Frist office lies about lynching roll call

This is another good bit of journalism.

The resolution was adopted under what is called "unanimous consent," whereby it is adopted as long as no senator expresses opposition.

But the group that was the driving force behind the resolution had asked Frist for a formal procedure that would have required all 100 senators to vote. And the group had asked that the debate take place during "business hours" during the week, instead of Monday evening, when most senators were traveling back to the capital.

Frist declined both requests, the group's chief counsel, Mark Planning, said Tuesday evening.

"It was very disappointing" that Frist handled the matter the way he did, Planning said. "Other groups have gotten roll call votes, so there was nothing new to this, nothing different that we were asking for."

Bob Stevenson, Frist's chief spokesman, said Tuesday evening the procedure the majority leader established was "requested by the sponsors."

The sponsors, remember, were Mary Landrieu and George Allen.

Landrieu said Monday before the resolution was adopted she would have preferred a roll call vote but had to accept the conditions set by Senate leaders.

When Stevenson was informed of Landrieu's statement, he amended his comments to say "at least one of the sponsors" had requested adoption on a voice vote and in combination with a resolution related to Black History Month.

Okay. So that leaves George Allen.

Allen press secretary David Snepp took issue with Stevenson. "I don't know why Bob Stevenson would characterize it that way," he said.

Snepp said Allen, since agreeing to sponsor the resolution, had insisted that he preferred a roll call vote.

Planning agreed that Landrieu and Allen "made every effort" to have the resolution debated during the day, when it would attract the most attention from the public, and with a formal roll call of the senators.

Freakin' liars.

Update: Aravosis has the latest list.

STILL HAVEN'T COSPONSORED

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - [phone]
Robert Bennett (R-UT) - [phone]
Thad Cochran (R-MS) - [phone]
John Cornyn (R-TX) - [phone]
Michael Crapo (R-ID) - [phone]
Michael Enzi (R-WY) - [phone]
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - [phone]
Judd Gregg (R-NH) - [phone]
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - [phone]
Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - [phone]
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - [phone]
Trent Lott (R-MS) - [phone]
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - [phone]
John Sununu (R-NH) - [phone]
Craig Thomas (R-WY) - [phone]

LATEST TWO WHO NOW HAVE COSPONSORED

George Voinovich (R-OH)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

We can confidently say that there has been plenty of time and attention on this matter, so that those who were inadvertantly left off the original list have had the opportunity to get on it. Those who remain on it do so because they support lynching.

•  Cat Murderer Exposed on the FRONT PAGE !

  

  
  [Click Thumbnail for Full Detail]
  

  by Al Rodgers on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 08:58:27 AM PDT

  •  thats awesome man

    by FrankieWVU on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:08:59 AM PDT

  •  I'm Puzzled.

    Are we really surprised that Fristie lied?  Isn't that what Repugs do?  Sorta like breathing?

    Seems like "lie and get caught in whoppers" is just a Republican thing.

    by mattman on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:09:41 AM PDT

•  Cowards.

  Frist and the shameful 19 (is it 19?) who chose to hide from a roll call vote.
  

  by Newsie8200 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 08:58:56 AM PDT

  •  Stand Up & Be Counted Lynch Mob!

    We know who you are and we are sure as hell going to use it against you.

    You can't hide behind your white robes on this one!! Roll call or no roll call...

    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 01:39:40 PM PDT

•  And Frist expects to be PRESIDENT?

  Hahahahahahahahahaha!  He's even more delusional than I thought!

  by beemer on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:00:20 AM PDT

  •  delusional

    That's been recently added to the Constitution as a requirement to hold the office, hasn't it?

    by Gin on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:03:09 AM PDT

  •  Frist lied?

    Frist lied about something? And you think this disqualifies him to be President?

    Have you been alive for the last five years?

    by tedski on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:24:23 AM PDT

    •  Or the eight before that...

      Or the twelve before that...

      You have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a non-lying president. And I'm sure even he fibbed once or twice

      by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:27:43 AM PDT

      •  I don't know,

        Carter was a pretty straight-up guy. That's largely why he makes a much better ex-President than he made a President. He's a genuinely honest man. It's very hard to get anything done alone in DC. When you're just about the only honest guy there? Just sayin'.

        by justme on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:44:58 PM PDT

  •  Frist and Allen both want...

    ...the GOP's nod in 2008.

    Which is why George Allen, who has a longtime history of catering to racists and attacking black activist groups (Google "George Allen confederate" or "George Allen NAACP" and you'll see what I mean), has suddenly tried to play kiss-and-make-up so as to look "moderate".

    by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:01:10 AM PDT

    •  This is

      the George Allen who Franken asked about the missing $9 billion? Who said he'd never heard of it? Great.

      by justme on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:46:46 PM PDT

    •  yep

      and Allen also kept a noose in his Richmond law office before becoming VA governor, which was raised by a high school student in a debate for his Senate run.  This was possibly the most entertaining live moment I have ever seen in politics.  Allen looked like a deer caught in the headlights and then said something about Martin Luther King...  apparently the noose represented "tough justice".

      by NYCpuppeteer on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 05:08:01 PM PDT

      •  Mentally unarmed...

        Fortunately, Allen is a ditz and can't possibly be elected.

        I know, so what about Bush? Well, he wouldn't have been elected either if his name weren't Bush.  His halo kept lots of intelligent people from seeing the elephant in the room.

        by PKinTexas on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 06:45:03 AM PDT

•  Why

  Why didn't anyone - i.e. a Democrat oppose a voice vote and demand a roll cal?

  by Tillie630 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:03:48 AM PDT

  •  perhaps

    because they knew the bad publicity Frist would get would be worse for him?

    Just a thought.

    by freedtoread on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:09:05 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    Couldn't a roll call vote have been forced by just one member of the senate?

