Enlighten me--why would someone NOT support anti-lynching legislation???

[CoffeeCat]

I just saw the list of 20 Senators who refused to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution and also refused a roll-call vote which would put their name on the resolution.

Can someone help me to understand this craziness? Why would a Senator refuse to support anti-lynching legislation?

Does this mean that these 20 Senators like lynchings? Do they want to bring them back? WHAT IN THE HELL IS GOING ON???

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Does anyone know why these 20 Senators (1 Dem, 19 Republicans) were not in favor of anti-lynching legislation? (names below)

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)

[queeg]

1. Forward thinking?---n/t

[Dover]

2. Your first mistake is to try to bring logic and sanity into the equation.

A + B does NOT equal C in the GOP dino mind. It's an insane asylum.

[hyperium]

3. This isn't the final list

Conrad was apparently busy at the time and unaware of the bill and has since added his name to the list of supporters, as have a few more republicans. I believe the final number of senators that did not sponsor it was 15, all republicans.

[laugle]

29. As of last night it's 8, most in

mississippi, tennessee, 1 in New Hampshire, can't remember the rest of the states.

[The Magistrate]

4. The Reason, Ma'am

Is that these reptiles are well aware that a good many of the people who vote for them do so because they are racists: they would view voting for this as caving in to the damn n-----s, and rather miss the good old days when uppity ones could be roasted in the town square....

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Yep, them darkies had it comin' anyhow.

Do you hate civilization? Hate crime legislation messes with equality. Remember: the Bush Administration used the Civil Rights Act to kill redistricting in Mississippi because it'd disenfranchise the white folk.

It's lovely how the monarchists divide the weak; po' white trash will flock to the party that guarantees them a higher place on the pecking order than the more pigmented folk. It's the same wedging that has working folk incited to hate union members; just look at Rhode Island right now. How DARE public workers get a pension; I don't git none.

Hey Madge, nice to hear you again.

[The Magistrate]

23. Thank You, Sir

As the song says: And the poor white remains on the caboose of their train cause he's only a pawn in their game."

[fooj]

5. It's outrageous and totally unacceptable!

I think they need to EXPLAIN their position. NOW.

peace.

[LittleClarkie]

6. They're trying to make it a Dem thing

As if the Dems have something to apologize for more than the Republicans. They're trying to play the race card and make the Dems the racists.

They love to call themselves the party of Lincoln. But at some point the two switched places. Lincoln was much closer to a Dem at the time. The Dems were crying "states rights". The southern Dems were the slave owners. And the Repubs seem to have forgotten that many of those southern Dems have become Repubs now.

They're trying to claim the best of both worlds and give the worst to the Dems.

Rather like reminding everyone that Byrd used to be KKK, while saying that it's okay that Bush used to be a drunk, as if one issue mattered and the other didn't, when both men have denounced their past.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[supernova]

17. Please explain

what you mean by "extraneous?"

I would think apologizing for past hate crimes would be anything but "extraneous."

[nicknameless]

8. Uh ... because they're scum? n/t

[Djinn]

9. I don't know what this is all about

but is there any need for an "anti-lynching" bill? presumably murder is still illegal in the US and that pretty much covers it doesn't it?

or is this a condemnation of previous lynchings? if so it's presumably the same excuse our lot use for not apologising to the Stolen Generation - it happened too long ago?

[EST]

14. The "anti-lynching" bill was an apology,

on the part of the senate, for having sat on their hands until 1968 and turning down bill after bill, for over a hundred years, concerning the lynching of blacks and sympathizers. Any condemnation of bad behavior is viewed as a condemnation of the south and the historical figures, so revered by the folks looking for cover for the current atrocities.
Even though this may be a logical fallacy, people react the way they do. If you condemn the south, you condemn the majority of the red states, which largely form the outlines of the confederacy (and its sympathizers) and the repug base. Offending the base, even if the facts are on your side, is not something you do with impunity, and even the dimmest of bulbs in the current fascist movement understands that the movement is not yet so solid that it can afford to piss off the "base."

