Redstate

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)

John Sununu (R-NH)

Craig Thomas (R-WY)

George Voinovich (R-OH)

I read those names, and I weep.  The Republican Party continues to be disingenuous in its behavior towards African-Americans.

For the most part I don't know that this is much more than a meaningless gesture, maybe they had some not so obvious reason for not sponsoring the bill.

I am quite interested in why they did not co-sponsor the resolution.  I hope someone gives an explanation somewhere.  Granted the resolution is rather meaningless in its actual effects, but it seems to have no cost to support it.  And some of those names surprise me: Conrad?  Sununu? Murkowski? Crapo? Enzi?

Only 6 of the 20 are from the South... something weird going on.

... be interested in hearing more about this and about those who didn't vote for it.

But lets be real here, you read those names and weep? Doubtful.

What's more, I have no doubt liberals everywhere are leaping for joy. If there's one things liberals definitely never, ever want (or give kudos for) it's conservatives agreeing with them.

So, what is it that these Senators did not support?  They did not support a resolution that noted the following efforts were made to apologize for the crime of lynching which the resolution characterizes as occurring between 1882 abd 1968, involving the brutal murders of 4,742 Americans, African Americans.  (Please note that the last "official" lynching occurred in 1981 in Sen. Shelby's state of Alabama.)

Murder has been a crime for a long time and passing a law that is for a Group Murder (That's what lynching was) is redundant.

You left out a whole bunch of ethnic categories - Do you mean there were never any non-American lynched?

Multiple efforts had been made to pass a Senate acknowledgment that the U.S. government's official position towards African-Americans was shameful.  According to SR. 039, almost 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced during the first half of the 20th Century; 7 Presidents petitioned Congress to end lynching (up until 1952!), 3 anti-lynching bills were passed by the House of Representatives.    All of those bills were blocked by Senate action.

How can you espouse that lynching was the official position of the U.S. government?

Brownsville incident.  Atleast in that it took decades for a formal apology and that there was only one single survivor present for it.

I'll just correct you in that the 4,742 were Americans including 3,445 black Americans and 1,297 non-blacks.

And add the afterword from The Brownsville Raid by John D. Weaver which everyone should buy:

After reading The Brownsville Raid, Representative Augustus F. Hawkins[the same of Humphrey-Hawkins fame], a black Los Angeles Democrat, called on his collegues in Congress to join him in seeking to right this "grievous wrong."  His bill, H.R. 6866, introduced on March 29, 1971, evoked a sympathetic response in the Department of Defense, but no action was taken until September 28, 1972, when Secretary of the Army Robert F. Froehlke announced that the 167 black soldiers dismissed without honor in 1906 were to be granted honorable discharges.

     No mention was made of the two presidents involved in their discharges without honor, and army spokesmen made it clear that "no back pay, allowances, benefits or privileges shall accrue by reason of the issuance of this order to any heirs or descendants."  Nothing was said about any of the soldiers or their widows who might still be alive.

     Later, however, thanks to Congressman Hawkin's campaign to locate survivors and their families, two members of the black battalion surfaced.  Edward Warfield of Company B was living in Mr. Hawkins's congressional district and turned out to be one of the fourteen men the 1910 court of inquiry had permitted to re-enlist.  He had served in the first world war and received an honorable discharge in 1919, along with all the benefits to which a soldier of his time was entitled.  He died in September, 1973, shortly before his ninetieth birthday.

     The other survivor, Dorsie W. Willis of Company D, had borne the full burden of the "gross injustice."  For nearly sixty years he had swept floors, shined shoes, and brushed coats in the Northwestern Bank Building barber shop in Minneapolis.  In failing health, his hands crippled by arthritis, he had given up his job only a few weeks before the army announced its exoneration order.

     "Some people feel the world owes them a living," he told Andrew Malcolm of the New York Times.  "I never thought that.  And I never took a dime in welfare.  I did figure the world owed me an opportunity to earn a living myself.  But they took that away from me.  That dishonorable discharge kept me from improving my station.  Only God knows what it did to others."

     On Sunday, February 11, 1973, when Major General DeWitt Smith, Jr., offered the army's official apology in an emotional ceremony at Zion Baptist Church in Minneapolis, ex-Private Dorsie W. Willis represented the men of Companies B, C, and D, Twenty-fifth Infantry, who had lived out their lives under the cloud of their dismissal without honor.

     "We are trying to substitute justice for injustice, to say how much we of this generation--white men as well as black--regret the errors and injustices of an earlier generation....Mr. Willis, you honor us by the quality of the life you have led, by your outstanding citizenship, by the faithful service you rendered the United States Army."

     Accompanied by his wife Olive and his son Reginald, the old man leaned on a wooden cane as the general handed him an honorable discharge certificate backdated to November 25, 1906.  The congregation gave him a standing ovation.  The choir sand "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and, the New York Times reported, "grown men wept."  It was Mr. Willis's eighty-seventh birthday.

     A year later, thanks to the persistence of Gus Hawkins and Hubert Humphrey, Dorsie deposited a tax-free government check for $25,000 in his Minneapolis bank and flew out to Los Angeles to receive the keys to the city from Mayor Tom Bradley, who pointed out that Dorsie's birthday coincided with the start of Black History Week.

     "The trials and tribulations of Dorsie Willis and all of the other members who were involved in that gross miscarriage of justice are a part of the history of this country," the mayor said, "and the fact that justice finally was done in terms of absolving them of the charges made against them is at least some help.  The money obviously is not enough to ever repay him for the suffering that he went through, or that others went through."

     "No," Dorsie said when a young black reporter asked if he were bitter, but he added, "They can't pay me for the sacrifice I've made, the sacrifice that my family had to undergo.  You can't pay for a lifetime."