    (-6.75, -3.85)

    by mapKY on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:10:17 AM PDT

  •  Maybe they were not being cynical

    As useful as it is to know who and where the racists and the bigots are in the Senate, perhaps no-one called them out on this (roll-call vs voice vote) because there was a sincere desire that an actual apology be issued unanimously by the Senate in order to begin to heal the wounds caused by the Senate's past crimes in ignoring lynching.

    Naive? Maybe. I'm hoping that every once in a while things get done in our government because they are the right thing to do rather than for partisan or personal advantage.

    Still, screw the bastards who wouldn't co-sponsor  this bill. We know who you are.

    by DavidW in SF on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:11:21 AM PDT

    •  I like your answer

      better than mine.  I hope it's correct.

      ;)

      by freedtoread on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:14:58 AM PDT

  •  My understanding

    is that this is the only way Frist would bring the bill up for a vote.  

    He doesn't have control over someone calling for a roll call vote, but he does schedule which bills get floor time and which don't.
    

    by bawbie on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:12:27 AM PDT

  •  Because there was a deal.

    Landrieu agreed to this, in exchange for getting her bill out of the Judiciary Committee. She was between a rock and a hard place, to be sure. But she had to have known what she was getting into.

    And that's fine.

    The alternative was to prevail upon her to set her crusade to do right aside, and martyr herself and her bill in order to create a political issue, which at best results in a platform to do... what? Accuse white, Southern, conservative Senators of racism?

    It's always fun to be able to do that. But at what cost? Wasn't it better for her to get the job she set out to do done?

    by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:39:18 AM PDT

    •  It's all symbolic anyhow

      It's not like this is body armor for the troops or something, where getting it done is more important than getting it done your way. If you're going to make a symbolic vote, you might as well do it in a way that puts a wedge between Republican Senators and their white supremacist base.

      by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:54:23 AM PDT

      •  Tell it to Mary Landrieu.

        She's been working on this for some time. She introduced the same bill last Congress, only to watch it die the same death they had planned for it this time.

        But this time, she worked the system and got something she thought was important done. By what means would you have persuaded her that two days worth of blogosphere outrage was worth sacrificing a year's work?

        by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:59:49 AM PDT

        •  Time is not important in this case

          What difference does it make whether she lets the bill die now and reintroduces it later when she can get a roll-call vote? Maybe in a different Congress with a different Majority Leader she could have gotten a roll call vote. This bill is just a statement. A roll call vote would have made the statement more powerful by forcing people to vote yes or no. If you she could have gotten unanimous support that would have been great. If there would have been a handful of hold outs, that would be less good,  but at least people would be on record against it.

          I'm not outraged with her for not getting a roll-call, but I would have preferred it. And honestly as a black man, I don't particularly care if the Senate apologizes or not. So if the bill would have withered on the vine, I wouldn't have cared. The way I see it, there's no downside for never passing the bill at all, and a potentially greater upside for passing it with a roll call.

          by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:57:55 AM PDT

          •  I fully understand.

            All I'm saying is that these things will be weighed differently by a single black man, and a single white, female Senator with a large black constituency, many of whom have flown to Washington to "see something done."

            I suggest that you, as a black man, and as a man not standing for election, have a degree of freedom that Senator Landrieu does not.

            by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:31:13 AM PDT

            •  Is there a substantial grassroots demand for this?

              If there is, then I suppose I'd agree with your point. But otherwise Louisiana's black population might be better served if Landrieu were making a fuss over a cause that had a more direct impact.

              by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 01:27:06 PM PDT

              •  I don't know.

                I wouldn't really have guessed so. In fact, it seems  to me that there's more grassroots demand for trying to embarrass non-cosponsors than there is for doing something that has more direct impact.

                by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 01:33:24 PM PDT

•  The White Christian Party

  strikes again.

  by bonddad on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:10:33 AM PDT

  •  I can't possibly see

    how referring to the GOP as the White Christian Party could ever earn us a single extra vote.  Just pisses people off.

    by lorax on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 04:09:58 PM PDT

•  MORE TOP TEN EXCUSES FOR OPPOSING ANTI-LYNCHING

  MORE TOP TEN EXCUSES FOR OPPOSING ANTI-LYNCHING RESOLUTION
  

  10.  Didn't want it to interfere with any lynching being done at Guantanamo
      
  9.  Rope lobby made a campaign contribution
     
  8.  Its reverse psychology:  the GOP is so friendly to African Americans, we don't need to go out of our way to prove our credentials like the Democrats do
     
  7.  NRA offshoot NLA (National Lynching Association) says "Ropes don't kill people...people kill people"
     
  6.  I was out of town on an all-expense paid whaling expedition courtesy the perfume industry...just ask Tom DeLay...he was with me...
     
  5.  "What'd I do?"-- Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA
     
  4. I was found in a block of ice, thawed by your scientists, and subsequently went to law school and got elected to the Senate... your ways confuse and frighten me...I don't know about "black history" or "civil rights" but I do know this... a lot of my constituents are red-kneck crackers who'll give me the boot if I support something like this..."
     
  3.  Of course I supported it, what do you mean I'm on some list, who are ya gonna believe, me or some website?
     
  2.  Does this have anything to do with helping corporate campaign donors get richer? No? Then not interested.
     
  1.  I'm an ignorant asshole

  by jgkojak on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:13:07 AM PDT

•  don't forget

  the AJC has a dailykos login.

  presuming that i'm actually posting this in the correct thread this time...

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:13:22 AM PDT

  •  is there a listing of sites?

    that have a dailykos log in?  

    by tmendoza on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:17:02 AM PDT

    •  probably somewhere

      this one's login is:

      first name: kos
      email: [e-mail]
      password: dailykos

      I thought i would give it a try, and it worked.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:24:08 AM PDT

•  More info from Americablog:

  A constituent called Lamar Alexander's office and asked why he didn't co-sponsor the lynching bill. The staffer said Alexander had already co-cponsored a resolution for Black History Month and therefore did not have to sponsor another pro-Black resolution.

  Voinovich and Murkowski have co-sponsored. AmericaBlog has the latest list.