Also, if you join the apology, it means you are voting with the hated "do gooders," sworn enemies of the "self reliant" set.
The remaining point, acknowledging historical wrong doing and responsibility, would also count against you, should the notion of reparations or some other form of not only admitting that there were bad acts and bad actors, and the possibilities of making up for the atrocities, re arise. If you admit that some of your heroes were wrong, someone may ask what you are prepared to do about it.

The selfishness of the average neocon totally precludes any further sharing of the wealth that has been enjoyed by these predators for the last hundred fifty years. The all too human desire not to be blamed for anything, especially something out of one's control has, in the current guard, reached the status of high art.

[Djinn]

33. pretty much exactly like here

and the call to apologise to the Stolen Generation, according to John Howard we can't apologise for something that happened in the past...interestingly the arbitrary removal of indigenous kids from their families was still happening when Howard was first elected as an MP - hardly the ancient past

[EST]

38. Yeah, I remember reading about that.

What amazes me in that anyone could reach the level of responsibility of these elected representatives and still not get it that we, individually and communally, are our brother's keepers, and are completely and utterly responsible for our own selves, our families, our communities, our states, nations, and, ultimately, the world.
Each single one of us is responsible for the whole world, past, present, and future. Whether acknowledged or not, one does not escape responsibility.

[tritsofme]

10. How can you refuse a roll call vote?

No one has been able to explain this to me.

Can't any senator object to unanimous consent and force a roll call vote?

[Up2Late]

15. Bill Frist denied several attempts to have a recorded vote

So, instead, the sponsor gathered a list of Co-sponsors, so that their would be a record of who DID support it, and, who did NOT.

Up until June 13, 2005 the list was about 61, then, as is typical of todays GOP, when they saw this could look bad for them, the Senators on the list I posted below, signed on too.

[tritsofme]

16. But I don't see how that is possible.

The resolution passed by unanimous consent, in order to force a roll call vote, all someone would have to do was object to the unanimous consent motion and that should have forced a roll call vote.

That's what I don't understand.

[Up2Late]

21. I don't know for sure, but it seems like a case of not wanting to...

..."push their luck."

Getting this resolution has been like "pulling Teeth."

Friest wouldn't let this be debated during "normal business hours" and was "Tabled" since January. I think it was the 2nd or 3rd time it had been proposed too.

[Qanisqineq]

11. CONRAD (D-ND) CO-SPONSORED IT THE NEXT DAY

I don't know why it took him a day, but he is a really good guy and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that for some reason he couldn't make it or something.

[ailsagirl]

24. I'm not surprised-- he's an effing SOB

[Qanisqineq]

28. Huh? How so?

How is Sen. Kent Conrad an SOB?

[ailsagirl]

30. My mistake-- please disregard

(I was thinking of Conrad Burns)
(I didn't get my eight hours last night...)

:(

[Qanisqineq]

31. Oh, ha! I kinda thought that's what you might've been thinking

But I just had to check.

[ailsagirl]

32. Thanks for asking me to clarify...

I feel like an idiot but I can't change it now. (darn it)
(I'm definitely having a bad day!!) :crazy:

[Up2Late]

12. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) should NOT be on that list. Somehow...

...he manage to get his name on the final list. George Voinovich (R-OH) should be taken off that list too. Their are now 13 on the list of shame.

Here's a link to the most recent list

<http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SE00039:@@@P>

and the list of those who signed on June 13, 2005 or later:

Sen McConnell, Mitch - 6/13/2005
Sen Bunning, Jim - 6/13/2005
Sen Martinez, Mel - 6/13/2005
Sen Burns, Conrad R. - 6/13/2005
Sen DeWine, Mike - 6/13/2005
Sen Dole, Elizabeth - 6/13/2005
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV - 6/13/2005
Sen Thune, John - 6/13/2005
Sen Wyden, Ron - 6/13/2005
Sen Warner, John - 6/13/2005
Sen Baucus, Max - 6/13/2005
Sen Roberts, Pat - 6/13/2005
Sen Chafee, Lincoln - 6/13/2005
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 6/13/2005
Sen Bond, Christopher S. - 6/13/2005
Sen Chambliss, Saxby - 6/13/2005
Sen Isakson, Johnny - 6/13/2005
Sen Inhofe, James M. - 6/13/2005
Sen Conrad, Kent - 6/14/2005
Sen Voinovich, George V. - 6/14/2005
Sen Reed, Jack - 6/14/2005
Sen Murkowski, Lisa - 6/14/2005
Sen Bingaman, Jeff - 6/14/2005
Sen Grassley, Chuck - 6/15/2005
Sen Crapo, Mike - 6/15/2005
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. - 6/16/2005

