http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/electoral_vote
Well, I didn't think it would happen, but a senator actually stood up to back the protest. Barbara Boxer has some serious balls.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Those Crazy California Dems
Those Crazy California DemsFollow
Before all the pubies get up on their high horses and start proclaiming to one and all what sore losers the dems are:
Quote:
Hoping to avoid accusations of trying to upset the election, supporters of the challenge repeatedly said they had no such desire. Many even said they would vote against their own motion and in favor of validating the disputed Ohio tally to avoid clouding the real issue — the need to make the country's voting systems fairer and more accurate.
And serious facial hair, too.
What's your point?
This is a wasted effort, and it will drive more voters from the Democratic party. At least some of the cooler heads understand this.
What's your point?
Quote:
Democratic leaders distanced themselves from the effort, which many in the party worried would make them look like sore losers. Bush won Ohio by 118,000 votes and carried the national contest by 3.3 million votes, and Kerry himself — meeting with troops in the Middle East — did not support the challenge.
This is a wasted effort, and it will drive more voters from the Democratic party. At least some of the cooler heads understand this.
Quote:
What's your point?
My point is that this is high profile and in the spotlight, and as the lone senator this can be viewed as political suicide.
As you pointed out, the leaders distanced themselves, I'm guessing for that exact reason. However, as git quoted, I think that's reason enough for a senator from either side to stand up and take a look.
I don't think there was actual voter fraud/hacking in Ohio, but there are several voting anomalies that should at least be accounted for.
Edited, Thu Jan 6 17:13:02 2005 by BoondockSaint
This was a legitimate issue in Jan 2001, when there was some credible evidence of vote fraud.
Seems really trite and pointless now.
EDit due to Brainfart
Edited, Thu Jan 6 17:08:22 2005 by RedjedBlue
Edited, Thu Jan 6 17:08:54 2005 by RedjedBlue
Seems really trite and pointless now.
EDit due to Brainfart
Edited, Thu Jan 6 17:08:22 2005 by RedjedBlue
Edited, Thu Jan 6 17:08:54 2005 by RedjedBlue
It's political. There were probably a half dozen 'lone senators' lined up if necessary. It makes more of a statement to have a lone senator than to have three or five.
Theatrics. Thbbt.
While I'd love to see this country go to a popular vote system of elections, I just don't think this action is moving us toward it.
Theatrics. Thbbt.
While I'd love to see this country go to a popular vote system of elections, I just don't think this action is moving us toward it.
All it was was forcing a debate on the allegations of fraud to help call attention to it. I think many people would agree that the voting system could use some overhauling and consistancy from state to state. It wasn't going to overturn the election, it wasn't going to get rid of Bush... it was simply calling attention to an issue.
Anyone who'd leave a political party over that isn't one of the "cooler heads"
Anyone who'd leave a political party over that isn't one of the "cooler heads"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Another example of style over substance.
Democrats, as it is with most 'controversial' issues don't really want a solution. They want the issue so they can demagogue it and play one group of people against another. And they're damn good at it. If the issue were actually solved, they couldn't use it in future elections.
In this case, if they really were interested in fair elections, they'd suppost a total re-vote in the Washington Governor's race (they supported recounts until their candidate won and then became totally against any further recounts) and, in terms of the Presidential election, they'd support recounts in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Jersey, among others, in which Kerry's victory over Bush was by a much, much smaller margin than Bush's victory over Kerry in Ohio.
Democrats, as it is with most 'controversial' issues don't really want a solution. They want the issue so they can demagogue it and play one group of people against another. And they're damn good at it. If the issue were actually solved, they couldn't use it in future elections.
In this case, if they really were interested in fair elections, they'd suppost a total re-vote in the Washington Governor's race (they supported recounts until their candidate won and then became totally against any further recounts) and, in terms of the Presidential election, they'd support recounts in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Jersey, among others, in which Kerry's victory over Bush was by a much, much smaller margin than Bush's victory over Kerry in Ohio.
RedjedBlue the Shady wrote:
This was a legitimate issue in Jan 2000, when there was some credible evidence of vote fraud.
Seems really trite and pointless now.
Seems really trite and pointless now.
Agreed. 2001 was the time to enact serious national election reform. If the idiots in Congress didn't do it then, I doubt they ever will.
As for Boxer, her position in this case may be for a good reason, but why not simply write a freaking bill on the issue and go about reform in the typical way? Or go on talk shows to highlight the issue? Seems an obstructionist and petty way to force the issue.
Meh, she voted for the War Powers Resolution so she along with every other who did is already a gutless moron IMO. I don't consider anyone who gave GW a free ticket to war as one with "balls".
Quote:
Seems an obstructionist and petty way to force the issue.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
It's much ado about nothing. I heard her speech and was unmoved. If people get "discouraged" from voting then perhaps everyone should just be "discouraged" from owrking or paying taxes or policing, or driving ambulances. Seriously, there is one reform and one only that seems relevant in this modern age..
Make Voting Day a holiday. If we can get a day off for unwrapping gifts or eating chocalate out of baskets, then we can get one off every four years to effin vote.. That way, noone has a goddamn excuse not to.
Make Voting Day a holiday. If we can get a day off for unwrapping gifts or eating chocalate out of baskets, then we can get one off every four years to effin vote.. That way, noone has a goddamn excuse not to.
It's much ado about nothing. I heard her speech and was unmoved. If people get "discouraged" from voting then perhaps everyone should just be "discouraged" from owrking or paying taxes or policing, or driving ambulances. Seriously, there is one reform and one only that seems relevant in this modern age..
Make Voting Day a holiday. If we can get a day off for unwrapping gifts or eating chocalate out of baskets, then we can get one off every four years to effin vote.. That way, noone has a goddamn excuse not to.
Make Voting Day a holiday. If we can get a day off for unwrapping gifts or eating chocalate out of baskets, then we can get one off every four years to effin vote.. That way, noone has a goddamn excuse not to.
Recent Visitors: 191
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (191)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Those Crazy California Dems
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC