The left is all aflutter over the Senate Resolution to apologize for previous Senates doing nothing about lynching. The Raw Story has had a virtual spasm over the resolution, and has gone so far as to label anyone who was not a co-sponsor (it has 80) as objectively pro-lynching:
This is the latest list I have – please feed me updates. Only one Democrat, all the rest are Republicans. What was Howard Dean saying about the GOP being the party of white guys? That would be 27% of the Republican Senators who refused to oppose lynching, vs. 2% of the Democrats. Enough said.
Enough said. Not hardly (via TalkLeft):
With many members straggling back to town from a weekend at home, and only six coming to the floor to vote, the Senate delivered a historic apology Monday night for failing to move against a wave of lynchings that claimed more than 4,700 Americans
MI
Overreaction by lefty blogs is a legitimate criticism, although the fact that we still live in a country where some senators feel signing onto this would be politically unwise is a real shame, and IMO overshadows the opportunism of partisan blogs. At any rate, these senators are either way off base about their constituency, which would be a relief, or they’re spot on about their constituency, which would suck.
John Cole
Or maybethey were out of town and didn’t get to latch onto the bill at the last minute like a great number of them did…
John Cole
BTW- I could point out the Democrsats could be accused of being pro-lynching because, while they may have co-sponsored the bill, they did not actually vote for it and the votes were not recorded. Thus, they could go home and play up to their racist base as well.
Face it. It is just a ridiculous damned smear.
Joe Chumly
I find the entire notion of our senate wasting time on this disheartening. I’m sure there are lots of votes through our history that could stand to be apologized for, but I see no reason no waste congress’s time passing bills on them all.
MI
I suppose.. I mean, I think the out of town excuse is a bit lame, if not naive. but I agree with your basic sentiment more than I disagree with it, so…
neil
It seems like this is the least appropriate time for the Byrd ‘gotcha’. He is a cosponsor, after all, and rightly unafraid to go on the record as opposing lynching.
Whither Trent Lott? Oh, well, surely he must have been out of town, or something, because Trent Lott is certainly not the sort who wants the support of segregationists or white supremacists. Him and the proud senators from Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia…
Rick
…there is only one current Senator who could have actually done something about real lynching laws, and he did not author this resolution.
Why, that would be the distinguished cornpone legislator sometimes referred to as the “KKKonscience of the Senate.” Especially in the filibuster finagling.
Cordially…
MI
I find the entire notion of our senate wasting time on this disheartening. I’m sure there are lots of votes through our history that could stand to be apologized for, but I see no reason no waste congress’s time passing bills on them all.
I agree with you in the sense that you and I could probably name off 9856798569856 more vital issues our representatives should be concerning themselves with. On the other, especially for the estimated 5000 families of those lynched, I think it’s a decent gesture..not to mention for the people who were actually lynched.
John Cole
It seems like this is the least appropriate time for the Byrd ‘gotcha’. He is a cosponsor, after all, and rightly unafraid to go on the record as opposing lynching.
Not if I use the Raw Story logic- why didn;t he vote for it? If we have to assume the only reason someone is not a co-sponsor for the bill is because they are pro-lynching, then we have to assume that te only reason the 94 Senators did not vote for the bill is because they are pro-lynching.
I didn’t make the rules on this one. Aravosis did.
James Emerson
The snark aside, 78 senators have signed the resolution that will accompany the lynching display on tour.
Out of the 22 senators who haven’t YET signed, 19 are Republicans. We’ll have to wait and see how many end up putting their signature on the resolution, but it is indeed curious that each party had the documnet in its respective cloackroom for a week, and 19 Republicans managed to find their cloaks but not the resolution.
Senator Byrd signed.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Ahhh, the politics of pretending to care. Isn’t that all we want from our Senate?
Uhhhhh, HELL NO, it isn’t! STOP WASTING TIME, you idiots!
Kimmitt
Er, Senator Byrd is listed as a cosponsor on the bill at Thomas.
Doug
The more interesting questions is how and why the decision was made to have this be a voice vote rather than a roll call vote. Are these sorts of resolutions normally a voice vote kind of thing? If so, then probably there is no story there. If this is a little unusual procedurally, then it seems like there might be a good story there.
jack
A pointless waste of time.
You can’t apologise for something you didn’t do. You can sympathise, but you can’t accept real blame for an act you did not commit. In the end, no one is fooled, the perpetrator is still there, still unapologetic.
But, y’know, I bet Kleagle Byrd signed on real quick. Real quick. And I bet the Kleagle isn’t one of the twenty two names that is missing from the ‘lynching display’ resolution. I bet he wasted no time putting up yet another facade to hide his pointy, hooded heart.
And I bet he won’t say a damned thing about how he gladly fought against anti-lynching legislation himself.