     A respectful hush fell over the room; even the television crews stood silent for a moment as they watched Dorsie sitting in his wheelchair, at peace with himself and his fellow men, secure in his personal conviction that Providence had some reason beyond human understanding for reaching down into the rear ranks of Company D, Twenty-fifth Infantry, and picking Private Dorsie W. Willis to be the black battalion's last survivor.

     He died August 24, 1977, at the age of ninety-one and was given a soldier's burial at Fort Snelling National Cemetery.

link.

Murder has been a crime for a long time and passing a law that is for a Group Murder (That's what lynching was) is redundant.

You're arguing semantics? The point here is that some 4,700 people were lynched (the majority being African Americans) from the mid 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, and there was no specific condemnation of this from the Senate. To write it off as "well they already had a law against  murder, to specify lynching would be redundant" misses the point entirely. The fact that specific anti-lynching laws were repeatedly filibustered by Senate Democrats should be the issue -- they refused to publicly denounce a barbaric practice or make it illegal on the federal level.

To claim that those 20 Senators did not support the bill. The actual fact of the matter is that those 20 Senators did not co-sponsor the bill. Which means nothing more than the fact that they were unavailable to put their personal signatures on the bill.

Your smear would be a lot more believable if you were only throwing mud on Senators from the segregationist states of the past, but c'mon? Kent Conrad? Lisa Murkowski? John Sununu? Gordon Smith? Surely you're not intending to imply that these people are pro-lynching?

The only reason that we're even having this discussion is that the co-sponsors of the bill, Sens. Landrieu and Allen, decided to bring it to a voice vote, rather than a roll-call vote. Therefore, we have no official tally. Why they did not force the issue on this when they had 80 friggin' co-sponsors is beyond me, but it certainly wasn't to keep John Sununu from being embarrassed.

An actual story on the vote.

To claim that those 20 Senators did not support the bill. The actual fact of the matter is that those 20 Senators did not co-sponsor the bill. Which means nothing more than the fact that they were unavailable to put their personal signatures on the bill

The following is not my words at all, but I do believe it disputes your claim.

--lifted--

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.

--end lift--

If the senators who didn't endorse the bill truly did so because of oversight, or being out of town, or whatever, they can still remedy the situation by cosponsor it after the fact. The fact that they don't is telling (if you can think of a reason why a senator wouldn't want to voice his opinion against crimes committed primarily against African Americans, I'm more than willing to listen to it)

I should have checked it but didn't.  this is it(hopefully).

an online source please provide a link.  If not provide a title, author, outlet, etc. so we can track it down.

Like this.  Oh nos!1!!111 Only two sponsors for a slavery/lynching/Jim Crow apology.  Chloe's hall of shame might be expanding in the future to a chorus of yawns.

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

So every bill that Hillary Clinton did not co-sponsor, she opposed? Can we get you to sign this affidavit and keep it around for about 3 years?

I would like to see the context.

Also, there may be a valid reason that has nothing to do with racism.

I think it is a bit unfair to accuse 16 or 19 senators of racism, without actually giving them an opporunity to explain themselves.

And I find it extremely hard to believe that we can safely assume that these people are supportive or even indifferent with regards to lynching simply because they did not co-sponsor a bill they voted for.

So (1) they voted for it therefore they did endorse it. (2) the fact that their names are not attached to it is not telling of anything except for your own overwrought imagination.

Sorry, the Link that I pulled my quote from is there (feel free to shred the source -- oh no, liberal blog -- but if possible please focus on the validity of the information found there.)

And in regards to the 4 replies I've received so far, I think you missed my point. Whether the 16 senators did not co-sponsor the bill because they were out of town or any other reason is not the issue... the issue is that they can, TODAY, or any point in the future, decide to co-sponsor the bill and make it clear that they do not condone the Senate-of-old's practice of turning a blind eye to such a horrific practice. To claim that "Oh, I would have signed it if only I had known about it/been in my office" is bogus.

I appreciate your <u>constructive</u&gt criticism, I am not here to troll but to express my opinion. I will repsect your opinions if you do the same

Note: Part of this post exerpts a comment I made on this subject a Poliblog.com.

I really hate these post hoc gestures that tend to surface on occasion. It lets people that weren't present at the decision use the vantage point of hindsight and selective fact recall to self-righteously proclaim that they would have done things much differently:

It's a statement in itself that there aren't 100 co-sponsors," Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said. "It's a statement in itself that there's not an up-or-down vote.

I can see why the senates in past years decided not do act - they had little power to act meaningfully. States were much more independent then. The house passed the bills between 1920 and 1940. The federal role in law enforcement was limited to things that dealt with suspects crossing state lines. The feds were chasing bank robbers and booze runners (including some ancestors of mine on the latter) only when they only when they crossed state lines to seek refuge. J. Edgar Hoover as head of the only federal law enforcement agency at that time and was very hesitant to expand duties to include organized crime, much less local crime issues.

Passing a bill making lynchings illegal then would have been the equivalent of today's Senate declaring a week "National Sugar Beet Growers Week". It would express the will of the body, but not actually do anything important. But unlike National Sugar Beet Growers Week it would have really ticked off some of the senators that the administrations needed to get work done. It's much harder to get cooperation on a bill to build destroyers when you've humiliated a Southern Senator before his constituency by pushing a bill that can't even be enforced.

Murder has always been against the law. If local prosecutors couldn't get people interested in prosecuting local miscreants then guys in suits from DC sure wouldn't. That's just the way the South worked at the time. Remember this time period was as close to the civil war as it is to today.

The years 1920-1940 were eventful years. Events included recover from the Great War, stock market boom and bust, depression, prohibition, the rise of organized crime, and preparation for an even Greater War. Picking a fight with states over what was seen as local criminal matters just wasn't going to happen. Not until the war ended and federal role was expanded in people's minds would any such legislation be meaningful.

What utter tripe.

