Why did so many speak about the problems and then vote NAY?

[garybeck]

I'm confused

does not compute

I heard Senators talk about election fraud, voter suppression, ... but only Boxer voted Yea.

Same in the house. Bernie Sanders got hopping mad and then voted Nay.


What's the explanation? That there "were problems but not enough to overturn the election"

pardon my french but that is bullcrap.

don't you think, that at the very least, if the Ohio recount was done illegally, that alone should warrant not allowing their electors?

I don't understand how Hillary, Bernie Sanders, ... can get up there and talk about all the problems and then vote Nay. What, were they just trying to be politicians and say one thing and do another, so they can please everyone?

[Timebound]

1. Personally

And its sad, but they have to pick and choose their battles. They are in the minority, and if they piss the Repukes off too much, they can be shut down completely. (IE, take away the filibuster) So in order to get something done, they have to be diplomatic about it.

I'm not happy about it, but...well, at least there was an objection.

[garybeck]

3. I'm so tired of worrying about pissing off the Repukes

They're going to get treated like trash no matter how much they do or don't kiss the Repukes asses. They should do what's right and not worry about pissing them off. that is nuts.

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. They're shutdown completely already.

The filibuster will be held over their heads forever. They just need to do the RIGHT thing for a change and grow some fucking balls. They have to choose their battles? What battle is more important than our Democracy and election system?? Their battle is to battle for US, we the people.

[renaissanceguy]

55. That disappointed me too.

They were more concerned about their careers than the voters. Well, I say we should first make sure that they at least follow through with reforming our election system. At the same time, we should focus on 2006 and 2008, so that we can replace these self-interested idiots with people who will represent US.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16200506

[roguevalley]

2. they have their reasons but frankly, IMO, they talked to provide

some kind of cover, if only for their consciences and then voted no. They have and want it both ways. Personally, in the senate, only Boxer was brave. the others were 'lawyering' their way around having to take a real stand.

[FreepFryer]

4. When you're the Legislature, 'lawyering' is the name of the game. (n/t)

[Seabiscuit]

16. Aw, come on, guys. Call it "wheeling and dealing" or call it "hypocrisy",

but don't call it "lawyering". You smear all of us lawyers that way.
I suppose if you didn't like doctors you'd call it "doctoring". If you did, I'm sure there'd be some doctor posting here crying "foul" as well.

[undergroundpanther]

5. comprimised

It seems to appear to be either a dem can stand up ,have integrity and offend thier backscratching buddies in business or on the hill....and maybe not be invited to posh dinners and not get the palm greased,

Or they can talk one way to the vioters,another to the politicians,suck up to bush and play maker believe...anyone can be a coward,fall in line and sell thier soul to the highest bidder otr biggest bully like a hypocrite..and bertray your constituency's values in the process while you say you care.


It seems the dems have comprimised thier integrity too far to the repugs,they don't even recognise it anymore when they are doing it..be it for money, buddies in old boys clubs,or power..the results the same political betrayal.
How much betrayal can people take until they bite thier"masters"and the"masters" master's hand?

[marcologico]

6. probably worried about reelection

they wouldnt want to cast any smear-able votes especially when they're facing reelection in '06 (Kennedy and Clinton). Boxer is safe until 2010 but then so is Obama.

[joevoter]

7. I wanted Obama to do it sooooo bad

It looked to me as if he struggled with this choice. We really need to support Honorable Senator Babara Boxer. The * team is really gona make life hard on her for this. She is my Senate hero.

[Sandpiper]

10. The only thing Boxer has to fear is her cowardly colleagues

Her Senate seat is in no danger. California loves her.

[joevoter]

11. Yeh... but I owe her

She did what I asked and I hope that she let's us know what she needs.

[Seabiscuit]

17. True. And she's going to give them all holy hell for six years!

[leanin_green]

57. I took the time to write Boxer yesterday.

I told her I was proud of her and would consider to support her. I also told her that I no longer felt the Democratic Party represented my core beliefs and that I only support those Dems that take difficult and courages stands from here on out.