[roguevalley]

13. I actually wrote to murkowski, princess and heir apparent to the

Kingdom of Alaska and they didn't know squat. They had a heads up in Anchorage and DC and STILL ignored it. Bitch. Letter to the editor time.

[DBL]

19. what amazes me

in the UK, if a MP tried to oppose something like this, they would be hounded by the press and forced to resign.

but thats the UK i suppose.

whats the dogs about?

[tritsofme]

27. Its a grey area

The resolution passed by unanimous consent, which means that no one objected, but about a dozen senators did not actively support the resolution's passage.

[Up2Late]

20. When did you do that? It appears SOMEONE got her name on it...

...if her office didn't know about it, this could be something big.

[Lexingtonian]

22. originally the number was said to be a dozen

and I think a bunch of them 'enlisted' their junior Senator colleague to give cover in numbers. I'd suppose the rationale is essentially the selfish and egotistical 'Hey, we're not going to take responsibility for all that back then- why should we care?'

I'd guess the hard core to be Cochran, Cornyn, and Shelby. Chambliss and Hatch and Lott were maybe the second tier. The others are tag alongs for some reason or just plain idiocy.

[Igel]

25. Let's assume racism is one of the possible explanations.

Are there others?

Maybe a state was firmly in favor of the anti-lynching legislation when it was offered a few times. They'd be apologizing for other states' votes.

Maybe someone regards it as admitting liability in some odd way, and they aren't liable for any lynching, or supporting it.

Maybe a representative figures their state, not a state at the time the anti-lynching legislation was voted down or fillibustered, bears no shame for what other people did.

Most of these are equivalent to apologizing for something someone else did. A great gesture, but it cheapens what an apology means, and becomes just an expression of sympathy.

Or it could be that they think it wouldn't go over well with their constituents, either because their constituents are racist, or because their constituents don't believe they have anything to apologize for.

Don't know if any of them are claimed by any of the non-sponsors. Actually, I haven't heard any of the non-sponsors' rationales. Most wouldn't carry weight with DUers, regardless, I suspect.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

26. The Hall of Shame.

The NAACP should buy a page in USA today and print them all in big bold letters.

[mvd]

34. No surprise - Lott's on the list

I can't think of any good reason not to support the legislation.

[snowbear]

35. Is there a final tally of who signed & who didn't ?

I realize some of the senators were out of town when the vote took place and they voted later. But I haven't seen an updated list anywhere.

I listened to Big Eddie a couple days after this vote, and he was cracking up laughing because he had received thousands of e-mails saying that "Kent Conrad is a hateful, racist yada, yada, yada.. "How dare he not sign onto that bill!?!?"

Eddie played a recent clip from an interview he had from Conrad who was commenting about how sickening it was to have this law still in effect and how anxious he was to get it off the books. (The interview was BEFORE the bill even went to a vote)

Eddie said "don't you guys remember that interview?? ..What, do you think he changed his mind since last week?" :rofl:

Big Ed thought was that just about everyone would eventually be signing that bill when they were in DC.. He said "Why wouldn't they sign it? .."Who out there wants to say, Hell no I won't sign it, I'm all for lynching!??!"

It made me wonder if any of the final 20 never did sign it? Anyone know? :shrug:

[BlueIris]

37. MM.com has a handy-dandy easy-to-use list in their MustRead

section from two MustReads ago. Links right to the bad senators web pages. For extra-efficiency.

[BlueIris]

36. I personally wrote to hold-outs about their bad call here.

And by bad call I mean inexplicably bad, vaguely racist action that either makes them look stupid or bigoted or both. I explained that people are so disgusted by what they refused to do that they noticed all the way out in Oregon. I really think this one is worth some angry letters/phone calls.