I didn't intend to follow this story so closely, but you reach a point of no return.... Anyhow, the day in lynching news ends in confusion, as senators scramble to make excuses or claim they supported the resolution even if they're not listed anywhere. Chris Geidner and John Aravosis have slightly different accounts of who isn't on record supporting it; they do agree, however, on five of the six Southern refuseniks, the lone point of disagreement being the status of noted technophile Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Geidner did some actual journalism (the nerve!), calling the 21 non-sponsoring senators' offices to inquire about their position on the resolution. Here's what aides for the Southern Six had to say:
 

Sen. Alexander's office: "He voted for it." Why didn't he co-sponsor? Unsurprisingly, the aide was "not familiar" with the reason.

Sen. Cochran's office: "I believe he supports it, but he didn't co-sponsor." And no, she wasn't "yet" sure why he hadn't.

Sen. Cornyn's office: "He supported it, and he -- it was in the Congressional Record. . . . He was on the floor talkin' about it."

Sen. Hutchison's aide: "Sen. Hutchison joined with other senators in voicing the apology. . . . Unfortunately, we cannot verify her vote because it was a voice vote." The aide could not provide any information on whether the senator supported or opposed the resolution.

Sen. Lott's office: Transferred to someone else. Voice mail. Ha. Brandon somebody. I left a message.

Sen. Shelby's office: After taking a while to answer the phone, "He did support the resolution." Why didn't he co-sponsor: "I don't think there was a particular reason, but he did support it."

Atrios notes that Richard Shelby's official excuse is that he was "busy...in France."

Aravosis, by the way, says this: "From what I recall during my stint in the Senate, you can add yourself as a cosponsor retroactively even after the resolution has passed."