Georgia Senate Rejects Honor for Jane Fonda
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, March 16, 2006 |
The Georgia Senate easily defeated a resolution honoring Jane Fonda.
Jane Fonda’s 1972 trip to North Vietnam is haunting her again. The Georgia Senate on Thursday nearly unanimously defeated a resolution that would have honored the actress’ charity work in the state. The Democratic sponsor had tried to withdraw the resolution after a rocky reception from colleagues and a phone call from Fonda’s office, but a Republican leader forced a vote, saying members of his caucus wanted to go on record against it. Fonda, who is out of the country, had asked for the resolution to be withdrawn to avoid the controversy, said the sponsor, Sen. Steen Miles of suburban Atlanta. The effort was defeated 38-1, with even Miles voting against it.
The resolution cited the Atlanta resident’s work as founder of the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention, donations to universities and charities, and role as goodwill ambassador for the United Nations.
But Fonda’s political activities protesting the Vietnam War, including a trip to North Vietnam in 1972, have long made her a target of veterans. “I can think of no living American who is less worthy of this honor,” Republican Sen. John Douglas declared. “She is as guilty of treason as Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose.”
Miles argued that Fonda’s good works should outweigh the negatives.
Full sized images here.
Not hardly.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- aTypical Joe: A gay New Yorker living in the rural south. linked with Jane rejected in Georgia...
- Mudville Gazette
- ยป Gone Hollywood
Um... last I checked, 38-1 is not unanimous.
Whoops, my bad. I reread the paragraph and discovered that what I had read as "unanimous" was, in fact, "nearly unanimous".
Apologies.
I read it that way the first time, too. "Nearly unanimous" is an odd phrase.
Congrats to Georgia for having good sense.
Comments are Closed