  The Athens, Georgia paper has written a blistering editorial about the resolution:

  So, with the blood of 4,743 lynching victims crying out from the ground for some measure of justice - however delayed it might be - the U.S. Senate used the cover of night, and the more despicable cover of a voice vote, to take not a bold and courageous stand, but a lukewarm acceptance of responsibility for one of the most heinous chapters in American history.

  by Eternal Hope on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:15:36 AM PDT

  •  were any of the senators

    wearing white sheets during the vote?  Can we go back to cspan to see if they caught any white sheets on tape?  Oh how fun it would be to have 15 people wearing white sheets with a disclaimer...brought to you by the US Senate......is your senator one of them?  you decide.

    by jalapeno on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:24:16 AM PDT

  •  Oh Lamar,

    " and therefore did not have to sponsor another pro-Black resolution."

    You can always count on him to put things in perspective, the perspective of a Grand Dragon.

    He's like a political fascist Old Faithful.

    by bam bam on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:30:23 AM PDT

  •  What this leaves out...

    is that Alexander's resolution honoring Black History Month also condemned the country's history of lynching.

    I'm no Lamar! fan, but this is just a silly interpretation of what his statement meant.

    by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:36:20 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for pointing that out.

      But what rule is there in Tennessee against a senator speaking out against it more than once a manth?

      by Eternal Hope on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:41:46 AM PDT

      •  Nothing.

        But consider how the cosponsorship thing played out.  The bill was introduced with 36 original cosponsors. Then, ten days later, six more Senators join. Still stuck in committee with no action, 11 days later, two more Senators join.

        Then... for four moths... nothing happens.

        So, over those four months, two competing anti-lynching bills are sitting in committee with nothing happening. One with 44 cosponsors, and Lamar!'s with 35.

        Then, all of a sudden, a deal is in the works to free Landrieu's bill from committee and brings it to the floor. Bam! Landrieu picks up 16 more cosponsors on June 7th, 8th and 9th. Then, woohoo! It gets discharged and voted on in the same day! Suddenly, 18 more cosponsorships! Then, all hell breaks loose on the blogs! Five more cosponsors, after the bill is passed!

        You see what I'm getting at? By the time Lamar! knew the jig was up and his bill was gonna die, the Landrieu bill was outta there, and he was being forced to answer loaded questions about why he's "pro-lynching."

        by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:51:25 AM PDT

        •  Did the 18 know something Lamar! Didn't?

          Funny how 18 other senators (using your count) were able to learn about the deal in time to consponsor the bill before the vote, while Lamar! [sic] somehow did not.
          

          by Dan K on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:52:13 AM PDT

          •  And what did they learn?

            Did they learn that joining as a cosponsor was the only principled way to get your bona fides as "objectively anti-lynching?" Or did they learn that the only way to stay out of trouble so that nobody would ever even bother asking you about your position on lynching was to go along to get along?

            by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:26:52 AM PDT

            •  Going along to get along is underrated

              While I'd prefer if no one in the Senate was racist, I'm glad to see that people have to behave in such a way as to not appear racist, because it makes for fewer racist votes.

              by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 01:32:58 PM PDT

              •  Me too.

                My feeling is that Landrieu made the right deal. But if that's true, then the blogosphere needs to acknowledge that instead of having people call and harrass the interns in the Senate offices of people who didn't cosponsor.

                I mean, if we want to be logically consistent and productive activists, that is. Maybe we don't, or at least, not for the moment. Maybe we're just exacting a little revenge.

                by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 01:35:54 PM PDT

        •  I can't speak for kos.

          But nothing was stopping Alexander from latching on to the Landreu bill after it was clear that his own bill was going to die. What's more important for Alexander, his anger that his bill was not going to make it, or the need to speak out against lynching?

          Given what you say about Alexander, I do NOT think he is pro-lynching. But he doesn't recognize the importance of speaking out against it and recognize the government's failure to act to stop it.

          by Eternal Hope on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:45:10 AM PDT

          •  Doesn't he?

            He sponsored a bill that did that.

            And, just as clear as the fact that his bill was going to die was the fact that Landrieu's would pass... unless he came to the floor to oppose it.

            Which he didn't do.

            At some point, it becomes a redundancy to cosponsor a bill that's going to the floor on a voice vote in a matter of hours. Or at least, in a straight-dealing world, it would be a redundancy. Now, you have to come and perform a symbolic gesture about a symbolic gesture that's going to be passed by a symbolic gesture just to not be called a racist.

            Not that far from the dynamics of the pie fight, either. In the sense that it's "not about the bill."

            by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:59:54 AM PDT

            •  It's a cop-out.

              What I'm hearing from him is that "I've already spoken out against racism once, why do I need to do it again?" That's like a player coming to practice and deciding not to work hard because they already had a good practice yesterday.

              Again, there's no law against opposing racism day in and day out.

              by Eternal Hope on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 08:40:26 AM PDT

      •  This just occured to me...

        Consider this issue in terms we can all understand: the dynamics of Daily Kos.

        This issue -- the engineering of the voice vote -- was already diaried today, and the dynamics of the competition between the Landrieu bill and the Alexander bill were already discussed.

        Then, kos does his own front page story based on the same article. The question for me, now, is: Do I go and have the same discussion all over again with people who didn't see it the first time, or is that a waste of my time? I've already made my point. But now I have to do it all over again because kos wants to discuss it elsewhere, in a place that will draw much more attention than in a diary. So what do I do?

        Would I be right in telling myself that I've said my piece, and I don't have to prove my worth to anybody, since I'm on the record? Or do I have to start all over, and take my message to the new forum?

        by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:10:22 AM PDT

        •  Kos Does Not Equal Senate

          It's not necessary to add your voice to a Kos forum thread when many others have said the same thing, that's true. But the Senate is not a blog, and senators are not bloggers (mostly). Each Senator is obliged to speak up on matters of importance, not just let it slide because several other senators got there before him.

