comsc US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Frist now accused of trying to veto a vote on the anti-lynching resolution
Join Email List | About us | AMERICAblog Gay
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff

Frist now accused of trying to veto a vote on the anti-lynching resolution

| Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK

Okay, now it's getting good.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article up (sign in as "dailykos" first name, password "dailykos", and email "") 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?

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)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

Find their phone numbers here.

(hat tip to rawstory for catching this story)

blog comments powered by Disqus