List of Senators who refused to sign the anti-lynching resolution.

you've lost me. are you suggesting thomas deserved his "hi-tech lynching?"

 

The definition of "lynching" from Websters Online is "To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob."

To call what is happening to Bolton, and what happened to Thomas, "lynchings" sullies the memories of those poor souls who were actually lynched.

 

it was thomas' turn of phrase, not mine, so send him an email if it distresses you that much. besides, i thought you loved me maign.

 

Scraping the Bottom of the barrel are you? You go off on more tangents than in any trig class I ever attended. Let's see most of the Senators who will not sign are republiKlans so you bring up Byrd (who in my opinion is just a republican in democrats clothing). In all fairness, Byrd is just as bad as the fifteen ,yeah count them, fifteen Republican senators. So apparently in your world 1 is greater than or equal to 15. This must be the fuzzy math your esteemed leader speaks of.
And to compare the Clarence Thomas nomination to actual lynchings is worse than pathetic, it's sad.

 

I didn't see Byrd's name as not signing. Was it on the list and I missed it? I thought Byrd was signing the measure.

If we are talking about deeds that happened decades ago, then Byrd's actions are worse than those of these GOP congressmen. If we are talking about recently then Byrd is quite liberal and often the lone warrior against some popular causes.

 

27% of Senate Republicans refused to be apart of this



Republican aplogists' response? OOH LOOK AT THIS SHINNY QUARTER IN MY HAND! LOOK LOOK!

 

which is really the whole point. how can anyone argue against the fact that lynching innocent americans, because of their skin color, is bad.

 

Does it strengthen or weaken the party's base...

 

no one is arguing that lynching, for and reason, including skin color, is anything other than abhorent. the byrd referece i thought was particularly apt, given his recent self-congratulatory rhetoric around saving the filibuster, w/o reference to it's glorious use in the past to preserve institutional discrimination. and thomas? he made the comparison, not me.

 

To be fair to Sen. Byrd I believe he has apologized for his KKK past and also has also said he was wrong for opposing civil rights legislation.

From reading the comments here one would think he shows up on the Senate floor wearing white sheets and a pointy hat.

 

Frist now accused of trying to veto a vote on the anti-lynching resolution
by John in DC - 6/15/2005 02:00:00 AM
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/frist-now-accused-of-trying-to-veto.html

Okay, now it's getting good.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article up (sign in as "dailykos" first name, password "dailykos", and email "kos@dailykos.com") pointing the finger at Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) as the man who refused to have a real roll call vote on the anti-lynching resolution.

Frist then tried to blame the debacle on Senators George Allen (R-VA) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), saying THEY didn't want a real roll vote to put Senators on the record. Not true, say Landrieu and Allen. They WANTED a real vote, but Frist would not allow it. He did NOT want Senators to have to go on the record. Nor did Frist want the issue to come up at all during daytime, because evidently he didn't want the resolution getting much media attention.

And why is that? Was the Republican leader of the Senate afraid that all 100 Senators would support a resolution opposing lynching, and that would be a BAD thing? God forbid America speak with one voice against lynching black people.

Or did Frist fear/know that far too many of his own party - 15 in fact - refused to endorse the resolution and may have voted against it if forced to actually vote on the record?

Either way, this stinks. Bill First, the Republican leader of the United States Senate, vetoed having a roll call vote on a resolution apologizing to victims of lynchings. He tried to hide the resolution in the middle of the night so no one would no about it.

It's high time we demanded to know why 27% of the Republicans in the US Senate refuse to come out in opposition to lynching. All the Democrats now support the resolution. So why not the Republicans? Or was Howard Dean right? The GOP is the party of far-right Christian WHITE people?

The irony is, Frist tried to lynch the resolution.

And the question remains unanswered. Why don't the 15 not-anti-lynching Republicans NOW add their cosponsorship to the resolution retroactively? It's allowed under Senate rules, so why not do it, if this was simply an oversight on their parts?


Or does the Republican Party leadership in the Senate have no problem with people who would hang innocent black people from trees by their necks simply for looking at a white woman the wrong way?

 

basso and I wonder where Ohio senator George Voinovich has gone ...

 

I'm sure that basso and wnes would be more pleased with this reality:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4123

Bush Lifts Ban on Vigilantism

WASHINGTON, DC—In a striking departure from centuries of American belief in rule of law, President Bush gave his approval Monday to a limited experiment in public vigilantism "to see if it works."

 

I guess those who think it is a waste
want to cut the funding for the Holocaust Museum
and every other memorial

It is a touching gesture
and the fact that some hold out
shows we still ain't completely.there yet
hell
some folx didn't think what happen to Mr Byrd in Jasper
was a hate crime

Slavery and Lynching as as shameful and hurtful to Americans
as the Holocaust is [should be] to to Germans

IF we the best country in the world
we should lead by example. . .owning up to our past
will perhaps help others to move beyond theres as well

but some would rather us act like Slavery and Jim Crow Laws
and Lynching. . NNEEEEVVVEEEERRRR HAPPENED
Minoritys made it . .. along with the Jews and the Holocaust

Rocket River