Twenty senators did not support the resolution, 19 of them were Republican.  That hall of shame reads as follows:

(list of non-co-sponsors of the resolution omitted)

Really, so now any time a senator does not co-sponsor a bill, she or he does not support it?  

You're either remarkably ignorant, in which case you shouldn't be posting about such topics using such terminology until you educate yourself on what they mean; or you're an incredibly dishonest troll just trying to stir up trouble, in which case I'm hopeful that you're banned for crossing the line with this diary.  (Having seen your comments elsewhere on the site, my personal opinion is that you fit more in the  dishonest troll category.)

Just so that no one here accidentally believes the utter tripe you're trying to peddle, I suggest that people look this resolution up for themselves.

From the Bill Status and Summary page on thomas.loc.gov for this resolution (search for S Res. 39):

S.RES.39

Title: A resolution apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.

Sponsor: Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] (introduced 2/7/2005)      Cosponsors (78)

Latest Major Action: 6/13/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate.

Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Text of the resolution, also from thomas.loc.gov:

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S . RES . 39

Apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 7, 2005

Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. FRIST, Mr. REID, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BAYH, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. DODD, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. STEVENS, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. TALENT, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.

Whereas the crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the ultimate expression of racism in the United States following Reconstruction;

Whereas lynching was a widely acknowledged practice in the United States until the middle of the 20th century;

Whereas lynching was a crime that occurred throughout the United States, with documented incidents in all but 4 States;

Whereas at least 4,742 people, predominantly African-Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968;

Whereas 99 percent of all perpetrators of lynching escaped from punishment by State or local officials;

Whereas lynching prompted African-Americans to form the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and prompted members of B'nai B'rith to found the Anti-Defamation League;

Whereas nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century;

Whereas, between 1890 and 1952, 7 Presidents petitioned Congress to end lynching;

Whereas, between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed 3 strong anti-lynching measures;

Whereas protection against lynching was the minimum and most basic of Federal responsibilities, and the Senate considered but failed to enact anti-lynching legislation despite repeated requests by civil rights groups, Presidents, and the House of Representatives to do so;

Whereas the recent publication of `Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America' helped bring greater awareness and proper recognition of the victims of lynching;

Whereas only by coming to terms with history can the United States effectively champion human rights abroad; and

Whereas an apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;

(2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and

(3) remembers the history of lynching, to ensure that these tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.

Two of those not from the South are Gregg and Sununu, the Senators from NH.

There aren't many folks of color in NH.  NH was the last state in the nation to recognize Martin Luther King day as such -- they pointedly called it "Civil Rights Day" until 1999, 16 years after Reagan made it a national holiday.

No doubt Gregg and Sununu felt it would not be in their electoral best interest to get behind this bill.  They are probably correct.  More's the pity.

Cheers -

The only reason that we're even having this discussion is that the co-sponsors of the bill, Sens. Landrieu and Allen, decided to bring it to a voice vote, rather than a roll-call vote.

Precisely.  Why was it moved to a voice vote?

Cheers -

refused to .... make it illegal on the federal level.

The US had no rightful police power within a state.  Any bill passed outlawing lynching would have been unconstitutional.  Lynching could only have been made a federal crime if (in those days) someone had crossed a state line and brought someone back to be murdered.

The Nine Apostles were not the sole arbiters of the Constitution in those days-- and they still aren't.

--because there is no opposition?

Why hasn't HRC cosponsored legislation approving of apple pies or a sense of the senate resolution that NY is a good place to take in a show?  Is she anti-apple pie?  Is she anti-Broadway?

are prosecuted are under the Civil Rights Acts (ie if somebody was lynched today, it would be a state crime, but the Fed's could file Civil Rights charges-think Rodney King here), which happened after the majority of the lynchings had already peaked.

The anti-lynching laws that were proposed, passed in the House, and refused by the Senate, introduced penalties for law enforcement officers who failed to protect people in their custody.  

As you point out, murder was, and is, already a federal crime.  The proposed laws would have made law enforcement officers criminally liable if they allowed people under their protection to be taken and lynched outside of due process.

Here is a link to a discussion of the Costigian-Wagner Act, proposed in the 30's.  Interestingly, FDR himself refused to support it for fear of alienating white voters.

Cheers -

Could be, I don't know.

Landrieu and Allen, the drafters of the bill, asked for a roll call vote with business-hours discussion.  Frist refused the request and called for an evening hours voice vote.  I can't speak to his reasons for doing so.

I don't think the HRC analogy is apt.  The Senate was acting to recognize and apologize for that institution's failure to act in years past.  Although it was only a formality and a gesture, it was more than one of the "we love mom and apple pie" gestures that frequently are passed.

I understand why Republicans bristle at the implication that the Senators who failed to co-sponsor the act are racists.  For the record, I don't think anyone is accusing any Senator of being pro-lynching, or even of being racist.  The strongest implication I've seen is that some Senators declined to publicly support the bill because it would be unpopular with their constituencies.  

I don't know why they did not sign on, and I don't know why Frist moved the vote to a voice vote.  I've made my own observation about the senators from NH, see above, because that's an area of the country I'm familiar with and can (possibly) make an intelligent comment about.  Beyond that, I'll let the Senators speak for themselves, if they care to do so.

Cheers -

Didn't realize you had hopped back in the saddle.  Glanced through your comments and see you're back up to your wiley tricks again.  Nice to have you back.  Seems like I lurk more than post these days, but I will enjoy reading your posts.

is accusing any Senator of being pro-lynching, except for the author of this article, and the commenter Teo, who both said exactly that.

Many of the "non-co-sponsors" are from lily white states (UT, NH, ND, WY, ID, OR) which may just mean they didn't see it as a priority.  They probably supported the resolution but didn't see a need to be a co-sponsor.  But I can't speak for them.  I guess it is somewhat unusual to explain why you didn't co-sponsor something you technically agreed to (i.e. unanimous consent).