JAmes Btrd Is a Klansman and a Democrat. Bull Connor was a Democrat. Al Gore Sr fought agaisnt Civil Rights as a Democrat–and remained a Democrat, The huge political Klan rallies of the twenties were in support of Democrat….Klandidates.
Always remember that.
Rick
Ah, but enought misdirection. What is the GOP doing for gay people?
Because, you know, their situation is precisely the same as the Black Americans’ was under Jim Crow. And, of course, *now* under Bushitler.
Cordially…
Jeff
jack,
I don’t disagree with some of what you say, but in the interest of accuracy, you said James Byrd, when i think you mean Robert Byrd.
Robert Byrd is the senator from WV, James Byrd was a black guy who was chained to a truck and drug to his death. He may have been a Democrat, but i highly doubt he was a Klansman.
neil
Alas, I thought Balloon Juice was the sort of place where the conserva-logic of “Byrd’s sponsorship of this bill proves he is the real racist, whereas Lott’s absence is totally excusable” wouldn’t pass muster.”
Byrd was in the KKK, but he publically disavowed them before ever being elected, and now he’s apologizing for not passing anti-lynching legislation.
Lott was working for politicians supported by the KKK 50 years ago, has refused to distance himself from his segregationist past, is still meeting with white supremacist organizations, and publically refuses to join the symbolic resolution against lynching, which is just the latest of several symbolic votes and resolutions which Lott has been on the wrong side of.
But to hear some of the people in here, including, unfortunately, John Cole, you would think that no sitting Senator has more of a black mark in civil rights than Senator Byrd.
John Cole
Alas, I thought Balloon Juice was the sort of place where the conserva-logic of “Byrd’s sponsorship of this bill proves he is the real racist, whereas Lott’s absence is totally excusable” wouldn’t pass muster.”
Personally, I think it would have been smart politics to just have everybody sign the damn thing as a co-sponsor so people couldn’t play these sorts of games.
Again, just because someone didn;t co-sponsor the bill, doesn;t mean they are pro-lynching, which is Aravosis’s thesis. That makes as much sense as me saying that becuase only 6% of the Senate voted for it, 94% of the Senate is pro-lynching.
Byrd, however, is a special case. He should have written the damned bill, signed a resolution, and made sure to vote for it, becauyse he is the only one who really has anything to be sorry for…
And you aren’t going to get me to defend Trent Lott, specifically, but there may be reasons why peole were not co-sponsors and why they did not vote for it for reasons we don;t know- like Jeff Sessions, who was in Paris and couldn’t be there…
At any rate, it is an empty gesture- who isn’t sorry for our sad Segregationist past?
Rick
… you would think that no sitting Senator has more of a black mark in civil rights than Senator Byrd.
Very unreasonable of us.
Cordially…
ppgaz
Everyone knows that maneuvered votes whose only purpose is to generate embarassment to adversaries is a strictly Democratic tactic. Republicans never stoop to such things.
That’s why God prefers them.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Byrd, however, is a special case. He should have written the damned bill, signed a resolution, and made sure to vote for it, becauyse he is the only one who really has anything to be sorry for…
…and most importantly, if he were sincere about it, he should’ve done it 30 years ago!
ppgaz
Everyone knows that sincerity is the hallmark of Republican politicans.
That’s why God prefers them.
Rick
ppgaz is starting to come around! Lawdy! Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory!!!!
Cordially…
caroline
“Who isn’t sorry for our segregationist past?”
Well, plenty of people down here in the deep south.
Gary Farber
“But you know who that is…”
No, I’m pretty sure I don’t. The last anti-lynching bill filibuster was in 1952, John. Who is the current Senator who was in the Senate at the time?
Isn’t it pretty ludicrously cheap, by the way, to keep going on about what someone did in the 1940’s? If you want to argue with something he’s said or done in, oh, I don’t know, the past fifty years, might not that actually be a relevant argument? Or do you believe it’s appropriate for, say, Democrats to simply keep attacking, oh, I dunno, Republican policies from the 1940’s as if they were relevant? And if not, why the double standard? (My suggestion is: drop it, don’t defend it, but it’s only, of course, a suggestion.) (Myself, when I see someone going on about Byrd and the KKK, I conclude they think they have no better argument.)
neil
Well, Rick, the discerning reader who frequents right-wing blogs would find a lot of clever slurs incorporating Byrd’s name, but precious little in terms of actual examples of things he’s done that set back the cause of civil rights. This discerning reader thinks that the reason is that it’s quite safe to dance around shrieking “KKK! White hoods! Burning crosses!”, but if actual positions or actions enter the discussion, then it can be quite clearly demonstrated that Byrd has a disquieting moral advantage over some of his junior colleagues.
