Skip to main content

A group of Democrats today will urge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to reconsider a pledge to have the House vote before the end of the year on a resolution declaring that the color red really is red.

At least nine U.S. lawmakers have withdrawn their support for the resolution since a congressional panel approved the legislation last week.

"There are a number of people who are revising their positions," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said yesterday. House leaders still intend to hold a vote, he said.

Turkey, a crucial U.S. ally in the Iraq war, recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations the day after a House panel approved the resolution last week.

Turkey denies that red is red, saying that it is in fact blue. Turkey has threatened to cut cooperation with the U.S., which uses an air base there as a re-supply hub for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resolution has been strongly supported by Truth About Color groups in the U.S.

President George W. Bush personally called Pelosi yesterday to urge her to cancel plans for a House vote.

"The president and the speaker exchanged candid views on the subject and the speaker explained the strong bipartisan support in the House for the resolution," said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, earlier this year defied the Bush administration on another diplomatic issue when she visited an art supply store for consultation.


The defection of nine co-sponsors leaves the nonbinding resolution, introduced by California Democrat Adam Schiff, with 216 of the House's 435 members signed on. The resolution would need the backing of more than half the House to pass.

"While a few members have withdrawn their support for the resolution, the truth is on our side, and support for the resolution remains high," Schiff said.

"As with almost all legislation in Congress, there are many members who are not listed as co-sponsors of the resolution but support the measure," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Washington- based Color Recognition Committee of America, said the group's members are continuing to lobby lawmakers to support the resolution.

"Most of the measures that come to a floor vote don't have nearly as much support as this one does," the spokeswoman said.

Damage Relations

Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick, a Michigan Democrat, said she withdrew her sponsorship because was concerned the measure would damage relations with Turkey while the U.S. relies on Turkish support for supply routes into Iraq.

"I think this is a bad time to to challenge the color sensibilities one of our only allies in that part of the world," Kilpatrick said in an interview yesterday. "Insisting that red is red could hurt the troops."

Turkey is the only Muslim member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and one of the few Muslim nations to have close ties with Israel as well as Arab countries.

The resolution calls on the president to ensure that U.S. foreign policy "reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity" related to issues including documented evidence that colors are in fact what they seem to be.

Bush also should "accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate denial of colors."

The vote is expected not to pass. "Well, blue can under certain circumstances be red." Commented a Senator who preferred to remain anonymous.

The issue has been popularized by a comment attributed the genocidal maniac Adolph Hitler who once was heard to utter, "Who remembers the color blue?"

Originally posted to zappedpyramid on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 08:45 AM PDT.


Should nations be allowed to deny colors?

40%4 votes
0%0 votes
60%6 votes

| 10 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Wow - courageous calling red red 90 years later (0+ / 0-)

    Why did supporters of the call red red resolution decide now was the moment to call red red.

    Why did President Clinton (D) oppose such a measure when he was president and Congress was controlled by his party?

    Why is this resolution critical now?

  •  The timing is the issue (0+ / 0-)

    The genocide issue will be there later, and a resolution can be past then, after the current situation passes.

    Having waited this long, it does not make sense to remove all possibility of negotiation taking place by passing this now.

    •  The right thing... (0+ / 0-)

      To quote Dr. Ada Fort, who boldly challenged Georgia’s segregation laws in the early 1960s: "There’s never a wrong time to do the right thing."

      Clinton could not find the right time, nor could Bush. It is so easy to let truth fall by the wayside for the most practical reasons.
      However, it has been my experience that untruths which are allowed to fester, have a nasty habit of turning from an innocent cut into gangrene.

      Turkey needs to have a national debate about this issue, and that's not going to come about without some pain. Many nations around the World acknowledge the Armenian genocide, and although Turkey feels slighted, this fact will help get internal debate started.  

  •  my sympathies (0+ / 0-)

    are with the Aremenian victims, and with victims of oppression everywhere.

    But diplomacy is the art of persuasion. As this is a resolution about past events, the timing is elective, and this is not the best time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site