Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Texas - only 1 of our Senators is pro-lynching

Senator Hutchison finally got her crap together and took the controversial position (along with 89 other Senators) opposing and apologizing for past lynching.

John Cornyn still needs to co-sponsor this bill, and HE STILL CAN.

There is no good reason this bill should not have 100 co-sponsors.

Call this number: 202-224-3121

then ask for Senator John Cornyn's office. Ask his staff for a decent explanation of why Cornyn has not yet seen fit to co-sponsor this piece of legislation. If you hear anything other than silence, you'll know it is a lie, because there is NO GOOD REASON.


At 4:22 AM, Anonymous commentator said...

Where did you get the idea that the Senators who did not co-sponsor are "pro-lynching?" And do you feel the same way about the 10 Senators (of both parties) who only co-sponsored the resolution AFTER it was passed unanimously? Did you know that 28 of the co-sponsors signed on to the resolution on or after the day it was passed. Did you know that 44 Senators (of both parties) signed on to the resolution AFTER it was announced that there would be no roll call vote, that it would be unanimous?

Not co-sponsoring a resolution does not equate to being against it. If it did, that would mean:

-that 426 members of the House of Representatives were against the following resolution: "Recognizing the anniversary of the ratification of the 13th Amendment and encouraging the American people to educate and instill pride and purpose into their communities and to observe the anniversary annually with appropriate programs and activities."

-that 65 Senators were against the Black History Month resolution

-that 99 Senators were against a bill to establish the "African Burial Ground National Historic Site and the African Burial Ground International Memorial Museum in New York, New York."

Please, I beg you, check your facts before you disparage people

At 8:35 AM, Blogger Synthesis said...

This bill was passed when only 6 Senators were present.

I have no problem with those people who have co-sponsored the bill after it was "passed unanimously" on a 6-for-6 vote. Indeed, I am urging Senator Cornyn to co-sponsor this bill despite it already having “passed unanimously.” I understand it can be difficult to vote for a bill in the middle of the night, or when you are not even present. For various reasons, some people were unable to add their cosponsor until a later time.

John Cornyn should have had enough time by now. With 89 Senators currently co-sponsoring this bill, and the number of calls he must have received from his constituents by now, I can only conclude a willful decision to not add his name to a bill that should have all 100 names. That is shameful anyway you slice it.

If and when he finally does join the rest of his more civil lawmakers, I will welcome his decision with open arms. Because this bill was not passed on a standard roll-call vote (the kind where their votes yea or nay are a matter of public record), co-sponsoring is the only way they can “vote” yes. Failure to do so implies “not yes,” a particularly spineless way of saying “no.”

As for those other 3 cases, or straw-men, I am unfamiliar with them. The fact that people (Democrat and Republican) may have failed to do the right thing back then does not forgive the 11 holdouts (John Cornyn included) for their shameful inaction.

At 12:05 PM, Blogger johnnie said...

Senator Cornyn cosponsored a resolution “commending the Lady Bears of Baylor University for winning the 2005 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women’s Basketball Championship. And just in time for Father’s Day, Cornyn took time out to cosponsor a Hallmark-ready resolution “protecting, promoting, and celebrating fatherhood." Wow, that's really going out on a limb.

I’m glad Cornyn only wants his name on the important resolutions, not an apology for the death of almost 5,000 Amercans that by and large went totally unpunished. Deciding not to cosponsor the resolution was a cop out. Plain and simple.

His response that he supported the resolution (secretly-- since there was no roll call vote) doesn't begin to go far enough.


Post a Comment

<< Home