I TOLD you I'm not impressed

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on June 15, 2005 - 4:39am.
on

The Republican Southern Strategy in action. Instead of extracting a "Quote of note" I'm going to "embolden" the notable stuff.

[LATER: I changed my mind, I want you to see this first]

Bob Stevenson, Frist's chief spokesman, said Tuesday evening the procedure the majority leader established was "requested by the sponsors."

The chief sponsors of the resolution, Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and George Allen (R-Va.), disputed that assertion.

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.

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.

Anti-lynching vote

Critics: Frist vetoed roll call
Senators were not required to go on record on issue

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/15/05

WASHINGTON   Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) refused repeated requests for a roll call vote that would have put senators on the record on a resolution apologizing for past failures to pass anti-lynching laws, officials involved in the negotiations said Tuesday.

And there was disagreement Tuesday over whether Saxby Chambliss, one of Georgia's two Republican senators, had supported the measure when it was approved Monday night.

As dozens of descendants of lynching victims watched from the Senate gallery, the resolution was adopted Monday evening under a voice vote procedure that did not require any senator's presence. [P6: Now I want to know who was actually there, who actually voted]

Eighty senators, however, had signed as co-sponsors, putting themselves on record as supporting the resolution. By the time the Senate recessed Tuesday evening, five other senators had added their names as co-sponsors, leaving 15 Republicans who had not. [P6: Who were the five that want to claim, after the fact, they supported the bill]

Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the 80 sponsors listed Monday night. Chambliss' name was added to the list of co-sponsors after the resolution was adopted, according to the Congressional Record. But his office said he had signed onto the bill as a co-sponsor before Monday's vote. [P6: *gasp* The Congressional Record is inaccurate! (of coooooouuurse I believe ol' Saxby over the Congressional Record...don't you?)

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. [P6: So...most Senators did not actually vote.]

Frist declined both requests, the group's chief counsel, Mark Planning, said Tuesday evening.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by James R MacLean on June 15, 2005 - 4:32pm.

I have a theory about this.

After reading "Do the Math" (below) I went to the link and emailed a few senators. No response; a lot of commentors at the linked blog post had already tried to find out why, and the right honorable senators were stonewalling (heh!).

Then I read this post and a light went on.

It's all about the narrative.

These SOB's don't want to apologize for ANYTHING! After demonizing liberals as traitors who blame America first, these guys are determined to make the distinction between themselves and liberals as glaring as possible.

Politics is narrative driven. That's inevitable, but we're dealing with a group that's got a lot staked on this one particular narrative, which is their boundless moral authority. If they concede that, they're the biggest criminals in America. So they're going to act like the reality they're responding to is the one in which they're paragons of hardnosed rightness, instead of the snarling gangsters and fences they are.