Still Fighting

Activism

A little bit of background is necessary for today's activism. Between 1890 and 1952, seven presidents urged Congress to end lynching. Nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced over that period. None passed, thanks to southern Senators who wielded the power of the filibuster. With the civil rights laws of the 1960s, the issue of lynching sort of just...faded away. On February 7, 2005, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) introduced a resolution "apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation." You can read the official text of the resolution here. You'd think that this would be a no-brainer, right? Who wouldn't agree to this? Well, it's not that simple. You see, the resolution passed with a "voice vote," which simply means a vote of whomever is on the floor at that time. When the voice vote was called for this resolution, six Senators were on the floor, and none opposed. Here's the deal. With this resolution, Senators could co-sponsor the bill both before and after the vote. There is no excuse for a Senator to not co-sponsor this bill. Vote, sure. It was late, and it wasn't a "roll call" vote, with every Senator's vote recorded. No one is complaining that their Senator didn't vote for this bill. But there are 16 Senators who have not co-sponsored the bill. Courtesy of AMERICABlog, the 16 are:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
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)

What we're asking you to do is contact these Senators' offices (especially if you live in their home state), and find out exactly why they oppose a public apology for lynching. Don't let their staffers tell you that they weren't able to vote - again, the vote isn't the issue (for once). It's the co-sponsorship. We'd love to hear what they have to say - use the comments below to let us know!

News

White House Criticizes Cost of Senate Energy Bill. Pot, meet kettle. Aside from the audacity for the White House to criticize the Senate for spending too much money, it should come as no shocker that Democratic attempts to foster renewable energy use and mandated cuts in oil imports were also slammed by Bush. There's a $1.6 billion (over five years) cost in the bill that would give tax credits to Americans who purchase hybrid cars. There's also $1.4 billion in tax credits to generate electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar. Senator Maria Cantwell also plans to introduce an amendment that would force the government to find a way to reduce foreign dependency on oil by 40% over 20 years. Bush is up in arms over that too, claiming more studies are needed on climate change. We think that, in Bushspeak, that translates to "I want to keep giving big business and foreign markets more money that could probably be better spent here," but we're not entirely sure. Heaven forbid the Senate should try and pass something that would enhance the lives of Americans and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

GOP Worries Ethics Issue May Hurt Party in '06. Sticking with the Legislative Branch, we turn our attention to the House of Representatives. You may not believe this, but the GOP is concerned that the recent spate of ethical issues to besiege House Republicans will adversely affect them in next year's elections. They might even lose seats! Gasp! Liberal groups have begun running ads in key GOP congressional areas, linking in whatever way exists that district's Congressman with House leaders like Tom DeLay. Between questionable travel, gambling allegations and Bill "Based on the tape, she doesn't look to be in a persistive vegetative state to me" Frist, there are plenty of ethical questions to go around. Key Republican seats that are being targeted include districts in Ohio, Florida and North Carolina. Of course, there's a lot of work to do in the House, where Republicans control the majority 231-201-1-1, but we have to start somewhere, right?

White House Threatens Veto on House Spending Bill. Keeping our attention on the House, a bill is being considered that would provide $57.5 billion in funding to the Justice Department, NASA and the Commerce Department. The White House has said that they will veto the bill if a certain amendment is attached. Here's the catch. Both Representatives and Senators will routinely attach amendments to bills, even if they don't correspond. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is expected to offer a measure limiting the Patriot Act by ending law enforcement's easy access to records on citizens' reading habits at libraries and bookstore purchases without a traditional search warrant. The White House doesn't like this, although it is expected to pass the House. Now, let's be honest. Are al-Qaeda terrorists going to walk into Borders and, with their own personal credit card, purchase $846 worth of bomb building books? No. But could someone purchase a large number of books on Islam for, say, a class? Sure. Would that person get put on a watch list because of it? Absolutely, and shame on this administration for even thinking that this is acceptable.

Editorials

New Worlds To Censor. It's been a little while, but you may remember the fight to bring the same television "decency" standards that are on network television to basic cable. Isn't that absurd? We have Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and new FCC head Kevin Martin to thank for that. Here's the reason we find this absurd. While we don't agree with censorship on any level, we can at least understand the idea that public broadcasting and radio are media outlets that anyone with a television or a radio can view for free. In a house with no cable TV, you cannot "regulate" your children to not be able to watch FOX (although you might want to). We don't agree with it, but at least we can understand it. In just about every market in the country, cable and satellite programming requires the viewer to pay for it. The only way your kids are going to watch Comedy Central is if you've paid to have it in your home. That's a choice, folks. Couple that with V-Chip and password-protected channel and ratings blocking, and the decision has already been made. Besides, if you're allowing your seven-year-old to watch television by him/herself at 10 in the evening, you've got bigger problems than hearing Cartman say "Suck my balls." It's funny that the GOP claims to be the party of smaller government, except when they're in power.

The Interactive Truth. Why do less and less people trust the news? It's a trend that can't be denied - six out of ten Americans don't trust the press. Could it be a result of Newsweekgate? Could it be a result of the MSM not calling Bush on his lies? Or could it simply be that the American citizenry is sick of sloppy reporting? Whatever the reason, more and more Americans are turning to other television shows and the internet to get their news. There is no longer any reason to wait. In olden days, you'd get the morning paper and the 6:00 news, and that was your "fix." Now, we can find out immediately that Michael Jackson was found not guilty, or that an American Idol vote was fixed. Of course, as Stacy Schiff writes, the problem comes in the form of not being able to completely trust the factual truth of what you're reading online. Come to think about it, reading news on the internet is exactly like reading a newspaper, only cheaper.

Scream 2: The Sequel. Clever title, same old BS. With the MSM hopping all over Howard Dean's "white Christian party" comments, Howard Fineman and Tamara Lipper examine the question as to whether or not Howard Dean is successful. Even as some Congressional Democrats do everything in their power to distance themselves from Dean (a la Joe Biden), grassroots workers and DNC "employees" are excited to see the Dean they elected to DNC chair come to life. Under Dean, fundraising has been greatly enhanced, for example. The mistake that Fineman and Lipper make is assuming that Dean was talking about the Republican party as a whole and not, as he said later, Republican leadership. Still, Dean is doing remarkably well.