You always have thoughtful posts. However, I have to strongly disagree.

"For the record, I don't think anyone is accusing any Senator of being pro-lynching, or even of being racist.

Start here and read your way (about every two posts on the main page) up to here.

Also try here.

Oh, and here.

May I further add, at most liberal blogs the only qualification necessary to be called racist is to not be a liberal, or indeed to disagree with any old thing a liberal says at any time at all. That this incident would bring them to call all republicans pro-lynching racists was a given.

Like the false claims that 'republicans' are saying Bill raped Hillary and that Fox News is a GOP 'propaganda organ', these are nothing but more of the hyped up emotional and groundless verbal protest-signs that the left regularly substitute for thought.

Because some senators didn't sponsor this bill, the left thinks they have a smoking gun that southerners and republicans believe in lynching. It's ridiculous and it's quintessential leftosphere.

"The Left" is a bit larger than Kos and Atrios.

I'm not sure what this signifies, although I fairly certain the answer is "little."  The fact that mostly Republicans failed to sponsor the bill speaks to the fact there may be a cohesive reason (which I think Amos touches on) but even that doesn't rise to the level of racism.

"'The Left' is a bit larger than Kos and Atrios."

So it is. Which is why I said liberal blogs and leftosphere. The 'the left' comment referring to mindset and practices is because these blogs exemplify but do not have a monopoly on it by any stretch (Howard Dean). The leftosphere may be the most readily quotable and linkable example for leftosmears, but they certainly are not the only ones doing it (Howard Dean).

And as soon as you find examples of major outlets for 'the left' that aren't using this to slime all republicans as racists, I'll be happy to read/watch/listen to it.

He or she did say I don't think ANYONE is saying this. I think it's significant that three extremely major leftblogs are, in fact, saying just that.

Like I indicated before, I think it is possible to extrapolate something by the fact primarily Republicans failed to sponsor the bill.  Doing quick math, it also appears that 30 some odd Republicans did, which is important to keep in mind.

Personally, I think it is a symptom of the degeneration of our political system in general.  What a trite, pointless little thing to get fired up about.  In the end, the Senate apology to the victims of lynching has exactly no effect on anything relevant to the current problems this country faces.  Zero.  So who cares?

This is a stream-of-consciousness, so bear with me.  The point is to help you understand why most Republicans have a hard time connecting with voters who aren't white.  

I should also issue a disclaimer.  I'm not registered as a Republican.  I'm registered as an Independent, although my political leanings (especially on national issues) are more libertarian than anything else.  I could fit quite comfortably in some groupings of Republicans.  But, with the exception of George Bush, I have been underwhelmed by the care/concern/consideration that most national Republicans show to issues that affect African-American voters.  I'm African-American, if that wasn't clear.

To my colleague who suggested that I post a link.   I only wish that I knew how to post links. If i were well-versed in HTML, I would post links to articles about lynching, I would post links to stories that describe the terrorism perpetrated by average citizens against fellow Americans, I would also post links to pictures that highlight the singular brutality of these crimes.

The Republican Party --  you remember, the Party of the 'Big Tent,' Condi Rice and Colin Powell.  You remember President Bush? He's the former Governor of Texas who has made historic efforts to reach out to non-white voters in the United States during his term of office?  Of course you are familiar with "compassionate conservatism," faith-based initiatives, No Child Left Behind -- all programs designed to show that the Republican Party cares about people who are poor, disaffected, and not being properly served by liberal government programs.  You know, efforts made to reach out to Latinos and African-Americans in particular.  Efforts designed to prove that the Republicans have been unfairly labelled as racists who care only about rich white men.

The overwhelmingly Republican cast of this Senatorial Hall of Shame sends a loud, resounding, and exceedingly clear message to me, that a sizeable number of Republican Senators --  including many of those in leadership positions, have no interest in acknowledging a sad chapter in Senatorial history.  Of course, there still is time for these members of the Senatorial Hall of Shame to "do the right thing."  I only hope that they take advantage of that time allowed.

They have their mission, and are performing it as expected.  They are no more or less inane than some of the hamhanded attacks on Democrats in these parts.  The trick, in my mind, is to strain the propaganda from the discussion.  In the sense that the right wing websites counterbattery leftwing ones, I know you guys have to discuss and shoot this down, but it drives me crazy that it even needs discussion.  

First,

Thank you for posting the link and the text of the bill.  I think reading it allows others on the site to make their own judgments about what it was these 19 members of the Senatorial Hall of Shame choose not to support.

And, for the record, if I'm a troll.  I'm an honest troll.  Honest enough in this case, to bring hot sauce to the Republican table.  That is, to discuss politics and policy issues from my African-American frame of reference.  In an ideal world, that perspective will be different from yours.

In an enlightened world, you would first think about and consider that view before so cavalierly dismissing it.

That's your interpretation.  While I would disagree with that characterization, I could certainly understand how you'd reach that conclusion.

I accused the Senators on that list of failing to do "the right thing."  "The right thing" is my own judgment.  I acknowledge that.  It's the right thing because it recognizes that past Congresses sought to develop federal anti-lynching legislation, all of which were stymied in the Senate.  As a result, almnost 5,000 Americans lost their lives to senseless violence.  It is shameful that those 19 Senators -- members of a party that is trying to "reach out" to minority voters --  failed to grasp that.

I support those twenty Senators who chose not to sponsor this "lynching apology" bill.  I would not have supported such a ridiculous piece of garbage in the Senate either, and here's why.

If the United States Senate is going to apologize to the families of victims who were lynched in the past, then should we not apologize to the 3,000 or so families who lost relatives on 9/11?  

