Congress Debate forced

[Yonivore]

you crack me up Yoni...

It's an affliction, I assure you.

[GoldToe]

After reading some of Yonivore's posts I think he's on crack.

[Yonivore]

After reading some of Yonivore's posts I think he's on crack.

Then we all should be...

[FromWayDowntown]

I certainly didn't suggest that there was an agenda to silence anyone -- only that there is a discounting of the significance of the concerns raised about the election.

Shouldn't concerns about the exercise of the franchise be among the most significant and most carefully-heeded that arise in this republic?

I'm sure there's some political motivation at play here -- all of politics is driven by some political motivation. But, I'd dispute that this is any ploy to diminish the Bush victory or suggest it to be improper -- had it been that, these issues would have been much more significantly raised before the electoral college met. There is no dispute in what I've read about the result of the election itself (though I understand that there are cynics among us). This is about the system -- after two hotly-contested elections in which there has been at least some controversy about the canvassing and counting of ballots, ensuring that votes are counted in some uniform matter would certainly seem to be a matter of Cons utional magnitude (you know, those guarantees of equal protection under the law and the commitment to protecting fundamental rights like the right to vote).

Nothing personal, Yonivore, but there's nothing libertarian about resisting debate on a federal level concerning that issue; it's purely anti-federalist. But, when you're dealing with the altogether federalist idea of a national election of an official, advancing anti-federalist ideas seems to wholly disregard what's at stake.

I can't see how the exchange of ideas about ways in which to improve the system by which we elect our President can be discounted as something that does not warrant any congressional attention.


. . . . and Dan, currently John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson are the senators from Texas -- I'm not passing on your credibility or a en, but I can assure you that others around here will use that as a badge to attack both, so I'd suggest you get it right.

[Yonivore]

I certainly didn't suggest that there was an agenda to silence anyone -- only that there is a discounting of the significance of the concerns raised about the election.

Shouldn't concerns about the exercise of the franchise be among the most significant and most carefully-heeded that arise in this republic?

I'm sure there's some political motivation at play here -- all of politics is driven by some political motivation. But, I'd dispute that this is any ploy to diminish the Bush victory or suggest it to be improper -- had it been that, these issues would have been much more significantly raised before the electoral college met. There is no dispute in what I've read about the result of the election itself (though I understand that there are cynics among us). This is about the system -- after two hotly-contested elections in which there has been at least some controversy about the canvassing and counting of ballots, ensuring that votes are counted in some uniform matter would certainly seem to be a matter of Cons utional magnitude (you know, those guarantees of equal protection under the law and the commitment to protecting fundamental rights like the right to vote).

Nothing personal, Yonivore, but there's nothing libertarian about resisting debate on a federal level concerning that issue; it's purely anti-federalist. But, when you're dealing with the altogether federalist idea of a national election of an official, advancing anti-federalist ideas seems to wholly disregard what's at stake.

I can't see how the exchange of ideas about ways in which to improve the system by which we elect our President can be discounted as something that does not warrant any congressional attention.


. . . . and Dan, currently John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson are the senators from Texas -- I'm not passing on your credibility or a en, but I can assure you that others around here will use that as a badge to attack both, so I'd suggest you get it right.

Except you forget the framers never intended for the President to be elected by popular national vote. In fact, they never envisioned ANY popular national vote for any office.

Yeah, I think this debate is ridiculous.

[Hook Dem]

By all means investigate!!!! And then shut the up!

[Guru of Nothing]

Why, it's three babies and a man! ... approximately

[Hook Dem]

Dems Fail in Ohio Electoral Vote Challenge
By Steve Roeder
Talon News
January 7, 2005

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- A joint session of Congress resumed proceedings Thursday evening and quickly ratified President George W. Bush's November election victory after Democrats failed in their attempt to overturn the 20 electoral votes from Ohio which were won by Bush. Certification was halted for the majority of the afternoon when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) stopped the formal declaration process.

Boxer said on the Senate floor that she and Jones wanted to "shed some light" on issues of reported voting irregularities in Ohio and nationwide election reform. Lawmakers were forced to retreat to their separate chambers for two hours of debate and a vote on the challenge.

Earlier in the day, Boxer and Jones acknowledged at a news conference that they did not expect to overturn the results.

It was only the second such challenge since Rutherford B. Hayes won in 1876. In 2001, more than two-dozen Democrats objected to the certification of Florida's disputed election won by President Bush. However, since no senator also objected then, as is required to cause a recess of the joint session of Congress, the objection was ignored. Boxer said she regrets that she didn't object to the certification four years ago.

Debate in the House on Thursday was lively. In contrast, the Senate debate included only the two Republicans from Ohio: Sen. Mike DeWine and Sen. George V. Voinovich. The Democrats filled the remaining time with reasons why the voting system needs improvement.

The House voted 267 to 31 against the challenge, and the Senate voted 74 to 1. Boxer, the lone dissenter, still felt it was worth the effort.

"I think this is the first time in my life I ever voted alone in the United States Senate, and I have to tell you, I think it was the right thing to do," Boxer said.

Most Democrats concluded Bush was the rightful winner and said the move cast a needed spotlight on voting rights. Republicans called it a waste of time.

"This is a travesty," said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who forced a formal roll call vote in the Senate to spotlight lawmakers' positions. "[Democrats] are still not over the 2000 election, let alone the 2004 election."

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) characterized the Democrats' move as a "quadrennial crying wolf."

The challenge divided Democrats. Party leaders and many rank-and-file distanced themselves. Black and liberal lawmakers embraced it. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who lost the election to Bush, said in a letter sent to supporters Wednesday he would not take part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors because, despite widespread reports of voting irregularities, his legal team had "found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."

Kerry said he planned to introduce election-reform legislation and request congressional hearings on the voting irregularities.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan also weighed in on the matter during his daily press briefing.

"I think the American people spoke very clearly on Election Day," McClellan said. "And the election is behind us. The American people now expect their leaders in Washington to focus on the big priorities facing this country, and to act on those priorities. It is time to move forward, and not engage in conspiracy theories or partisan politics of this nature."

Democratic officials in Ohio said that, while they desire improved election practices, they worry that the party was wasting time and money.

"There was a point where this served a purpose," said Susan Gwinn, chairwoman of the Athens County Democratic Party in Ohio. "But I think we passed that. We need to move on."

Likewise, Republicans from Ohio were not pleased by the Democrats' objection. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) called the procedural challenge an effort by "certain extreme elements of Sen. Kerry's own party" to mock an election that Kerry himself conceded. Challenges are "no more than another exercise in their party's primary goal to obstruct, to divide and destroy."

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) concurred. Charges made about Ohio's election are "wild, incoherent and completely unsubstantiated," he said. On the Senate floor, Dewine added that he found it "almost impossible to believe" that the Senate was debating the matter when the official results showed that Bush won his state with more 118,000 votes.

[Yonivore]

OH BROTHER!