[Seabiscuit]

58. Good for you. I e-mailed my appreciation to her as well.

[TrustingDog]

8. or worried about thier family's safety... it's KKKarl we're talking here.

I have No doubt personal threats have been made.

that's What They Are.

[life_long_dem]

39. You may be correct. Look at all of those mysterious suicides

that have happened over the years; someone sniffing around the wrong bush. (NPI)

[Steve2525]

33. that was certainly my impression too!

they were all standing on the fence, wanting to have it both ways

afraid of alienating the Dem base, but afraid of angering the Repub majority

Tough to walk on a fence though, it always comes back to haunt you.

[garybeck]

34. two-timing cowards

if they don't put their money where their mouth is, and real election reform, they are undeserving of our vote ever again.

If we are faced with the same voting machines and a slew of republican secretaries of states again in 2 and 4 years, can anyone give me one good reason to vote for any democrats?

I say if nothing changes, I'm going Green. At least they had the guts to try to do something and not just talk about it.

cowards.

[Sandpiper]

9. Cowardice

That's what the problem was in a word.

Barbara Boxer was the lone patriot of the bunch, the rest were a bunch of GOP appeasing Neville Chamberlains.

[Baclava]

12. Damage Control

They think no one will remember.

[shraby]

13. There must be a reason for it

they had to know people were watching. Their behavior about this needs a little deeper thinking.

Is it possible they did it because they had already accomplished their goal of debating the election reform, which to me looked like election reform was the purpose of challenging since that's about all any of them talked about.

[Baclava]

15. Only their vote will be recorded...

I doubt many of their constituents will even have see their speeches.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. I will remember too. If they had a united front, and the vote count

substantial, the media would have had no choice but to take it seriously. Instead, the media made it look as if it were a handful of disgruntled people.

God/Goddess bless Barbara Boxer for her incredible courage and integrity. The same to the valiant Representatives led by Ms. Tubb-Jones. They are true patriots.

The rest are worthless.

[MoonRiver]

48. THEY ARE WRONG.

If that was their motivation, it was a fatal miscalculation. No way will I vote for one of the scum who voted NAY.

[FreepFryer]

14. It's so blatantly obvious!!! One vote is all you need, and anything...

...less than a totality of Dems highlights the split.

It's the minimum exposure, maximum payoff move. Look at it!!!

With that one vote, for which she can be amply supported by nay-voting Democrats, we got the House and Senate to debate, and our reps to go on the Congressional Record. Conyers' report too.

Today we heard our representatives debate the issue of Election Protection, with a state's votes in the balance. Worth a goldmine.

<edited: last 2 pp>

[NuttyFluffers]

22. i'd love to believe you...

but feints, ripostes, side strikes and the rest are all useless against an enemy *who is not playing the same game.* republicans are playing go-for-broke bruiser rush, especially since they know they've whittled down any 'maneuverability space' the dems needed to play a dextrous and nuanced game.

we are cornered, there will be a bare-knucked brawl, period. if we continue to play with dreams of squirming away we will end up a red smear, a casualty, to railroading tactics. we already have been suffering from this since gingrich (at least!). they've been playing corner-trap well = isolation from base by making democratic nuance seem like cowardice. they succeeded, we are cornered, nuance game is *over*. sometimes the only option is to play counterpunch as well, but throw in the sharp hard edge of truth along with full commitment to emphasize your point -- oh, and aim for the vitals.

if you can escape after one or two few good solid attacks like that then maybe, just maybe, you can start up the 'dextrous dancer' fight-style.

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. One part of me

was pretty disappointed yesterday, but on further reflection, it seems to me that the thin end of the wedge has been successfully inserted, the very thing the neocons were terrified of: an opening of the public's eyes world-wide to just some of the major truths about the scale and viciousness of the fraud, countrywide. And I strongly suspect that the wedge is going to be gradually hammered in further and further, until it's as widely-known, across the planet, as the JFK assassination conspiracy.

