and decent jobs.

    ....

    Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]:

    Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the articulate and poignant remarks of the junior Senator from Tennessee [Alexander]. He is absolutely right, of course, that the era of widespread lynching in our nation's history is deplorable. And he is right that we must look to the future, to ensure that such crimes are never again allowed to occur.

    There are different ways to acknowledge those times when Americans have failed to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves. The Senator from Tennessee quotes Maya Angelou, who once wrote, "History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again." Indeed, let us learn from the past, and look forward with such courage.

    Pig fvckers. Instead of coming out against race-hatred murder, they choose to quote Maya Angelou to defend their indefensible behavior.

    Interestingly Larry Craig (R-ID), while sponsoring this resolution, defended his predecessor who had opposed anti-lynching legislation:

    Sen. Larry Craig [R-ID]:

    ....

    Having said that, I am aware of concerns that have been raised about possible "next steps" based on the Senate's action on S. Res. 39. Let me just say that this resolution should not be interpreted--at least so far as this Senator is concerned--as any kind of an endorsement for some claim of compensation based on any action or inaction of the Federal Government.

    In fact, what brings me to the floor is a concern that the actions of a particular Senator long ago may be subjected to unfair, revisionist criticism from our perspective today. The Senator in question is my predecessor, known as "the Lion of Idaho," William Borah.

    Senator Borah was one of the leaders of the Senate in blocking consideration of the anti-lynching legislation. I think it is important for the record to show that whatever motives others may have had at the time for blocking this legislation, William Borah offered convincing justifications for his position rooted in serious constitutional and policy concerns.


    Craig then asked to have his report on Borah read into the record.

    All emphasis added by me.

    •  Thanks! (none)
      I was asking below if anyone knew what ground these guys were standing on in voting against this resolution. Only then did I scan up to find your quotes. Excellent!

      What is the matter with these guys? Looking forward is all well and good but acknowledging the past and accepting it is also of high merit.

      As it stands these guys are saying they want to "leave no child behind" but don't mind lynching their parents.

      Uh... hello?

      "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

      by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:09:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  rule one (none)
      Rule one on politicians ... watch what they do, not what they say.  Politicians are always good about CYA ... they may make a fine speach on the floor, while refusing to co-sponser a bill.

      I'm still amazed that 20 Senators would even think that apologize for the mass murder of blacks over an 80 year period would cost them even a handfull of votes.  Says alot about who votes for these guys.

  •  Pro-lynching senators' states represent 57.7%... (none)
    ...of historical lynchings.

    According to statistics at http://www.nathanielturner.com/lynchingbystateandrace.htm, fourteen of the sixteen states represented by senators who refused to sponsor or roll call vote for the anti-lynching bill represented 57.7% of (recorded) lynchings from 1882-1962 (2734 of 4736 lynchings total).  New Hampshire and Alaska had none.  WTF, Sununu and Murkowski?

    Rank in lynchings by state of these senators' states (because of ties, and some states without recorded lynchings, there are only 33 places, not 50):

    1. Mississippi
    2. Georgia
    3. Texas
    4. Alabama
    5. Tennessee
    6. Kentucky
    7. Missouri
    8. Montana
    9. Wyoming
    10. Ohio
    11. Idaho
    12. Iowa
    13. North Dakota
    14. Utah

    Alex
    Choose Our President 2008
  •  Anti-Lynching? (none)
    Have I missed something here? I thought lynching was outlawed in 1937...

    (This is a metaphor for something else, right?)

    If th' meek ever do inherit th' earth some one'll git it away from 'em before they have it an hour

    by NorthStarDemocrat on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:39:00 AM PDT

  •  Map the signatures (none)
    Just for fun, I correlated the senators kos reported didn't sign (for whatever reason) with a map of the US showing the party breakdown of the senators:

    Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

    by darrelplant on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 11:45:20 AM PDT

  •  Kent Conrad (none)
    Seems to be in the wrong party, like his older buddy Zell Miller....
  •  For once Frist uses his brain... (none)
    interesting that he's not on the list.
  •  In this day and age (none)
    this one is a gimme. To not vote in favor of the bill is to say that lynching is ok and who in their right mind would say that lynching is ok?

    Have any of these men stated a reason for their objection? Is there some twist of language in the bill that they stand on as being unacceptable or leading to more trouble for their constituents and their states?

    I cannot fathom a reason why even Trent Lott in this day and age would not vote aye.

    "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

    by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:02:11 PM PDT

    •  Indians are up next.... (none)
      Senate panel considers apology to American Indians
      http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N25390507.htm

      Oughta be likewise interesting to see, if it even gets acted upon, if all senators sign on to this.  From what I can gather, many on the righty blogs are far more averse to passing this resolution than the anti-lynching one since it's an acknowledging active racist practices (massacres!!) by the government rather than the more passive refusal to pass federal anti-lynching laws.  Some are afriad of lawsuits and such......

      "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." - George Bernard Shaw

      by corrsman on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 12:40:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Native Americans (none)
        will be a much tougher one to pass I imagine. Our mistreatment of Native American people's is active and on-going (not to say our discrimination against African Americans is a thing of the past but...) and there are active lawsuits in which Native American nations are trying to get the government to honor their agreements with them. Upstate New York has had/still has some very interesting one's on the table. Native American nations own a huge swath of New York state.

        Interesting to see how this one plays out. I would expect to see much more contention over this then lynching. No one can defend lynching under any circumstances. It can't be done.

        You'll see plenty of people defending mistreatment of Native American people and dishonoring our nations agreements and treaties with them however. Some of those defenses will be straightforward, blunt, and honest... some will be long and torturous in their twisting and turning.

        "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

        by Andrew C White on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:08:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Interestingly, (none)

    Only 6 of the 20 are from onetime Confederate states, although several more were from "border" states.

    Again, the apology doesn't revive anyone killed in such atrocities, and I can see an objection to signing on based on the notion that it's toolittle, too late, and the generation of today can't with words atone for evils wrought by people, for the most part, long ago (lynchings were much more common before WW2 than afterward).

    But if you weren't going to join the expression of regret, I think you ought to have explained why, denounced lynching and racism, and perhaps pointed to as-yet unaddressed items on the agenda of racial justice that deserve legislative action.

    If Senators think their constituents, or appreciable numbers of them, consider that all in all lynching black people wasn't such a bad thing, that's pretty shocking, isn't it?  What if that calculation is actually a correct one?

    "I'm happy tonight. I'm not fearing any man." (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 4/3/1968).

    by proudtinfoilhat on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:17:11 PM PDT

  •  Amy Goodman (none)
    I went to go see Amy Goodman talk out here a couple of months ago.  She was part of a panel of several people talking about the rise of the right.

    I mention this because of another panel member.  She was a LGBT activists who talked a lot about being gay in America.  It really struck me, because she bluntly described this as a life-or-death issue for the people she supported.

    The verbal gay-bashing so much in vogue among the "values" community leads directly to violent attacks on gays.  You don't hear much about it, but it happens all across America.  There are people out there who think going out and beating up queers is just a fine thing to do.  And all the anti-gay rhetoric that's coming from these fine Christians just encourages more of this.

    Reading this thread, I'm remembering the speach this lady gave (I wish I could remember her name).  As I read this, the connection is rather clear.  This litteral gay BASHING is the modern equivalent of lynching.

    And of course, the same Senators who won't co-sponser this apology are also the ones who won't support hate crimes bills that try to protect gays.  The same Senators are the ones who won't support gays having the same right to form unions and get benefits for their loved ones.  The same Senators are the ones who are usually the most verbally abusive towards gays.

    Some things never change.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site