Houston Democrats

All of the above senators are sacks of crap. It's useless to contact Cornyn because he doesn't care what you think unless you're a sociopathic Rethug with lots and lots of cash. More than likely, the above senators were scared some type of legislation will be introduced requiring financial reparations for the families of people who were lynched. Always, always, always look for the financial reasons behind anything a Repuke does.

Technical reasons=might have to pay out some dough.

That thought makes Cornyn's asshole draw up like it took a dip of snuff.

In polling recently completed by the SurveyUSA group, our vey own Senator Cornyn ranks 100th -- that's right, dead last -- in approval ratings.

Here are the charts, sorted alphabetically by state, alphabetically by Senator's last name, and by rank.

You know, I bet he doesn't care one single bit (even though there are plenty of Republican opinions represented in that poll).

Ummm...the vote was unanimous. It's been passed; the Senate has apologized for the actions of southern Democrats. It's time to move on.

Ummmmmm, commentator, the vote was NOT unanimous in that a VOICE VOTE was taken whereby senators were asked if they were in favor of the resolution or opposed. Supposedly, the AYES had it and the resolution passed, however, according to Americablog, there are 16 senators who did not co-sponsor the resolution. These 16 senators were able to co-sponsor the resolution BEFORE and AFTER the vote was taken. They still HAVE NOT co-sponsored the resolution.

It's nice how you seem to be able to say very cavalierly that "it's time to move on". I wonder if you can say those same words to the families who lost loved ones to lynch mobs?

Here is the post on Americablog regarding the voice vote on the resolution:

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Senate offices intentionally lying about Lynching Vote last night
by John in DC - 6/14/2005 02:44:00 PM

READ THIS PLEASE, I EXPLAIN HOW VOTES WORK IN THE SENATE

This is getting very interesting. I've gotten feedback from a number of friends and contacts who have called the Senate offices of the members who did NOT co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution. They're lying to you folks, well, lying in the "intentionally misleading" way.

First, a bit of background to anyone who's new. The Senate voted late last night to pass a resolution apologizing for years of failure to pass anti-lynching legislation. The legislation was held up a LONG time, year ago of course, because of southern Senators filibustering it. Well, ABC reported last night that the apology had to be passed late at night, and they weren't going to hold an actualy roll call vote (the kind where you see how your Senator voted), because a number of Senators didn't support the apology! That led me to write about it here on my blog, and other blogs also joined in asking who exactly isn't opposed to lynching?

That's brings us to day. The Senate offices are now intentionally misleading people about where their bosses stood on this legislation.

Here's what they're saying:

1. My boss couldn't vote for the resolution because he was out of town last night.

2. My boss couldn't vote for the resolution because it was a voice vote - meaning, there was no recorded vote of who was for it or against it - it was simple a "all those in favor say 'aye', all those opposed say 'no'" kind of vote. And no one keeps a written record of the ayes and nos.

3. What do you mean my boss didn't support the resolution, it passed unanimously?!

All of those are cute, and they're also intentionally meant to mislead you.

The vote last night was a voice vote. That means all you need is one guy in the Senate chamber to have it pass (as I understand it, there were some 6 Senators or so there last night). That one guy says something about asking unanimous consent that SRes39 (the resolution) be agreed to. The presiding chair says "all those in favor say aye, all those opposed say no, the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it." And bam, it's done. All you need is one Senator sitting there saying aye and it's "unanimous."

A "roll call vote" is when they literally go through each Senator's name and he or she has to vote yes or no. They didn't do that last night, on purpose, so there would be no record of the "no" votes.

What we are talking about, and what we are angry about, is NOT who did or didn't vote for the resolution. In principle, NOBODY voted for the resolution and, at the same time, EVERYBODY did because it was passed "unanimously." What we are upset about is that you ALSO can "cosponsor" legislation before and AFTER it is voted on. Cosponsoring legislation is a way of showing your support the legislation, and usually your intention to vote for it. Apparently this resolution had 84 cosponsors, but 16 Senators refused to cosponsor it.

The question is therefore, why did Senator X refuse to cosponsor legislation, in essence, opposing lynching?

But it gets better. A senator can add themself as a cosponsor even AFTER a resolution is passed. That means the 16 hold-outs can STILL now add themselves as cosponsors of the resolution.

So why don't they?

PS Feinstein's office and Sununu's office are telling people the vote was "unanimous." Cute, but not the point. Conrad's office is claiming that the Senator was out of town and thus couldn't vote for the bill. Again, cute, but not the point. The real question is why didn't the 16 Senators add themselves as cosponsors, and why don't they now?