However, I think this will gain major traction in the US, the more so the more references are made to it in the foreign media; and the more the lawyers working away in the background build their cases. We shall see. The softly, softly approach goes right against my temperament, but when I think of all the Dem firebrands who have pulled their horns in, I have to believe that they're far too intelligent *not* to know what they're doing, and in the case of John Kerry, well, he's *proved* his great courage in many ways already. I'm dying to hear more from the likes of Arnebeck, though.

[flordehinojos]

18. i agree with you. everyone of our senators should have voted YES

to overturn the election... they wouldn't have had enough votes to do it, anyhow...but it would have sent bush to his coronation with a black and blue eye and a black and blue ass!

[roenyc]

20. perhaps a deal with the other side

As of the 5th there were as many as 5 senators on board. in fact to the press on the 6th after congress finished their hearing Conyers said he had 5 senators.

he didnt know that he was being stabbed in the back at that moment apparently. or perhaps he was saying that 5 were standing to speak.

there must have been some kind of little pow wow in the Senate the night before about filibusters or who knows what, and they made a deal.

fools if you ask me. cause if they stood together they would have took legitimacy away from this unelected president and had the upper hand in the Senate anyway.

a deal had to be made and its obvious we the people are too stupid to know whats best for the country so our letter writing campaign was just well not ignored but kind of.

and i am not sure how much we will get done in a republican controlled congress concerning election reform. perhaps just refuse to vote in 2006. dont know. we have much to think about.

[regweb]

21. I'm a glass half full kind of guy

And I think what happened yesterday was historic! Let's face it, we just didn't have "the goods" sufficiently to "overturn" the election -- and no thanks to Kerry, by the way.

Despite this, a lot of our guys spoke up about the issue and did get some press.

Remember that Nixon was reelected by an electoral college landslide. It wasn't until after the reelection that we got the goods on him.

We need to continue to support efforts to get hard evidence -- in the form of the testimony of those who actually fixed the machines, etc. Then use this evidence to impeach the bastard.

The war is far from over. It's just a change in the battlefield

[Casablanca]

42. Try looking at the whole glass.

Anything else is denial.

People like me who expected many more to stand up with Boxer didn't expect the outcome to change either. That wasn't the point. The fact is that one Senator can be rationalized away as a fringe lunatic activist a lot easier than many Dem Senators and House members standing in unison. The Dems who didn't stand with Boxer made it easy for the corporate MSM and the Repug blowhard machine to do exactly that.

Now the entire country and world knows that there is no coordinated opposition party among the Democrats, and they can easily be intimidated into silence. They don't have to assume it anymore - they KNOW it. Because the Democrats proved it yesterday.

[chapel hill dem]

23. I want to know why Mel Watt (D-NC) and Dave Price (D-NC) voted "NO"

House. And Mel Watt spoke of the floor yesterday and is supposed to head up the Congressional Black Caucus this term...

[GuvWurld]

24. You gotta understand false alternatives and simulated competition

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/false-alternatives-and-simulated.html

[Lauri]

25. They agreed with the need for election reform but

not with overturning the official results.


We need to make election reform the #1 issue before Congress. Most of them spoke of it. It needs to come first in Congress - before social security "reform", before tax "reform" and all of * supposedly mandates.


We need to make sure that Congress understand Election Reform is the #1 mandate.

[nmoliver]

27. would have been pointless? NO

If EVERY Democrat had voted to reject Ohio electors, Bush would not have been inaugurated on Jan 20. Many Republicans were absent from the proceeding.

If EVERY Democrat had voted to reject not only Ohio but also NM, FL and NV, Kerry would have had a majority of electoral votes cast.

It is cowardice that is defeating us, every time.