Speaking of symbolic gestures: I have found lots of right-wing sites claiming that Strom Thurmond was fully rehabilititated from his dim race-baiting past when he voted in favor of making MLK day a federal holiday. No comment on why that vote, or this one, did not save Byrd from his sins.
John Cole
Gary- Byrd is, to my knowledge, the only person in the Senate when lynchings were commonplace.
SomeCallMeTim
who isn’t sorry for our sad Segregationist past?
Seriously? If 26% of our countrymen ae OK with having all Muslims have to register with the government, I’ve got think there are at least a few of them who are still wishing for the good old days.
Rick
…actual examples of things he’s done that set back the cause of civil rights.
Neil,
His voting record, if not definitively “set(ting) back the cause,” was part of the Yellow Dog’s “massive resistance.”
Sic transit moral advantage.
Cordially…
James Emerson
As long as we’re dissing Senator Byrd for his activities during the 1940s, we would be remiss not to bring up Prescot Bush’s dealing with Thyssen Steel and the whole money laundering for the nazis thing.
Seems fair to me…
Kimmitt
No, that’s not fair, unless Prescott Bush were a sitting politician.
It might be useful to bring up Senator Lott’s abysmal record in the area.
Byrd was not good on Civil Rights issues. He is a holdover from a different time, and race is most certainly his blind spot even now.
Charitably, the same could be said to apply for Lott, I suppose.
I’d think that one would want unanimity in co-sponsorship for this sort of symbolic legislation. I’d also think that it would not be possible to get, so those behind the bill are doing what they can.
neil
Rick, I never said his voting record was stellar on civil rights. I wouldn’t expect it to be. But if you folk always going to be beating up on him as the epitome of racism in the United States Senate, let’s get something other than playground taunts out there.
Helms and Lott were worse on race in 1988 than Byrd was in 1958. No point in denying that.
Bob
Maybe those who didn’t sign on just didn’t care about lynching. Now maybe if Halliburton got a contract for lynching…
slightlybad
Just to be clear, Byrd wasn’t just a participant in the Klan back in the Forties (as odious as that is). He also helped to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act (he does love the filibuster), and has been documented making racial remarks within the last ten years. The man is an dinosaur and a racist, and I can’t believe the Dems haven’t retired him yet.
buermann
It’s the Senate as an institution that is apologizing, the United States Senate was around at the time to do something, and it’s still around to apologize for doing nothing while thousands of men were murdered and many thousands more got away with it.
In any sane country it would have taken five minutes for these jokers to prove they’re still vaguely human and then get on with wasting my money.
Kimmitt
and has been documented making racial remarks within the last ten years.
…for which he has apologized profusely. Yes, Byrd is a dinosaur. Yes, Byrd is a racist. But yes, Byrd has gone to great lengths to rise above his background. He is very wrong on some issues. I don’t care, because he is a tiny minority which will disappear when he decides not to serve any more. He’s just one guy with a terrible flaw.
Rick
Helms and Lott were worse on race in 1988 than Byrd was in 1958. No point in denying that.
Neil,
Well, I’m not seeking to score points, but that assertion is thoroughly deniable. Like a river in Egypt.
What were to major civil rights issues remaining in 1988? For that matter, 1978?
Cordially…
Richard Bottoms
Wel the Republican party in it’s never ending quest to piss off or offend black voters has done it again.
Seems Senator Frist opposed an on the rcord vote for an apology for the Senate’s inaction on lynching.
I look forward to his explaination for his stance. I have my own opinion, mainly that his party can’t bring itsef to upset its Southern Racialist evangelicals.
No black vote for you. Har.
Faith+1
Before we go too far with the “southern racist” prejudice I’d like to hear what bastions of racial tolerence like NYC, Detroit, Chicago, and Philly have to so obviously remove racism from their city limits?
Richard Bottoms
I didn’t say southern racist. I said Souther Racialist which doesn’t require you to live in the south to be.
It’s those people who long for a return to the south of their magination, of subservient darkies and triumphant white culture.
They hang out here:
http://www.amren.com/
Swapping white superiority stories and enjoying the occasional sly support of people like Trent Lott.
Paul D
The republicans remain a racist party bent on taking from the poor to give to the rich…many refuse to apologize for not enacting anti-lynching laws…what adisgrace !@#$%^&*!!!
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Anti-lynching laws…The Other White Guilt.
As long as you are on your pretend-outrage bender, Paul, is there anything else that the Senators haven’t done that you’d like them to apologize for?
They could apologize for the Crusades.
They could apologize for not doing more to stop the Holocaust.
They could apologize for slavery.
They could apologize for, ummmmmmm, disco.
Gosh, what a useful way to spend their time and our money! This could take all year!