The Federal government is actually MORE responsible for those deaths than they are the lynching deaths that occurred in the US.  It is our fault that we had intelligence that was laughable.  It is our fault that we did not take steps beforehand to prevent this loss of life.  It is our fault for not responding to earlier terror attacks and declarations of war on the US by Iran and other terrorists.  It is as much our fault as some ignorant murderers who lynched blacks out of hate.  

If we are going to apologize for the 3400 or so blacks lynched, then let's apologize for the MILLIONS of lives lost BEFORE we entered World War II.  Let's apologize to those families.  Let's apologize to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were slaughtered in the years before we acted on Iraq.  Let's also apologize to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Rwandans who were brutally murdered and stacked in the streets, while we did nothing.  What about the 4 million or so people who are dead so far in the Congo?  That's 8% of their entire population!  It would be like 24 million Americans dying in 10 years from violence and disease.  Can we apologize to these people?

While we're at it, can the US Senate apologize to ME for running my country into the ground?  Can they apologize to ME for taking so many of my rights away over the last 200 years?  How about apologizing to ME for legally stealing Trillions of dollars annually from US taxpayers for that which the government has no mandate?

My point I guess is that if the Federal government is going to start apologizing for things, they need to create an entire branch of government just to handle this.  They have quite a bit to be sorry for.

Re-read the post bro.

But I can certainly understand how you reached that conclusion.

anybody?

Need I say more?

is a state crime.  The only murders that can be tried by the feds are against federal officers (i.e. OKC bombing), treasonous ones, and terrorist acts.

"They are no more or less inane than some of the hamhanded attacks on Democrats in these parts."

Well I can't really agree with that. Calling all liberals wrong, or even wrongheaded, is a far cry from calling them all racists. In the face of information like a greater number of republicans did sponsor it than didn't. In the face of information like that it was democrats who largely blocked the laws that weren't passed that everyone is now apologizing for.

When I read rightblogs, I don't see anywhere near the concentration and frequency of such sweeping and outrageous claims. I see them all the time on the leftblogs. And I certainly don't hear Bill Frist calling democrats evil or the party of terrorists. But that doesn't stop Dean from receiving left accolades for his condemnation of every republican everywhere as evil, shiftless, white christian supremacists, and it doesn't stop all the liberals I know from nodding their heads at such claims.

The land of the left is the land of emotional argumentation. (Please note, this is not as 'inane' as calling all republicans racist). I can only guess at the percentage of leftosphere typing that is dedicated to calling republicans and conservatives racists, supremacists, and killers, but I'd wager it's a mid-level double-digit number.

I would think 35 million African Americans would be more interested in the Senate doing something substantive about contining racial inequality than passing some meaningless piece of better-late-than-never declaration.

First, they <b>unanimously approved</b> of the resolution.  I agree something is fishy, but it is rather rare that people are made to explain why they didn't co-sponsor something that was unanimously approved.  I think the left is looking for anything they can to hurt Republican outreach efforts.  I'd prefer to see a school choice bill in the Senate than an apology for lynching.

Second, Republicans have been connected with "voters who aren't white" better than ever before, especially under Mr. Bush's leadership.  Specifically increasing the Republican share of the Hispanic vote from the low to mid 30s to around 41-44% in just 10 years.  44% of Asians voted for Mr. Bush as well.  You would be more correct to say that Republicans still have a tough test in reaching out to black voters, but not all non-white voters.

Third, you seem to leave out the 40 Republican co-sponsors of this legislation to notice the 15 or so non-co-sponsors.  Further, "The overwhelmingly Republican cast of this Senatorial Hall of Shame sends a loud, resounding, and exceedingly clear message to me, that a sizeable number of Republican Senators --  including many of those in leadership positions, have no interest in acknowledging a sad chapter in Senatorial history."  They did acknowledge it when they <b>unanimously approved</b> this apology.  Be upset with the lack of co-sponsors but don't imply they did not support the resolution without some evidence or proof.  If you have that, please present it.

***HTML

To post a link, try one of two ways.

<a href='http://www.redstate.org'>Link</a>

OR

[http://www.redstate.org Link]

Yes, I suppose the Democrats in the Senate really are "against people of faith."  We're anti-Christian bigots.  No really.  Where do you think this little namecalling war started?  Do you think the rightwing radio gods engange in rational conversation?

Try reading Carey Roberts sometime and see how many different names he can come up with for feminists, or how nefarious he can possibly paint their motives.  Or the whole traitor line of conversation for those that oppose the war.  The reason why it doesn't seem extreme is that you are closer to the source.  Since I have the uncomfortable position of center-left, Kos aggravates me on one side and the right in general infuriates me.  There are no blogs for me, because usually moderates have better things to do with their time, I guess.

Can I get a copy of the conservative talking point that instructs its readers (well, probably listeners) to keep pushing this emotion versus reason point.  It's a convenient meme to allow a certain feeling of superiority, but patently untrue.

if the Federal government is going to start apologizing for things, they need to create an entire branch of government just to handle this.

Don't give them any ideas. Next thing you know, we'll have a cabinet-level Department of Apologies, Hand-Wringing, and Kow-Towing, with 5,000 bureaucrats and a big building on C Street.

Instead of those little classifieds that say "Thanks to St. Jude, T.D." we'll have notices in the Federal Register: We apologize to PL, SQR, DM, and FT. We apologize to the Dodo and the wolly mammoth. We apologize for the Hawaiian music in the elevators. We're sorry you missed your train.

You can just hear the Democrats screeching that the guy Bush named to this position doesn't even have any callouses. MR BIDEN: Sir, have you ever wrung your hands for a day in your life?

This "lynching" is just the beginning of the Democrats using the legislature as a toy for creating PR stunts if they ever get a whole department to play with.

Maybe we should give them one guy in the basement of the Railroad Retirement Board. They aren't doing anything anyway. So give them one GS-9 whose job is to crank out apologies. That way the Congress has delegated it and we need not spend any more Senate time on publicity stunts and race-baiting hoo-hah.