[roenyc]

30. But he would have been appointed by the congress

without Ohio being certified -

[Casablanca]

43. This is about the voter, not Kerry or Bush. nt

[katinmn]

28. They are afraid of the bullies

and afraid of losing their perks

[mattclearing]

29. They tried to isolate the political fallout to Boxer.

All they needed was one, and that's all they gave.

[FreepFryer]

31. Exactly right. And some very prominent Senators made strident calls for

supporting Boxer. Politically successful, given a reasonable view of the goal (making the case in a minority Congress for the current failure of Election Reform initiatives)

[Casablanca]

44. No, politically stupid. They just provided another example ...

... of two-faced politics, and gave yet another reason for people to be cynical about the whole game.

If the case for election hacking was substantial enough to support rhetorically, it was substantial enough to support with their vote. If they didn't believe the evidence, the smart political move for them would have been to not say anything.

[FreepFryer]

54. The GOP MUST address fair, competitive elections - then we WILL WIN THEM.

This was not about a show of party (reframe:partisan) unity... which could provide the GOP a means to further erode our base. This was about capturing the frame.

If they are forced to play fair, we will win on the issues. Don't you see without free, fair elections we have no hope of redress?

[garybeck]

32. kick

[SueZhope]

35. yes Gary i agree...it was bullcrap

It just seemed to be a way of "having there cake and eating it to"
Kind of a half ass way of making a point.( without being to radical)
They were able to give a little voting reform speech.
yet they did not stand against the KING and the obvious fraud.
FEAR of prosecution from the right , since they dont have the power.

Its like the way Kerry has been showing up
with little mystery messages for us
but not actually showing up 100% to fight.

[garybeck]

36. nothing but lip service

we should not fall for it. unless they push election reform BIG TIME and SOON, we should abandon the hypocrites and flock to the Green Party; at least they showed guts

[IndyOp]

37. Is the vote for the Senate posted? Were the 26 who abstained Dems? (n/t)

[garybeck]

38. here's the senate vote

YEAS (1)
REPUBLICANS (0)
DEMOCRATS (1)
Boxer (CA)
INDEPENDENTS (0)

NAYS (74)
REPUBLICANS (38)
Alexander, L. (TN) DeMint (SC) Roberts (KS)
Allard (CO) DeWine (OH) Santorum (PA)
Bennett (UT) Dole (NC) Sessions, J. (AL)
Bond (MO) Domenici (NM) Smith, G. (OR)
Brownback (KS) Enzi (WY) Snowe (ME)
Burr (NC) Graham, L. (SC) Specter (PA)
Chambliss (GA) Grassley (IA) Stevens (AK)
Coburn (OK) Gregg (NH) Sununu (NH)
Cochran (MS) Hagel (NE) Talent (MO)
Coleman (MN) Hatch (UT) Thune (SD)
Collins, S. (ME) Isakson (GA) Voinovich (OH)
Cornyn (TX) Lott (MS) Warner (VA)
Crapo (ID) McConnell (KY)
DEMOCRATS (35)
Baucus, M. (MT) Harkin (IA) Nelson, Bill (FL)
Biden (DE) Inouye (HI) Obama (IL)
Byrd (WV) Johnson, Tim (SD) Pryor (AR)
Cantwell (WA) Kennedy, E. (MA) Reed, J. (RI)
Carper (DE) Kohl (WI) Reid, H. (NV)
Clinton (NY) Lautenberg (NJ) Rockefeller (WV)
Conrad (ND) Leahy (VT) Salazar (CO)
Dayton (MN) Levin, C. (MI) Sarbanes (MD)
Dodd (CT) Lieberman (CT) Schumer (NY)
Dorgan (ND) Lincoln (AR) Stabenow (MI)
Durbin (IL) Mikulski (MD) Wyden (OR)
Feingold (WI) Nelson, Ben (NE)
INDEPENDENTS (1)
Jeffords (VT)

