Pro Lynching Senators?

[The Dowager Mod]

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)

Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)

19 Republicans and 1 Democrat, a real wall of shame.

[King]

I wonder if Kent Conrad will be helped by this...

[The Dowager Mod]

I removed 2 who finally signed on.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The no sponsor list has gotten a bit shorter.

15 Republicans and 0 Democrats.


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

[The Dowager Mod]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's a shame that on such a purely symbolic viote, politics has had to intrude.

[WalterMitty]

oh please.

what a bunch of crap.  let;s put political correctness aside here.  this was jsut an effort for landrieu and allen to get their names in the papers for 'standing up against lynching'

get real.

how about working on real issues...like privatizing social security.

by the way, im opposed to world hunger too.  maybe i can call my senator and get him to sponsor a bill condemning world hunger.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even though only 15 aren't on the list, they include both MS Senators. MS is #1 for lynching.

[Jake]

Hey, thanks for a worthless fact.

Mitty is right about this. It was Allen and Landrieu's turn to play media whore and try to get a mention in the news. Suprised McCain didn't join them.

[Huckleberry Finn]

I'm surprised that both NH's senators are in the list. This won't help them in elections.

[Emsworth]

I'm surprised that both NH's senators are in the list. This won't help them in elections.

Yes, but I'm sure they'll win fairly easily anyway (or, rather Snowe will win easily next year; obviously its far too early to tell for Collins).

[A18]

I always thought these resolutions were a bit tacky. In my opinion, the Senate should focus on legislation, not empty, non-binding, ceremonial statements.

[Emsworth]

I always thought these resolutions were a bit tacky. In my opinion, the Senate should focus on legislation, not empty, non-binding, ceremonial statements.

I agree. These resolutions are generally just political gimmicks.

[Defarge]

I always thought these resolutions were a bit tacky. In my opinion, the Senate should focus on legislation, not empty, non-binding, ceremonial statements.

I agree. These resolutions are generally just political gimmicks.

Indeed, but what harm is there in spending 10 minutes attaching your name to a purely symbolic piece of legislation?

[A18]

Nothing. This isn't legislation; it's a Senate resolution, and a complete waste of time.

[Huckleberry Finn]

I'm surprised that both NH's senators are in the list. This won't help them in elections.

Yes, but I'm sure they'll win fairly easily anyway (or, rather Snowe will win easily next year; obviously its far too early to tell for Collins).

Er...Your're speaking Maine's senators now.

[jravnsbo]

85-0 or 100-0, really doesn't matter.

another feel good resolution that doesn't mean anything

[??????????]

85-0 or 100-0, really doesn't matter.

another feel good resolution that doesn't mean anything

Amen to that! Why should senators "apologize" for actions that most were not even born when they occured? This is about as pathetic as those who want slave "reparations". Get real Senate and do something! Like getting us out of the UN of eliminating the income tax on individuals.

[opebo]

85-0 or 100-0, really doesn't matter.

another feel good resolution that doesn't mean anything

Amen to that! Why should senators "apologize" for actions that most were not even born when they occured? This is about as pathetic as those who want slave "reparations". Get real Senate and do something! Like getting us out of the UN of eliminating the income tax on individuals.

Actually reparations would be 'doing something', and would be a very real way of reducing the past crimes of whites.

[WalterMitty]

85-0 or 100-0, really doesn't matter.

another feel good resolution that doesn't mean anything

Amen to that! Why should senators "apologize" for actions that most were not even born when they occured? This is about as pathetic as those who want slave "reparations". Get real Senate and do something! Like getting us out of the UN of eliminating the income tax on individuals.

Actually reparations would be 'doing something', and would be a very real way of reducing the past crimes of whites.

hmm.

i dont ever recall committing a crime against a black person.  why the hell should i have to pay for something i didnt do?

i assume you are white, opebo, and you have more moeny than me, why dont you donate some of your trust fund to blacks to make up for 'past crimes'?

[Bono]

I'm surprised that both NH's senators are in the list. This won't help them in elections.

they don't need help.
they are as safe as it gets.

[Redefeatbush04]

Actually reparations would be 'doing something', and would be a very real way of reducing the past crimes of whites.

Once a crime has been committed you cannot reverse it. That said - the number of past crimes cannot be reduced. Furthermore.....it does not make sense that someone who did not commit any crimes should have to pay someone else who was not the victim of any crimes. Everyone who was alive during the slave days is now nothing but dust. The senate effort does little to change what happened in the past, or the mindset of the descendents of affected individuals, but it is a nice gesture.

[The Duke]

Q: If I lynch a black person, will I go to jail?

A: Yes, because murder is illegal.

Q: Does this law change anything from a practical perspective?

A: No, becuase murder is already illegal.

Q: Are there better things the Senate could do with its time?

A: Yes, because murder is already illegal.

[Ebowed]

I agree that it's just a tacky resolution, but why would these Senators not sign it?

[The Duke]

I agree that it's just a tacky resolution, but why would these Senators not sign it?

I'd vote for it, because I'm not against the substance of the resolution.  Howveer, I'd not sign it as a measure of protest against Senators Landrieu and Allen doing this self-congratulatory thign.