Click on the heading to link to the story -
Are the democrats REALLY going to come off as spoiled losers? Wouldn't surprise me, if you saw the mockumentary made by Michael M. (I refuse to either give the name of the loser or his loser film), there was a part in it which showed a bunch of democrats from the House of Representatives after the 2000 election whining about Bush's election (for the record, I never saw the film but did see clips from it and that was one of them). A procedural issue allows representatives in congress, after an election, to protest/dispute the results of the electorial college voting. It takes a few from the house of representatives and at least one senator to actually move towards looking into it.
In 2000 all they could do was find the whining representatives, no senator stepped forward. This time it might (please note the word might) be different. It seems that Senator Barbara Boxer, that liberal whacko from California has indicated that she might back the whine by some of the representatives. If she does, it will put into play a procedural motion which will require both bodies of the congress to adjourn and take up the matter. There can be up to two hours of debate regarding the voting, blah, blah, blah. In the end, it will mean NOTHING.
Is Boxer so stupid as to attach her name to this motion? Hey, she's from California so anything is possible. They even asked their new shinning light, Barack Obama, and even he refused. So, will the democrats make a scene? Time will tell, it wouldn't surprise me and I can tell you that if they do, it will appease the moonbats in that party but it will further scare the typical John Q. Public even further away from the democratic party. Works for me, I'd love to see them with no power. We'll see, keep it coming democrats, dig the grave ever deeper.
More Later
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Sure and we should just ignore the very real evidence that the voting system in Ohio was flawed.
But let me see in Washington State the Republicans want a new election.
Michael Moore Michael Moore Michael Moore.
Here's the thing - There ARE REAL concerns about the Wash State election, and don't forget that the results in Ohio never changed substantially.
/TJ
NIFPS - seriously - read the link, Sound Politics has done an AWESOME job of documenting the level of shenanigans that have occured in Wash State.
Cranky, it's folks like you and Michael M. that continue to give the dems a bad name, and I'm glad. As of this comment it sure looks like Boxer is going for it, nothing like dragging the democrat party name through the mud then adding tar and feathers.
Let me see if I have this right. In 2000, when all of the hub-bub started, not even Kerry or Edwards (two TRIAL LAWYERS) would step up to support Gore. Now, in 04, dems slash Republicans' tires, try to RUN DOWN a Rep woman in Florida, LIE ABOUT THE DRAFT, LIE ABOUT 9/11, and SHOOT AT GOP OFFICES! Sure, the GOP is the only bad guy here, because we ALL know that the dems had to have been REALLY wronged somewhere to BLATANTLY HARASS, AND ASSAULT Republicans like that, so the fact that they BROKE THE LAW means we should give them power? In the words of Wayne Campbell "Sheah, right, and mokees might fly outta my but!"
Bush won in 2000 - GORE LOST it was NOT stolen
Bush won in 2004 - KERRY LOST and has CONCEDED to Bush
IT'S OVER AND BUSH IS THERE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS, and we have a clear GOP majority in the House and Senate to boot!
The Dems concede that the Ohio debate will not change the election results. Why are Republicans so resistant to this discourse? As is often the case, the resistance to an inquiry smells worse than the alleged offenses. Like it or not, winning an election does not justify Soviet style patriotism, in which blind obeisance is substituted for democratic ideals including debate.
Michael, you always make good points keep it up.
I am ashamed of California or being from California sometimes with Senator representitives like Boxer and Feinstein. I really wish McClintock would have ran for senate last election to knock Boxer out. I see Boxer's points, not enough voting outlets, lines, etc. but when in the last 50 years has voting been so popular? How could you keep up the demand? There is so much corruption in other Democracies like in the Ukraine, and if we have a system where a few people can't vote because it's too popular, then I am ok with it. To keep counting Ohio votes to make up 120,000 or so vote gap, you would have to of had at least 250,000 voters that got shafted and all of them would had to have voted for Kerry. It's a statistical improbability. I am sorry that there are some communities that couldn't get their vote heard and that needs to change, but sheesh, to stop an inaugeration...?
Man of Ages -
I guess the bottom line is this - WHY???? It was a HUGE waste of time. Were there problems in Ohio, yes, but there were problems almost everywhere. This was the most votes cast in many, many an election. Good for more folks wanting to participate, but why this stupid (as you put it) discourse? Did it change anything? No. Did hope to change anything? No. Problems in Ohio and in other states were state problems, not one party or the other trying to steal the election. It was a futile, wasted amount of effort, energy and time - it was completely needless and looked to many (including me) like the actions of a sore loser; and no one likes a sore loser.
I find it unlikely that people are so worked up about Congress merely "wasting time" over the challenge to Ohio's electoral votes. This is what Congress is supposed to do- represent the people, including insuring as honest a democracy as possible. If we want to talk about wasting time in Congress we could come up with many frivolous issues that have not captured the ire of Republicans. Some people just do not like a challenge to a result they like.
Will it change anything? I do not know. Did Americans hope it would change anything? Yes: I believe that most Americans would like to see an end to eight-hour lines at polling places and electronic voting with no paper record. In respect to the latter practice, the only sane people who would trust this practice are the utterly naive or those that have control it.
If the ability to question and challenge practices in America did not exist, then our country would be no different than Putin's Russia. And speaking of Putin, even he took a jab at the election problems in Ohio. As an old KGB boss, he is expert in identifying the potential for governmental abuse and he's getting a good laugh over a voting process with no paper trail.
Man of Ages -
First, allow me to compliment you. We obviously disagree on certain issues, but you are civil in your discourse. You are measured and thoughtful, my experience with the majority of folks from the left, all those traits are missing; so I really appreciate you (although we still disagree on issues).
All the issues that mentioned are state issues. As I pointed out, have you voted before? I'm assuming that you have, did you ever encounter a turnout like this year? So was that illegal? Was it a 'sinister' plot by the republicans to steal the election? No, hopefully future elections will have similar turnouts and the states can plan accordingly.
Were electronic balloting machines mandated by all states? By the federal government or the white house for the nation? No, the machines were brought in by the board/committee in charge of voting in each individual state - some went with that method, some didn't. Every objection that you pointed at DO need work, but until the first election is run you never know what works and what doesn't. Plus, as I said before, all those problems are state level issues - NOT a federal issue. Heck, Kerry had armies of lawyers in various states and even he (after consulting with the lawyers) didn't contest it.
I just thought it was a bad move by the democrats at the wrong time.
Thanks for dropping by.
Post a Comment