Why did Frist veto the roll call vote?

June 15, 2005

I’m not looking to belabor the point, and I’m pleased that the Senate apology for its failures on lynching in the past was successful, but it’s still rather troubling that there was no roll-call vote, putting each senator on the record on the measure.

It turns out, the Senate Majority Leader insisted that it be this way.

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 […]

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.

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

“It was very disappointing” that Frist handled the matter the way he did, Planning said. “Other groups have gotten roll call votes, so there was nothing new to this, nothing different that we were asking for.”

It’s all rather odd. Frist’s office said the time and the style of vote were “requested by the sponsors.” But Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and George Allen (R-Va.) were the chief sponsors of the resolution and they said Frist’s office is wrong. Landrieu, in particular, said she wanted a roll-call vote but had to take what the GOP was willing to give her. Allen also said he preferred a roll-call vote.

So, Sen. Frist, care to explain what happened on Monday?

It’s the same silence that the Senate used in the past to avoid lynching while the practice was still ongoing in America. This time, the silence is being used to protect those Senators whose constituency would not forgive them for condemning their forbears’ lynchings.

Racism lives, and thy name is “Republican” and Frist is their enabler-in-chief. Yet one more example of how the good doctor is merely a puppet of America’s right-wing hate groups.

  • Technically, the time and the style of vote were “requested by the sponsors.” First merely denied their requests.

    I think he’s just been speaking with a forked tongue. Hence his accusation that the Democrats have been “moving the goalposts” in their changing requests for information on John Bolton, when all the Democrats have done is to moderate their requests in an effort to compromise with a stonewalling White House.

    His comments twist the facts, but play well on TV to the uninformed.

  • The Republican party is a “big tent”. Wouldn’t want to embarrass or otherwise inconvenience those who support lynching.

  • My wife and I have embarked on an effort to apply
    pressure on the hold-out senators to answer, in public, and to call out Bill Frist as well. Our goal is to create an online petition to keep the issue alive and to build grassroots momentum.

    You can help by signing and making others aware.

    Here’s the link: http://www.heidiandjames.org/senate_shame

    • Comments are closed.