          One more blogger speaking out does not add weight to the message. One more senator does - the weight of his office, the weight of his state and his constituents, the weight of the Senate.

          by Dan K on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:56:22 AM PDT

          •  But suppose...

            Suppose later on I'm accused of being "objectively pro-lynching" for explaining why Lamar! might not be completely out of his mind?

            Could I simply say, "that's not true?"

            No, I'm not trying to pretend that Kos equals the Senate. I'm drawing a parallel. I'm asking you to compare dynamics. On Daily Kos, we place a heavy emphasis on linking, on providing objective proof. I'm simply positing that just saying in the second thread that "everybody knows I'm not pro-lynching" wouldn't be enough. I'd have to demonstrate it.

            Just as Lamar! is being asked to do, though the record is there.

            by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:25:24 AM PDT

            •  No the record is not

              there; his bill never got anywhere and no one is paying attention to it. OTOH, everyone IS paying attention to Landrieu's bill, and once Lamar? saw that, he should have signed on as well. That sort of thing happens all the time -- similar, competing bills get introduced, one makes it to the floor, and the sponsor of the one that didn't make it signs on to the one that did.

              Methinks Lamar?'s defenders really are protesting too much.

              by Dan K on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:31:10 PM PDT

              •  I like that question mark.

                But do you think you're talking to a Lamar! defender?

                The record, though, is there, but nobody is paying attention to it.

                And nobody was paying attention to Landrieu's bill between February and June.

                The real rush to cosponsor only came when the deal was done and the bill was discharged, at which time many Senators were still out of town. Remember, almost all of this happened in one day. In all likelihood, most of those last minute cosponsorships were authorized and signed for by Chiefs of Staff, and not the Senators themselves. Easy call for most, tougher one for the chief sponsor of the competing legislation. Especially when the issue is merely cosponsorship, given that the deal cleared the way for the bill to pass unopposed, affording everyone the cover to say they supported it.

                by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:42:10 PM PDT

              •  Several things

                "everyone IS paying attention"
                No, pretty much you, me and Kagro X are paying attention to it.  No one else really is.  The rest of the country is still wondering what to do with that big hole left from the end of the Jackson trial.

                Kagro's point, and mine, is that we should not demand cosponsership of every bill you agree with.

                To attempt to further Kagro's analogy, I don't go back and look at who recommended a diary to decide who thought that diary was correct or not.

                It is my opinion that many here are over playing the importance of sponsership of a bill.  

                by bawbie on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:47:31 PM PDT

                •  Sponsorship Varies in Importance

                  It is my opinion that many here are over playing the importance of sponsership of a bill.

                  Well, that depends. In this case, it is important because Frist's game-playing deliberately deprived the voters of any other way of knowing where their senators stand on this issue.

                  Normally, you have a few cosponsors who show by their sponsorship that they feel this is a particularly important issue for them. The others may not feel it is as important, or may have other priorities, but they will still cast their vote when the time comes, thus establishing their position. Frist eliminated that option.

                  Over 85 senators (80 or so before the vote) cosponsored the bill, knowing as they did so that this was an unusual number, but also knowing at the same time that the bill was important enough and the circumstances unusual enough that such action was called for.

                  It is that high number which makes Lamar?'s absence stand out. And it stands out more than the others' BECAUSE he had introduced a similar bill. Nor does he have the excuse of lack of notice any longer, given the attention the bill and its list of sponsors has received. Also, he must know by now that he can add his name to the list after the fact, as others have done.

                  I would not harp on Lamar? were it not for the fact that he had introduced his own bill. I can understand (if not excuse) most of the other absentees from the list. I do not understand his continued absence in the light of the changed situation.

                  And if Lamar? does add his name to the list, I will withdraw the ?.

                  by Dan K on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 05:05:22 PM PDT

        •  I guess it's your call ;)

          by RandyMI on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:58:39 AM PDT

        •  Left out one more thought....

          Lamar's failure to endorse wouldn't matter so much if Frist had allowed a roll call vote; that counts almost as much (but not quite) as sponsorship, since it puts each Senator on record.

          With the roll call vote eliminated, however, the only way we can know where each senator stands is from the list of sponsors. First's manuever raises the importance of sponsorship far beyond what it would otherwise be. So, yes, we are right to focus on it.

          by Dan K on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:59:09 AM PDT

          •  But...

            Does "Frist's maneuver" happen without Democratic complicity? No, it does not. So we might as well ask whether Lamar!'s failure to endorse is as important as any Democrat's failure to insist on a recorded vote.

            by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:29:02 AM PDT

            •  Only way to get a vote at all

              Frist had made it clear he wasn't going to let the bill get to the floor unless there was a voice vote rather than a roll call. Landrieu made the decision that a voice vote was better than no vote at all. You can call that complicity if you want, but it got the motion passed.

              And FWIW, I think Frist lost this one, too. If he'd allowed the usual roll call, he might have gotten a few senators upset, but those are the ones whose constituents would not abandon them for refusing to support an anti-lynching bill - they could say, well, it was a waste of time, or duplicates other leigislation, and so on. But by playing the game the way he did - and especially being caught lying about it - Frist opens himself to yet more charges of pandering and incompetence.

              Add that to his miscall on Schaivo (which he had no business making in the first (frist?) place, and Doc Boy is not having a good week.
              

              by Dan K on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:36:47 PM PDT

              •  It is complicity.

                It's just the kind of complicity we can forgive.

                And in fact, it's the kind of complicity I've already forgiven in many comments. You'd know that if you examined the record. But you didn't do that, for precisely the same reason that most Senators didn't bother -- until the last possible minute -- to pretend they'd been keeping up with the record.

                Because it's not worth the time, when you can always just proclaim a deathbed conversion.

                Similarly, I didn't bother reasserting the evidence already on the record, for precisely the reasons I gave at the outset of this part of the conversation.

                by Kagro X on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:44:47 PM PDT

•  The Lynching and Flag Desecration Crowd

  In Washington, Congressional Republicans are waging yet another battle in their never-ending culture war.  This time, the focus is on a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag. But if these hypocrites really want to honor and protect the symbols of the United States, they shouldn't be talking about Old Glory, but the Confederate Stars and Bars.