The Republican Senators who won't take a stand against lynching:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
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)
Gordon Smith (R-OR) (he's fine)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

To add to what Kris said about the issue, the vote may have or may not have been unanimous. Since it was a voice vote, there is no vote record to verify it.

The following is the Senate's definition of a voice vote:

voice vote - A vote in which the Presiding Officer states the question, then asks those in favor and against to say "Yea" or "Nay," respectively, and announces the result according to his or her judgment. The names or numbers of Senators voting on each side are not recorded.

Consequently, a senator, or senators, could have been against the anti-lynching bill and we will never know from the Senate vote. Voice votes are generally used to send a symbolic message, but they can also be used to conceal votes.

Regardless of the voice vote, why would 17 or 20 senators (the numbers seem to differ depending on the source) still not co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution? A bill co-sponsored by all 100 senators would really send a message to all Americans, a much more powerful one than a voice vote. An apology should have meaning, not just be a convenient way to forget about things we would rather not remember or are ashamed about.

Like Kris and many others, I believe there should be nothing controversial about apologizing for past lynchings. It is a simple attempt to attone for many wrongs that occured across our nation. While it never will replace the human lives lost, it does give justice to the affected families and closure in the sense that we acknowledge the wrongs committed. If anything, supporting this bill is a moral duty. I find it quite atrocious that so many Republican senators did not support it, and yes according to the Daily KOS there was one Democrat too.

Additionally, I don't think one can say that lynchings were confined to one particular group, such as southern Democrats.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

Between 1890 and 1968 there were nearly 5,000 recorded lynchings. The carnage was probably higher, because many killings weren't reported. The majority of the victims were black.

However, even recent events show that some of us in our society have not moved beyond the underlying factors that lead to hate motivated acts. Take for example the recent KKK gathering in Tomball that has been written about several times on this blog. The KKK was responsible for several lynchings during the past and they still seem to have a need to "educate" us whites about our "race."

Or take for example, Rick Perry's hate-filled statement to gays about getting out of Texas if they don't like the constitutional amendment he signed, which is totally unecessary since gay marriage and civil unions are already banned. Gays have been attacked too for nothing more than being homosexuals too. In this case it's not about race, but because they are "different." I believe we shouldn't even be talking about who can and cannot marry because that is a personal decision between two people who love each other, and it doesn't bother me if it happens to be two people of the same sex.

Or even more insinuous are the churches today that teach their members to look down upon certain groups of society because they don't believe the same way, or because they don't hold the same beliefs, or the "right" one's according to the particular religion. I realize this is not true of all churches or all religions. However, I am disgusted at how religion is being used in politics today to divide our nation. Religion should bring people together and to teach them how to respect one another, and if someone chooses to not follow a religion, then that's their personal choice. Others cannot and should not make that choice for them.

Accoring to the FBI's annual reports, there has only been a marginal decline in the number of hate crimes over the past decade. Close to 40% of the attacks are racially motivated, with blacks being the most frequently targeted. This shows that another 60% are the result of some other kind of hate that stem from causes other than race. It's not just one group's problem, not just a "black" problem, it is something we all need to work to irradicate. To say we should "just move on" is a dangerously irresponsible and ignorant statement.

Unfortunately, there was a dark period in our nation when thousands of lynchings occured, yet even now hate crimes are committed in the United States. We must learn from the past to be able to move forward. It's very easy for us to just brush aside past wrongs, particularly for those of us who were not affected, or were not alive during the period when they occured. This bill is about a broader effort to fight against discrimination in our country, which sadly is still all too prevalent today. Even more troubling is that prejudiced and bigoted legislation is increasingly cropping up at the state and national level. While we may not be personally affected by the lynchings of the past, we need to be aware of discrimination today, it's not just about ethnic discrimination. We have to fight against the unjust and hateful pieces of legislation that essentially lynch our personal rights as guaranteed in the US Constitution that form the foundation of our freedom. We must first stand up for our rights, if we are to expect people in other parts of the world to follow our example. It's ridiculous to be talking about freedom in Iraq, if we do not protect our freedom at home.

I cannot bring myself to "just move on" and ignore hate victims, their friends, and families. The price for doing so is too great for the victims, and as a society we all suffer from such crimes.

To their credit, according to AMERICAblog, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) have now co-sponsored the anti-lynching bill.

Here's another take on the anti-lynching bill.

There is certainly no politically viable reason not to sign on to this. It's got to be the money. They're blinded by the fear that they might have to pay out if they own up.