I still think you are making too much of your Hispanic numbers, DP.  Bush definitely had a better connection with the border than many prominent Republicans, and he fully repudiated the Buchananesque wing of the party.  I also think it is a mistake to lump all Hispanic voters into one group, at least for the purposes you purport.  I'd be very interested in the Chicano-only numbers.  But I guess that's not really OT for this post.

While I'm rambling, I ought to mention I keep getting mad points from my liberal friends for the level of opposition research at my fingertips.  I have you to thank :-).  I know more about the Senate than at any other point that 2000, when I actually got paid to do so.

You can send the consultant fee to doverspa {at} doverspa.com.  :)  Honestly, who pays for that kind of thing, I have still failed to make a single penny for any political activity.

As for your Hispanic points.  I agree that lumping Hispanics together is both silly and not useful, mainly because race is not a good predictor of their votes (as opposed to black voters).  Income and piety are better predictors which makes them more like white voters.  However, if we're talking about "non-white" voters then it makes sense to include them.

I have seen some more detailed statistics on subsets of the Hispanic vote where (as expected) Cuban-Americans are pro-Republican and Mexican-Americans are pro-Democrat.  Also state-by-state effects exists, such as CA Hispanics are more Democratic and TX and FL Hispanics are more Republican.  I think that may have to do with being introduced to those states (and their general tilt) first.  It is an interesting dynamic compared to the NYC introduction that was the most common first view of most immigrants.

Finally, I believe Bush does have a unique appeal to Hispanics and I wouldn't be surprised to see the number fall back to 40% or even to 35% with a poor nominee.  However, a strong nominee (such as Gov Bush) could actually increase it to 45-50%.  The vote is fluid and Rs have a chance to lock in a 40+% of the Hispanic vote which would help them a) deal with changing demographics and b) seem less "white."

is a wonderful thing.  I served as the Research Director for Kentucky Democratic Party Headquarters in 2000.  Don't be fooled by the title - I managed all of two college interns and had the singular misfortune to be left in charge of HQ while all the important people left to go to LA for the convention.  But hey, it paid!

Any observer would clearly get the feeling reading americablog, dailykos or mydd that the top liberal blogs believe all republicans and conservatives are racists and bigots, especially going by americablog.

Any observer would most definitely and postively not get the feeling that the top conservative blogs believe all democrats and liberals are anti-christian bigots against people of faith. I carefully avoided the 'alls' in my last post, but I don't see how you can possibly compare the apparent amount of times you've seen this anti-Christian argument as an indictment of democrats to how many times I've seen the racist one of Republicans. I'm sorry Gengis, but it's not even remotely close.

The feminist movement is nefarious. It's a political extremist group, a specific one, with well established problems and public agendas. I don't see why you equate this with liberals in general.

I was not addressing a namecalling war. The namecalling war is ongoing. But, as I clearly stated, there is an enormous difference between namecalling and being labeled racist. Sorry, but someone saying all blank are idiots and all blank are racists is vastly different.

As for the emotional argument thing, it's a meme that sprang up on its own, just like the liberal one that says all conservatives are merely obeying the GOP (or using the word meme everywhere). Yet once again, whereas ours has a legitimate logical and factual basis, the one about GOP pulling everyone's strings is just ridiculous and serves no purpose other than to get people all het up. Incidentally, the perfect example of an emotional argument.

If you want to convince people here that we are just as crazy with sweeping and outrageous claims like the racism one, I'm afraid you are going to have to post some kind of keyword density report or any factual evidence. If I were at DailyKos making the reverse argument, no doubt the same would be expected of me. (At americablog, they wouldn't care even if I posted those numbers.) Sorry, but this 'we all do it' just doesn't hold water for me.

absentee -

I stand somewhat corrected.  I don't see anyone saying "these guys approve of lynching", but there is a clear implication of racism in the posts you link to.

For the record, I doubt that any of the Senators in question are racist, in the sense that is relevant here -- hostile to people of color, unwilling to recognize their civil rights.

What I, personally, do think is credible is that some Senators may have been unwilling to publicly support the measure for fear of alienating voters at home.  Frist's actions to prevent a roll call vote, while not a "smoking gun", gives some credence to that idea.

I can really only comment at all about NH, since I live nearby and sort of know the lay of the land there.  I would find it credible that Gregg and Sununu deliberately declined to sign on as co-sponsors.  I would also not ascribe personally held racism as a motive for either of those guys.  

For a wide variety of reasons, retroactive "mea culpas" for historical acts of institutional racism, especially if NH'ites were not the original perpetrators, is just not something that traditional NH voters are going to be that enthusiastic about.  It's possible that Gregg and Sununu simply saw no real upside, and a possible downside, to publicly endorsing the resolution.

It's also possible that it just never showed up on their radar screen as something important to their constituents, for good or ill.  None of this amounts to racism.

I can't speak to the possible motivations of the other Senators.

What I, personally, find unseemly in this is Frist's veto of the roll call vote, and his spokesman's attempts to make it seem like Landrieu and Allen requested the voice vote.  I don't know if there's anything to it or not, I'm sure we'll get the gory details over the next few days.

I also do think it's something of an embarassment to the Republicans that all of the Senators who declined to co-sponsor the bill were from that party.  I'm not inclined to make more of it than that.

Cheers -

But I'll try to draw your attention to them as they come my way.  And in all fairness, RedState is better than most places about that sort of thing.

What is the logical and/or factual basis for your claim that liberals argue from emotion?  In my view, it is an attempt to discredit an argument without reaching the merits, and thus disdainful.  

Talking about Whats the Matter with Kansas.

If a person puts forward that one makes an emotional argument as if that is the evidence that the persons argument is incorrect, then that is a fallacy.