  So here's a new constitutional proposal, the Old Glory Protection Amendment:

  No federal agency, state or local government may display the flag of the Confederate States of America over any building, facility, site or property of any kind.  Similarly, no institution receiving funds from the federal, state or local government may display the Confederate Flag.  The same prohibitions apply to any flag containing the CSA flag as a design element.

  For the full story, see:

  "Banning True Flag Desecration"

  by Avenging Angel on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:22:47 AM PDT

  •  Meh

    banning displays that are offensive is less fun than promoting freedom to do and express what you want.

    by Steve G on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:59:02 AM PDT

  •  "School House Rock"

    An amendment to be
    Oh yeah an amendment to be
    I hope they go and ratify me

    There's a lot of flag burners who have got too much freedom
    And what to make it illegal for police-men to beat 'em.

    by Tulwath on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:29:11 AM PDT

•  Grassley

  I just called Grassley's office and they said he signed on. Where would I go to verify the accuracy of this claim?

  by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

•  i heard hutchison had now cosponsored

  is that true?

  by TexasDemocrat06 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:24:28 AM PDT

  •  That's news to me

    I emailed both Hutchison and Cornyn last night, asking them to explain or discuss their position on the lynching matter and have not received an answer from either. If I do, I'll post it here.

    by choff on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:53:39 PM PDT

•  Question

  I see from the list that Sen. Conrad (D-ND) is not listed anymore as not sponsering the resolution... when did he sign on?

  I believe he was the only democrat on the previous lists of not sponsering senators but he isn't listed with the recent sponsors Voinovich and Murkowski...

  by Frederik on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:26:35 AM PDT

  •  Yesterday

    I think it was an oversight on his part. At least I hope it was. But it certainly provides us with a target-rich environment now. :)

    by Senor Pez on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:44:18 AM PDT

•  The White Sheet Senators

  strike again!!!!  Could you see Dean holding up white sheets with each of the senators names on it....that would be a frickin riot.

  by jalapeno on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:26:49 AM PDT

•  I cannot believe

  that Allen is contradicting Frist's story.

  His motives of course are bullshit, but you have to admit that was not something you'd expect from Allen.

  Still a cocksucker, but he has gotten 5% slicker.
  Which is 95% behind someone with a brain.

  by bam bam on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:26:52 AM PDT

•  Mr. Up-and-Down-Vote flip-flops

  Let me get this right, Frist won't ask for a roll call vote of the Senate in order to give cover to members who are PRO-LYNCHING?

  These non-voting senators think they can get away with this?  

  Either you're against lynching or for it, and if most of the Senate has signed on to this resolution apologizing for it's inaction all these years, it's pretty obvious that those who didn't sign were out getting their pointy-headed hoods fitted.

  These friends of the lynch mob have got to be exposed and called out for their callousness.

  "You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever!" - Sideshow Bob

  by chachabowl on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:28:41 AM PDT

•  Speaking for myself, I think this is a non issue

  I don't want an apology for lynchings. I want them to actually do something to help the present African American community in the areas of education, healthcare and business development. This sort of thing is just sort of cutesy absolution 100 years after the fact type stuff.  Will we wait 100 years to absolve ourselves of what is happening in the black community today? That's the real question. But, I understand for the purpose of politics in terms of symbolism about where the GOP is that this is important.

  by bruh1 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:40:25 AM PDT

  •  This would be a non-issue

    if all 100 senators signed on without any fuss. The fact that we have to hector people into signing on and the fact that certain Senators wanted a voice vote instead of a roll call so the wouldn't have to go on record either way is damning.

    by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 09:51:31 AM PDT

    •  100 percent agree with you

      There is no doubt this is telling, and scary on some levels, because they are saying that we are still in a world where even a token gesture such as this will piss of their constituencies.

      The thing about the Republicans is that they are playing both ends against the middle when it comes to racial issues, but not one of the so called moderates ever calls them to task for it.

      by bruh1 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:11:16 AM PDT

•  This statement...

  Those who remain on it do so because they support lynching.

  is hands-down the stupidest thing you've ever written, kos.  

  These Senators are noxious Republicans.  And they may be pandering to people who have all sorts of hateful motives and do support lynching.  But to conclude, on the basis of not co-sponsoring a purely symbolic "apology", that they "support lynching" is just over-the-top, poorly reasoned garbage worthy of LGF or PowerLine.  Do we really need to stoop to their level?
  

  by Glenn in NYC on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:05:42 AM PDT

  •  turnabout

    is fair play.

    By the same logic that the wingnuts have taught us to use, and which we must clerly respect, failure to support this anti-lynching move is "objectively pro-lynching."

    by smartalek on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:13:53 AM PDT

    •  no, it isn't

      I support the Democratic Party, for the most part, because it espouses good policies promoted by intelligent debate.  I certainly don't want this party to be run by just a liberal version of Tom DeLay.

      Stuff like Kos's comment is part of what's wrong with this country.  (Increasingly, I think Kos is emblematic of what's wrong with politics in this country, although to a lesser extent than the Freepers are.)

      by Delirium on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 03:01:05 PM PDT

  •  9 of 10 nonsponsor's states: 37.6% of lynchings

    Another reason why it's actually important:

    Together, according to statistics at http://www.nathanielturner.com/lynchingbystateandrace.htm, nine of the ten states represented by these senators who still refuse to sponsor the anti-lynching bill represented 37.6% of (recorded) lynchings from 1882-1962 (1782 of 4736 lynchings total).  New Hampshire had none.  WTF, Gregg and Sununu?  I mean, seriously what the f---ing F?  (Not to let the other creeps off the hook.)

    These are your GOP senators, America.  This is how they act in the Senate.  This is how the Senate stacks up in terms of supporting racial and mob violence.