NOT VOTING (25)
REPUBLICANS (17)
Allen, G. (VA) ? Frist (TN) ? McCain (AZ) ?
Bunning (KY) ? Hutchison, K. (TX) ? Murkowski, L. (AK) ?
Burns, C. (MT) ? Inhofe (OK) ? Shelby (AL) ?
Chafee (RI) ? Kyl (AZ) ? Thomas, C. (WY) ?
Craig (ID) ? Lugar (IN) ? Vitter (LA) ?
Ensign (NV) ? Martinez (FL) ?
DEMOCRATS (8)
Akaka (HI) ? Corzine (NJ) ? Landrieu (LA) ?
Bayh (IN) ? Feinstein (CA) ? Murray (WA) ?
Bingaman (NM) ? Kerry, J. (MA) ?
INDEPENDENTS (0)

[Al-CIAda]

40. Chicken shit cowards afraid of the christo-fascists. eom

[sunnystarr]

41. Sounds like "I voted for it before I voted against it" ....

There's an old saying, Fight fire with fire. When are the Dems gonna realize that the only way to stand up against the Repukes is to play by their playbook?

If they lay down because of the filibuster removal threat then they should hang it up and get out of Washington.

The Boston Globe said this "Republicans said Democrats were using the wrong vehicle to discuss electoral overhauls, since so few Democrats were suggesting that the outcome of the vote in Ohio was wrong."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/07/democrats_challenge_ohio_electoral_vote_count?pg=2

The Repukes voted in one voice, without even one voting yay. The Dems should have at least stuck together and supported what was right for a change.

If they think for a minute the the Repukes will compromise anything for them they're living in lala land. The caustic comments made by the Repukes who spoke said it all.

And if they really had been smart they would have kept the whole thing underwraps and made sure that all Dems were there to vote. They would have outnumbered the Repukes there and won the vote.

That would have forced an investigation into Ohio and Blackwell and then democracy would have truly been served and election reform within reach.

[Not a Sheep]

45. I switched back and forth but didn't hear anyone say "fraud". /eom

[fooj]

46. i feel like this is one surreal, bad dream!

Problem is...don't know how to wake up!

[LibDemAlways]

47. Boxer is the only Dem Senator with a spine.

The rest were acting as though the whole exercise was a pain in the ass and something they needed to do because a bunch of angry constituents had called their offices and they might lose a few votes next time around. They clearly don't seem much concerned that because of vote fraud and voter suppression the American people are about to be subjected to 4 more years of BFEE horrors, and that next time around their cushy job might be lost thanks to votes disappearing into a black box hole.

[Cheswick2.0]

49. gutless assholes

and some simply do not understand how bad things have gotten.

[texpatriot2004]

50. I wondered the same thing Garybeck, it doesn't make sense

I was so disgusted with that. If you know there were problems, why would you vote to certify?

[RaulVB]

52. CYA!

They have "plans" for their "political careers..."

They will run for something and, then, will need your money...errr, "you" to "help them out"...

[FreepFryer]

53. If the Dems had been unanimous, THAT would have been akin to

claiming that Kerry had actually won. Which would have blown our entire frame, and played right into all those attacks we heard the GOP'ers barf yesterday.

Moreover, it would have been all the justification the GOP needed to protest every election from now on (which may yet happen). One Senator's vote makes that a more obvious overreaction.

Either folks are really disappointed - which I can understand - and it'll take time to recapture their optimism, or these threads are an effort not merely to express frustration but to fracture the Democratic party at it's highest point of political momentum since Bush was selected in 2001.

[mzmolly]

56. Because voting Nay would have voted to overturn the election results in

Ohio, thus the election.

Democrats including Conyers stated that was not what we desired, we desired debate and dialogue. We got it, yesterday was the beginning.

Politics is full of shades of gray, it's a matter of seeing the light peer through the clouds at times like this.