Bringing up the emotional argumentation is an attempt to attack methodology. If I'm in a point counter-point and person pulls out some slogan or verbal protest-sign, I have to be able to point out that it is an emotional argument. That can be part of a larger disproof if, in fact, the emotional argument made any points, which often they do not.

And as I said in that previous thread, I bring up emotional arguments on my own. I didn't realize it was a meme or talking point until after I had been saying it for some time. In which case, you can bet my definition of it, and standard for it, are different than others who say it.

Redstate is better than most places about that sort of thing for our liberals too (with a few exceptions). A great example is the person we were replying to, amos. I don't think Amos thinks that this diary indicates that all republicans are racist. I was pointing out to amos that a major group of liberals, however, do.

Also just for the record, I'm not even saying that the Senators who didn't sponsor it are not racist. I'm only saying that is insane to conclude "Republicans are racist" from it, but that this is exactly the spreading conclusion at sites like those I referenced.

I have seen posters here citing the uselessness of the apology and attempting to put forth that any rational analysis shows it is meaningless.

I would say that, since it clearly is not meaningless to those to whom the apology is being made, it therefore cannot be meaningless. Whether or not it is meaningful or useful should be up to those to whom it is directed. Its value, therefore, seems established to me.

In that light, I find it very disappointing and generally a bad move not to co-sponsor it.

But what I don't like is what I see in the leftosphere, the spreading notion that this is the proof they've long sought. Republicans are racists, and here is the proof. Even if all 20 of the non-co-sponsors were racists, it doesn't mean Republican=Racist.

is Martin.

I'm only saying that is insane to conclude "Republicans are racist" from it,

Agreed.  Many folks will be using this to make that statement, and I agree that it's unfair.

As I've noted elsewhere, I give the Republicans kudos for sincere, genuine, and ongoing efforts to put the racism of the "Southern Strategy" behind them.

As I've also noted elsewhere, many blue states, blue staters, and Democrats are on thin ice when and if they accuse others of racism.  Come to Boston sometime and I'll be happy to demonstrate this.

I would say that, since it clearly is not meaningless to those to whom the apology is being made, it therefore cannot be meaningless. Whether or not it is meaningful or useful should be up to those to whom it is directed. Its value, therefore, seems established to me.

I find this very eloquently said.  Thank you for a very thoughtful expression of what is, I think, the heart of the matter.

I'm sure that for some of those for whom it was intended, it will be too little too late.  I hope that for many, however, it provides a recognition and acknowledgement of the injustice done to them that will help them forgive and make peace with the nation that failed them.

Cheers -

Lott said:

Mr. President, I would like to state my support for the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I believe that Mr. Griffith will serve the Federal judiciary with honor and distinction.

I saw this live on C-SPAN 2. A bunch of Democratic senators got up on the floor and talked about how terrible lynching was. A lot of them were from the South, and their Democrat daddies and grand-daddies were right up in there with the lynchings that took place during that time period.

This is standard operating procedure. The Congressional Black Caucus (also known as the Congressional Black Democrat Caucus) loves to talk about opposition to civil rights legislation and the horrors that took place in the slavery and segregation days. Never, never do they admit that their party was the one in control of all the machinery of oppression down there. Total, unchallenged control.

I think it's appalling that Democrats are running around trying to take the high road on this issue, intentionally bringing up a bill like this when they know a bunch of Republicans aren't going to be around to vote for it, so that they can try to gloss over their party's despicable history of being solely responsible for the propagation and defense of slavery and segregation.

Is that we've wasted sixty-odd comments to this point on a troll diary, on a pointless topic, with a subtle smear, that does nothing to energize Republican activism or even advance a debate of any substance.

To each their collective own.

Is it against some code of ethics to at least just ask them why they didn't co-sponsor the bill?   If 80- senators could do it, so could they.  Obviously it wasn't because their pen ran out of ink at the last moment, it wasn't because their wrist shattered at the last moment.  

80 Senators put the (minimal) time necessary in to making sure that they supported something that they, er, well, you know, like uh SUPPORTED.   I mean if you support something, why hide it?  

They didn't co sponsor the bill because they didn't deem it worth the energy.  That may not be opposition, but tell me, does it sound like "support"  to you?  I'd like to know what your definition of "support something" is.  To be a public official and privately support something but never actually get around to saying that in public?   Seriously, these senators are either indifferent to the bill, or they are opposed to it.  Either way its outright shameful.  Shameful.

When did I ever say that? The point I made was that these (exclusively Republican) Senators who haven't cosponsored this bill -- and again, are still completely able to do so at this very moment -- need a better excuse than "oh, I was out of town." In this case, I believe that passing on the opportunity to stand up and attach your signature/approval to a formal apology to lynched African Americans is merely to avoid angering their latently racist constituents. That's my opinion.

If you feel like flaming me for my last sentence, all I ask is that you provide a valid reason why someone wouldn't sign it.

But I've read it a few times now, and I'd just like to say that Howard Dean does not speak for all liberals (yes, yes, I know he's the head of the DNC) -- to claim that his idiotic quotes run parallel to the thoughts of "all leftists" would be like saying that "all righties" march lock-step with Strom Thurman/Trent Lott's racist attitudes, and I know that's not true. Feel free to lambast Dean for his own words, but don't attribute them to Democrats on the whole please. Carry on

all I ask is that you provide a valid reason why someone wouldn't sign it

This could occur if an individual were not field dependent and instead was using some inner guidance system such as "the dignity of the Senate," instead of basing the decision on cues being exhibited in the immediate environment.

the resolution does not apologize for lynching. It apologizes for failing to pass anti-lyniching legislation - notoriously filibustered by Southern Democrats for decades.

Certainly the Senate is directly responsible for its own procedural actions, eh?

Although I'm surprised it took so long to get a diary entry on this and I was expecting the first one to be of the "why is the Senate wasting time on this sort of nonsense" variety.