    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
       
    3. Texas
       
    5. Alabama
       
    8. Tennessee
       
    13. Montana
        
    21. Wyoming
        
    22. Arizona
        
    26. Idaho
        
    27. Iowa
        
    30. Utah
        

    Alex
    Choose Our President 2008

    by ourprez08 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:44:07 AM PDT

  •  Screw That!

    They should be tarred and feathered for this and damn sure hope some Dems (Dean?) stand up and make some noise about this! After the flack Dean got for calling the the White Male Xtian party, it's the least the Dems can do!

    It's called politics and the Repubs wouldn't (and don't) think twice about labeling a Dem as something equally vile when it's not even deserved.  Any scumbag who doesn't cosponsor this DESERVES to be called pro-lynching. Maybe we should just play nicey nice? Give me a break.

    by Beetwasher on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:54:36 AM PDT

  •  Pandering to racists about racists ideas

    This statement... (none / 0)

    Those who remain on it do so because they support lynching.

    is hands-down the stupidest thing you've ever written, kos.  

    These Senators are noxious Republicans.  And they may be pandering to people who have all sorts of hateful motives and do support lynching.  But to conclude, on the basis of not co-sponsoring a purely symbolic "apology", that they "support lynching" is just over-the-top, poorly reasoned garbage worthy of LGF or PowerLine.  Do we really need to stoop to their level?

    This goes far beyond noxious. When you pander to people with hateful motives about hateful motives you are one and the same as those you pander too.

    If the people ask them to cosponsor the resolution, they should do their jobs and sign on. If they refuse to cosponsor they are in effect supporting lynching.

    Those who remain on the list are supporting lynching.

    by gando on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:17:26 PM PDT

•  A Call to Cornyn's Office

  I just got off the phone with a staff member handling the anti-lynching resolution.  According to this staff member, he was told that Senators are unable to retroactively co-sponsor this particular resolution.  Is this true?  Does anyone know?

  by thenudge on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:34:46 AM PDT

  •  Maybe he should tell us

    why the hell he didn't co-sponsor it before it became too late. So Kay Bailey Hutchinson's a part of the Dirty Dozen, too? What a shining moment for our illustrious senators.

    by lirtydies on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:13:38 AM PDT

  •  Ha Ha!

    GOOD! I'm glad it's too late for him to cosponsor it! Now we will forever be able to label him as pro-lynching. Cornyn is scum of the lowest order and deserves every piece of bad karma he gets.

    by Beetwasher on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:57:12 AM PDT

•  Update on Shelby

  I got an "automated" email response from Senator Shelby (see the linky for my letter) that said that, due to the volume of email he recieves, unless I included my full address and phone number, I would not recieve a return email.

  So I resent the message with that information... and remain waiting.

  What's odd is that this "automated" message took a day to get sent out. Now that's what I call a slow mail intern... er... "server."

  FWIW, to nip the "Why don't you call?" question in the bud... I don't feel comfortable calling from the cube-farm... too much red around. And I get to work early and get home late these days, so it's pretty much pointless to call at 9:00 p.m. D.C. time. :)

  That being said, if I don't get a response by tomorrow, I might take an extra long lunch, head home, and call anyway. :D

  by Senor Pez on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 10:41:40 AM PDT

•  Support for lynching

  Those who remain on it do so because they support lynching.

  Really?  Because they support lynching--that's the only possible reason?  I wouldn't have signed the thing because I hate that kind ineffectual, showy moral preening.  Gack.  

  And why now?  Hasn't revulsion over lynching been virtually universal for decades at this point?  That was certainly the perspective on it I was taught in school and that was back in the middle of the last century (e.g. late 60's and 70's).  This bill, however, tends to create the impression among those less familiar with U.S. history (e.g. the rest of the world) that lynching is somehow a live, unresolved issue that's only just now being addressed.  Making this a page 1 issue, creating this impression works for our reputation and interests how?

  Or is working against U.S. interests and reputation the actual point of the charade?

  by mlwaa on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 11:35:43 AM PDT

  •  US History

    Did you read the resolution? Perhaps you should.

    The resolution points out that lynching was still happening while you were in school being taught that it was wrong, and it points out why they wanted to resolve this important issue.

    A quick search on http://thomas.loc.gov might be enlightening... you know what, screw it, here is the pole and the fish:

    ________________

       109th CONGRESS

       1st Session

       S. RES. 39

       Apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.

       IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

       February 7, 2005

       Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. FRIST, Mr. REID, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BAYH, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. DODD, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. STEVENS, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. TALENT, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. VITTER, Mr. OBAMA, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BYRD, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. CRAIG, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. INOUYE, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. CARPER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BURR, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BURNS, Mr. DEWINE, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BOND, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. INHOFE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

       June 13, 2005

       Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

    RESOLUTION

    Apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.

    Whereas the crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the ultimate expression of racism in the United States following Reconstruction;

    Whereas lynching was a widely acknowledged practice in the United States until the middle of the 20th century;

    Whereas lynching was a crime that occurred throughout the United States, with documented incidents in all but 4 States;

    Whereas at least 4,742 people, predominantly African-Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968;

    Whereas 99 percent of all perpetrators of lynching escaped from punishment by State or local officials;

    Whereas lynching prompted African-Americans to form the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and prompted members of B'nai B'rith to found the Anti-Defamation League;

    Whereas nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century;

    Whereas, between 1890 and 1952, 7 Presidents petitioned Congress to end lynching ;

    Whereas, between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed 3 strong anti-lynching measures;

    Whereas protection against lynching was the minimum and most basic of Federal responsibilities, and the Senate considered but failed to enact anti-lynching legislation despite repeated requests by civil rights groups, Presidents, and the House of Representatives to do so;

    Whereas the recent publication of `Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America' helped bring greater awareness and proper recognition of the victims of lynching ;

    Whereas only by coming to terms with history can the United States effectively champion human rights abroad; and

    Whereas an apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged: Now, therefore, be it

          Resolved, That the Senate--

                (1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;

                (2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching , the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and

                (3) remembers the history of lynching , to ensure that these tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.
    

    by gando on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:25:15 PM PDT

•  POP QUIZ!

  Greetings!

  I'm new, so I hope this is an appropriate place to do this. I have a lot of extra cell-phone long distance minutes, and decided to call the Senators on this list and ask why they didn't cosponsor. Below is are the questions I asked, and the answers I have gotten so far. If anyone else has a few extra minutes today (the calls take about 3 minutes tops) please feel free to post in the comments here, and we can compile a list of responses when we have all the answers.

  So far, the responses have been fairly lame. I haven't fact checked any of these responses, such as when a staffer says the Senator in question voted for the resolution, or voiced positive thoughts on it while on the floor. In retrospect I should get the name of the staffer too, just in case.

  Questions: It is my understanding that the Senator did not cosponsor the recent lynching resolution; do you know why he didn't? Given recent public pressure, does he plan on cosponsoring the recent lynching resolution?

  Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - [phone] - The Senator as working on his own African American bill at the time it was voted on - staffer did not know if he was going to cosponsor or not.

  Robert Bennett (R-UT) - [phone] - " He gave support for it on the floor, but did not cosponsor it. Staffer did not know why he did not cosponsor it. Staffer did know that he was not going to cosponsor it, he felt his support on the floor was enough.

  Thad Cochran (R-MS) - [phone] - Staffer does not know why he didn't cosponsor the resolution, but he does support it. Unknown if he will cosponsor.

  John Cornyn (R-TX) - [phone] -  Staffer says he voted in favor of the resolution, and spoke in favor of it on the floor. Staffer doesn't know if he will cosponsor it or not.

  Michael Crapo (R-ID) - [phone] - Staffer did not know anything about the recent lynching resolution - I passed on my questions and concerns.

  Michael Enzi (R-WY) - [phone] -
  Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - [phone] -
  Judd Gregg (R-NH) - [phone] -
  Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - [phone] -
  Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - [phone] -
  Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - [phone] -
  Trent Lott (R-MS) - [phone] -
  Richard Shelby (R-AL) - [phone] -
  John Sununu (R-NH) - [phone] -
  Craig Thomas (R-WY) - [phone] -

  by gando on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 12:08:19 PM PDT

  •  Update - final

    Italics indicate responses found by others here.

    Lamar AlexanderTN) - [phone] -
    The Senator as working on his own African American bill at the time it was voted on - staffer did not know if he was going to cosponsor or not.

    A constituent called Lamar Alexander's office and asked why he didn't co-sponsor the lynching bill. The staffer said Alexander had already co-cponsored a resolution for Black History Month and therefore did not have to sponsor another pro-Black resolution.

    Robert Bennett (R-UT) - [phone] -
    He gave support for it on the floor, but did not cosponsor it. Staffer did not know why he did not cosponsor it. Staffer did know that he was not going to cosponsor it, he felt his support on the floor was enough.

    Thad Cochran (R-MS) - [phone] - Staffer does not know why he didn't cosponsor the resolution, but he does support it. Unknown if he will cosponsor.

    John Cornyn (R-TX) - [phone] -  Staffer says he voted in favor of the resolution, and spoke in favor of it on the floor. Staffer doesn't know if he will cosponsor it or not.

    A Call to Cornyn's Office -I just got off the phone with a staff member handling the anti-lynching resolution.  According to this staff member, he was told that Senators are unable to retroactively co-sponsor this particular resolution.  Is this true?  Does anyone know?
    From Sen. John Cornyn's office: He supported the apology. He read the following into the record: "Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the articulate and poignant remarks of the junior Senator from Tennessee. 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. "

    Michael Crapo (R-ID) - [phone] - Staffer did not know anything about the recent lynching resolution - I passed on my questions and concerns.

    Michael Enzi (R-WY) - [phone] -

    Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - [phone] -
    I just called Grassley's office and they said he signed on.

    Judd Gregg (R-NH) - [phone] -

    Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - [phone] -

    Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - [phone] -
    I don't know why she has not cosponsored, I'll pass your comments on to her.

    From Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's office: Staff did not go to Sen. Hutchison with a recommendation to sponsor, since she has a practice of only co-sponsoring measures she had a role in crafting. She supported the resolution. She has a commitment to African-American causes, as evidenced by a speech Tuesday morning -- the day after passage of the apology -- to leaders of historic black colleges. She has a sensitivity on the subject, as evidenced by her attendance at the funeral of James Byrd Jr. in Jasper. (I checked the record, and she appears to have been the highest-ranking public official there.) She did NOT sign on as a co-sponsor after the fact, despite what some media outlets put out.

    Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - [phone] -

    Trent Lott (R-MS) - [phone] -

    Richard Shelby (R-AL) - [phone] -

    John Sununu (R-NH) - [phone] -

    Craig Thomas (R-WY) - [phone] -
    

    by gando on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:37:12 PM PDT

•  Just called my two senators . . .

  Cornyn:  no answer
  Hutchinson:  I don't know why she has not cosponsored, I'll pass your comments on to her.

  In other words, no dice  :(  Texas angers me.  I don't like my Senators, President, Governor or rep (Delay)

  by trowaman on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 01:22:29 PM PDT

  •  They are both lying sacks. See their comments to

    the Dallas Morning News posted below.

    by YucatanMan on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 03:56:22 PM PDT

•  It's important because ....

  ... the Senate passes a lot of resolutions, a lot of them BS, such as:

  • To designate April 9, 2004, as `National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day'.

  • Recognizing the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry located at 31 South Greene Street in Baltimore, Maryland, as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States.

  • Designating May 29, 2004, on the occasion of the dedication of the National World War II Memorial, as Remembrance of World War II Veterans Day.