You can push to take him out as head of the Dems.  But he, by definition, speaks for the party.  This is especially true when he is doing speeches as DNC chair.  Thus, it is not equivalent to Lott or Thurmond who represented states, not the party.  Mehlman is the RNC leader and if he went off the deep end like Dean, he would be removed.  At the least, I would be calling for his removal.

FYI.  You might be familiar with the 9-11 Compensation Fund.  It provided several $Billions (That's with a B) to families that lost loved ones in the 9-11 tragedy.

More important, you're point is off-topic.

Parts of the U.S. government made an effort to enforce the Consitution of the United States.  The Senate stood in the doorway, similar to Governor Wallace, and said (in essence)...."only if it's snatched from my cold, dead hands."  Thankfully, many of those Democratic Senators are dead now, and a majority of the Senate has seen fit to "do the right thing."

Except where D's noted, and a tiny number of other instances.

if they fail to hit softballs like this out of the park!  That's the point.

FWIW, feel free to call me a troll if you like.  That characterization does nothing to change the fact that a now all-Republican Senatorial Hall of Shame exists.  A Hall of Shame that fail to stand up and let there voices be heard when they had the oppourunity to do the right thing by a significant number of Americans.  A group of Republican Senators who have given cover to Democratic-inaction over decades to enforce civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution.

The updated Republican Senatorial Hall of Shame reads as follows:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - (202) 224-4944

Robert Bennett (R-UT) - (202) 224-5444

Thad Cochran (R-MS) - (202) 224-5054

John Cornyn (R-TX) - (202) 224-2934

Michael Crapo (R-ID) - (202) 224-6142

Michael Enzi (R-WY) - (202) 224-3424

Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - (202) 224-3744

Judd Gregg (R-NH) - (202) 224-3324

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - (202) 224-5251

Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - (202) 224-5922

Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - (202) 224-4521

Trent Lott (R-MS) - (202) 224-6253

Richard Shelby (R-AL) - (202) 224-5744

John Sununu (R-NH) - (202) 224-2841

Craig Thomas (R-WY) - (202) 224-6441

IF the party is serious about trying to change its lily-white image, these Republican Senators need to be called on the carpet.

for Republican Senators!  Isn't it time that they did the right thing?

It doesn't seem I said that he does speak for all liberals. I held him out as an example of a non-blogsphere liberal using the same style of rhetoric. I can use him as an example can't I? He does't operate in a vacuum right?

Other adjectives and nouns come right to mind.

That characterization does nothing to change the fact that a now all-Republican Senatorial Hall of Shame exists.  A Hall of Shame that fail to stand up and let there voices be heard when they had the oppourunity to do the right thing by a significant number of Americans.  A group of Republican Senators who have given cover to Democratic-inaction over decades to enforce civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution.

I leave you with two, final, salient points.

First, no one cares about these stupid things even a few months later, except for silly trolls looking for a club to hit some Senators whose staffs couldn't have been bothered to make sure everyone was on the same page. If anyone cared, Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin, and John Kerry would have been roasted alive for their silliness in the 1980s.

Second, you might want to be careful with that macro. I know it's some sort of obsession with trolls, but once everyone sees you repeating the same text again and again -- like that one genius who kept quoting Article II, Section II, Clause 2 ad nauseam -- they'll figure (correctly) that you're not analyzing anything; (correctly) that you're not offering any original thoughts; and (correctly) that it's actually a soul-sucking waste of time to read a single pixel beneath your name.

Some food for thought.

When did I ever say that?

here

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

From your original post:

Please note that the last "official" lynching occurred in 1981 in Sen. Shelby's state of Alabama.

From your follow-up:

The Republican Party continues to be disingenuous in its behavior towards African-Americans

the hundreds of innocent Americans in Oklahoma!

That a large portion of those innocent Americans were federal officers, in that he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Like Doverspa said.

That I saw this coming exactly concurrent to it happening.

If we had a troll-banning pool around here, I'd own everyone's money.

But not D. And not for a mere disagreement.

I was just wanting credit for posting this exactly simultanesouly with yours.

I don't think there's really any need for them to explain themselves since they voted for it. But then let's look at reasons why these Senators chose not to co-sponsor it.

(1) They're Republicans. And being that personal responsibility is kind of in the job description, they felt that they could not be blamed for the failures of past Senators.

(2) They're Republicans. And since the filibusters of anti-lynching legislation were mounted exclusively by Democrats, they felt that while they could show their approval of the gesture, taking responsibility for what happened goes too far.

He was tried for killing the federal officers in the (IIRC) FBI office in the Murrah Building.  The state thought about trying him for all of the 160+ murders but decided it would cost a lot and not be worth it.

Nothing in the Constitution mentions regulating murder; thus back when we follow it, that meant states regulated it.  They still do.

In fairness to absentee, what amos said was that he didn't think anyone was accusing these Senators of being pro-lynching.

Atrios and Kos and the Americabloggers, aren't everyone, but they're someone.

To some people, at least.

And that's all it is. It performs no useful function, it does nothing whatsoever but make the guilt ridden feel better. I would not have voted for such UN-style legislation either--that's not what we are paying our senators for.

Give the senators who would not vote for that nonsense an award.

This bill will be the first step to reciprocity towards slavery I predict. May those senators not give in to even more P.C. (if that's possible and take a definat stand. Allen and Landrieu sold out the South. I am not justifying lynching, of course, but I saw this whole bill as a political booster, by a couple of uppity-opportunistic senators. Landrieu with her radical left-wing liberal stance on just about everything is a disgrace to the South and the people of La. may she be booted out in 2008 (couldn't come soon enough)!

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Mary_Landrieu.htm

Pro-Civil Rights,pro-abortion, anti-gun=anti- SOUTH! (typical DEMOCRAT). Sickening. Southern P.C. liberal turncoat.

Ditto for that carpetbagger George Allen in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_%28politician%29