  If they can get behind those listed above, they can sure as hell get behind the lynching apology.

  by Litz on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:11:52 PM PDT

•  My guess is Sununu will still sign

  I see no reason why a Senator from New Hampshire would not sign, unless he was trying to provide cover for the other non-signatories.  I bet he'll sign.

  by pontificator on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:21:02 PM PDT

•  It was....

  a fine compromise by Frist.

  Well in line with the spirit of bi-partisan cooperation which the American public demands from its representatives.

  by Liberal AND Proud on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:25:45 PM PDT

•  I'm a little confused though

  Did any of the folks in the Senate ever lynch anyone because of their race or for any reason whatsoever?  Did they ever express support for the practice?  Did ANY Senator ever have anything to do with lynching?  Or is this bill just about political correctness?  If it makes Republicans look bad, ok, sure, that's always welcome, but I just want to be clear about the purpose of the bill.

  by Subversive on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 03:19:08 PM PDT

  •  YES... for many years...

    the House of Representatives would pass anti-lynching legislation.  The U.S. Senate always blocked or killed that legislation.

    Shameful.

    by YucatanMan on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 03:43:41 PM PDT

•  Just posted on the Dallas Morning News Blog:

  Re: Senate's apology -- update from Texas senators
  I talked to both senators' staffs on the Senate's lynching apology. (Editor Rodger Jones, writing: www.dallasnews.com/opinion/blog  Email at: rmjones at dallasnews.com

  Background: Emailers swarmed with criticism for Sens. Hutchison and Cornyn because they chose not to sign on among the 83 sponsors of Sen. Res. 39.

  -- From Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's office:

  1. Staff did not go to Sen. Hutchison with a recommendation to sponsor, since she has a practice of only co-sponsoring measures she had a role in crafting.

  2. She supported the resolution.

  3. She has a commitment to African-American causes, as evidenced by a speech Tuesday morning -- the day after passage of the apology -- to leaders of historic black colleges.

  4. She has a sensitivity on the subject, as evidenced by her attendance at the funeral of James Byrd Jr. in Jasper. (I checked the record, and she appears to have been the highest-ranking public official there.)

  5. She did NOT sign on as a co-sponsor after the fact, despite what some media outlets put out.

  -- From Sen. John Cornyn's office:

  1. He supported the apology.

  2. He read the following into the record:

  Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the articulate and poignant remarks of the junior Senator from Tennessee. 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.

  3. As for readers' thoughts that the senators should have taken the harmless and symbolic step of co-sponsoring the measure, Cornyn spokesman Don Stewart said, "There's no harm in being a sponsor. There's even less harm in helping to get it passed."

  -------------------
  Lying Sacks.... It's an embarrassment to have people like this as U.S. Senators!

  by YucatanMan on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 03:41:57 PM PDT

  •  Texas be damned

    A little known fact is that the last battle of the civil war was fought in Texas - months after the war's end. (Just like the Battle of New Orleans and the War of 1812)

    BUT - the rebels won that battle.

    After the civil war, Texas (a state that IMPEACHED Sam Houston because he refused to sign on to the rebel cause at the time) became the refugee for loads of Confederate veterans....

    This event (the bill they put their invisible dragon hoods on for) exposes them.

    If we fail to hammer this we are fools.  The Republicans ARE white Protestant supremicists -

    The message for 2006 has to be honed in light of this - force them to admit that a vote for the Republicans is PRECISELY a vote for a racist, non-inclusive elite (That IS what they mean when they say CHRISTIAN - its always tribal with them - NOT spiritual)

    NOTE TO HOWARD DEAN - please say WHITE PROTESTANT -

    We can win back the blue coller ethnic Catholics --- given the choice between pro-lynching or pro-gay rights....hmmmmm - well, as the old cigarette commerical used to put it - it seperates the men from the boys - and they're the boys -

    RACISM is cowardly....

    Their numbers will drop to their cruel twisted core.....

    Okay sign off...

    by padraig pearse on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 04:05:08 PM PDT

  •  From the Beaumont Enterprise

    Although Cornyn did not address the issue on the Senate floor, he submitted a statement for the Congressional Record supporting the resolution.

    Link

    So does this mean that Cornyn wasn't even present for the vote? Weren't the ones who opposed the measure (Lott, etc.) the ones that didn't show up?

    by lirtydies on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:37:59 AM PDT

•  WHO IN THE HELL CARES ABOUT THIS?

  No one in the Senate today, save Robert Byrd, was around, or had anything to do with lynchings.  This is a ridiculous waste of time trying to be PC while important things are not getting done!

  by ww1122 on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 05:56:18 PM PDT

•  Huh ?

  "We can confidently say that there has been plenty of time and attention on this matter, so that those who were inadvertantly left off the original list have had the opportunity to get on it. Those who remain on it do so because they support lynching."

  Those who remain on it do so becuase they support lynching ?  Gosh, Kos, fail Logic 101 or something ?  And to a couple of other posters, no, not even Robert Byrd was in the Senate the last time an anti-lynching bill came up.

  by Mike C on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:46:48 AM PDT

•  String the non-sponsors up!

  I can't believe that Kos is still harping on this utterly inconsequential issue.  I doubt these senators are any more positively disposed to lynching than Kos is.

  by Quo Vadis on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 01:47:27 AM PDT

•  Anti-Lynching Resolution

  I wonder what the citizens of New Hampshire are saying about their two senators who refuse to sign on to the anti-lynching resolution.
  

  by No More Apathy on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 03:53:14 AM PDT

•  Some more ammo for Kos

  Don't forget that the right-wing punditry can't shut up about how Bob Byrd joined the KKK IN 1948.  I'm not a huge fan of Byrd, and of course I don't approve of what he did sixty years ago, but one could easily argue that if Repubs are so concerned with the racism of one senator six decades ago, they ought to think a minute about the indifference some in their own ranks have about past racism.  Just more hypocrisy, of course!

  by lungfish on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:11:43 AM PDT

•  That is why Frist fits in with the Bush Bunch so

  well.....He is a LIE,LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE,LIE, LIE, LIE, LIAR!

  by macmcd on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 08:32:34 AM PDT