The reason the Senate didn't back the CBC in the disenfranchised voter

[mzmolly]

scenario:

What I learned in a thread I started on this subject is that doing so would have been futile. If any Senator would have signed the measure, it would have sent it to the Republican controlled house to decide who our President should be. Further, the house would not have had to choose between Gore/Bush.

In my estimation, that would have further usurped the Democratic process.

I do wish Moore had examined *what would have happened in his film* None the less I loved the movie.

Keep it kicked. :kick:

[Dookus]

1. That is correct

there's no conceivable outcome in which Al Gore became President after the USSC ruled.

As gratifying as it might've been to see the fight continue, we had already lost, and Al Gore knew that.

[mzmolly]

2. Right, I think Moore failed here as he said he was trying to educate

uneducated, uninterested voters. He fell a bit short ... But, I loved the film anyhow. :hi:

[keithyboy]

34. Excercising your rights in a democracy is never futile.

We don't really know what the outcome might have been. We are assuming.
Michael did not fail. He showed what actually happened. It was not his purpose to "suppose" what might have happened. You folks allow the RW to stymie you all the time. This is a cop out for the Dem Senators who had not guts.

[mzmolly]

3. WAKE UP CALL TO VOTE IN LOCAL SENATE/HOUSE RACES!

Had their been a D controlled house, you can bet Senators would have signed onto the measure.

THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION WHO DONT VOTE, HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO.

I had no idea just how important the Senate/House races were before election 2000.

[T Bone]

4. which would have been the way the constitution says it is to be decided

when there is a dispute. The congress should have followed the law as delineated in the constitution. The constitution says the House is to be the final arbiter in a disputed election like this. What makes you so sure a few republicans wouldn't have voted for Gore if there was massive pressure from their constituents? Also per the constitution each DELEGATION caucauses and casts ONE vote based on that caucus.

So for instance Ohio would cast one vote for president based on the caucus of ALL it's Representatives.

[Dookus]

7. agreed entirely

the USSC had no role in this. But they took one, and when it was decided, the game was over.

Also, remember that the current situation keeps intact Bush's illegitimacy. Had the House voted him in, it would've been entirely constitutional and legitimate.

[mzmolly]

12. Good point.

:hi:

"Also, remember that the current situation keeps intact Bush's illegitimacy. Had the House voted him in, it would've been entirely constitutional and legitimate."

[mzmolly]

8. Actually, the constitution says the measure needs a signature from

the Senate.

Also, what makes you so sure they wouldn't have chosen Rush Limbaugh? I think I know Repugs well enough to assume who they would have chosen, don't you?

[1monster]

13. What makes me think that the House would have thrown the election to

GWB if they had been the ones to decide the election? Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with the vote to impeach Clinton in 1998.

Or perhaps the fact that the Florida Legislature came right out and told us that even if Gore won the recount (which, by the way, was never completed), that they would not certify him and would send a slate of GWB Electors to the Electoral College.

Or the GOP House Leadership strong arming the Republican Congressman who planned on voting against the Medicare legislation?

Just three among the many, many examples of the Republicans fairness doctrine: "Vote our way or we'll go our own way anyway. Who cares what you think?

[mzmolly]

17. Exactly. It's no great mystery what would have happened.

:(

[JI7]

5. this is also why calls to impeach bush are a waste of time

the republican controlled congress would not impeach him for anything. the same assholes who impeached clinton and tried to remove him for having consensual sex don't give a shit about all of bush's lies and cover up on issues such as terrorist attacks and war.

[Tellurian]

15. I agree. But Impeachment is the remedy for a "duly" elected prez..

Bush was never duly elected and therefore is subject to the "powers" that sent him there. He should be treated like you would a deposed CEO. Shouldn't it be the Supreme Court that at the behest of millions of the electorates signatures, remove Bush for failing to uphold the Constitution?

just asking...

[Alex146]

6. So what?

So what?

No one in the senate had the balls to back these people up? No one? Not one senator? I expect that as the very least my elected officals could do for me. Not one Senator said 'This may be futile but it is right and it needs to be done.' Not one said that?

[jpgray]

10. Al Gore had no interest in backing it up

And if you mean to tell me the DLC can get Al Gore to shut up whenever it wants, explain his work this past year, both his great speech and his endorsement of Dean, who wasn't exactly the DLC poster boy.

[Dookus]

11. but

it's not a case of 100 individual instances of cowardice. The fight was over, Gore asked them not to contest, and perhaps for very good reasons. There were other political considerations, and in the absence of ANY hope for a different outcome, they all (at Al Gore's request) decided to move on to the next battle.

Satisfying out need to feel indignant was not their only concern.

[The Magistrate]

19. Still, Sir

It might have had a salutory effect to make them play out the string. More ought to have been done at the start of this criminal regime to establish its basic illegitimacy in the popular mind. Forcing the thing to have gone through the whole Constitutional rigamrole would have presented opportunities for further agitations, aimed at pressing into the people's minds the fact that this jackanapes did not get the most votes, and if nothing else, would have laid a good ground for efforts to reform or abolish the Electoral College. This latter is going to have to be managed, sooner or later: otherwise our politics will continue to be dictated to by rural mores and interests, hostile in the extreme both to modernity and the interests if the metropolitan areas where the great majority of the people dwell.

"Sometimes it pays better to fight and be beaten than not to fight at all."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dookus]

23. Hello Magistrate!

Haven't seen you much lately - hope all's well.

I'm not defending Gore's decision. I can see both sides of the issue, and I haven't come down firmly on one side or the other.

I AM, however, defending the Senate Democrats from charges of cowardice.

[The Magistrate]

29. Thank You. My Friend

Have been mostly sitting my old blinds down in the Israel v. Palestine forum lately.

You are quite correct that cowardice had nothing to do with the matter. That is a cheap charge mostly flung to gratify the sentiments of the one who utters it. It was an understandable, but nonetheless poor, calculation of strategy. Those who made it thought they would gain more by a display of manly sportsmanship and responsibility, which is often the case. They under-rated the fanaticism and criminality of their opponents, unfortunately....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[mzmolly]

28. Post 21 sheds a bit of light.

:shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

9. At least it would have raised awareness that Bush won by cheating,

At least it would have raised awareness that Bush won by cheating, preventing legal voters in Florida from voting.

[mzmolly]

14. Actually at this point, the press was calling us *whiners*

and they would have continued to do so.

Dookus makes an interesting point:

Also, remember that the current situation keeps intact Bush's illegitimacy. Had the House voted him in, it would've been entirely constitutional and legitimate.

[1monster]

18. No it wouldn't. Have you forgotten already the cries of "SORE LOSERMAN?

They just would have jeered all the more, discrediting Gore and us with every breath, and still had the votes in Congress to put Bush in the Presidency.

People were sick and angry about what had happened, but they wanted it over.

[Eric J in MN]

25. Most Americans to this day don't know abou legal voters in Florida

Most Americans to this day don't know abou legal voters in Florida being told they couldn't vote because they're suspected felons.

If people understood the whole story, it would have changed their attitude.

[tom_paine]

16. Still, I would have rather had the tranfer of power Constitutionally

It would have made me feel like at least the letter of the Constitution had been followed.

But that is fantasy, if the Imperial Family and their Stooges respected and venerated the Constitution, would they have worked so diligently for 20+ years to parasitize and weaken it?

[mzmolly]

20. I can't say I don't have mixed feelings myself. Part of me wishes

we would have fought to the bitter end, regardless. But, I am certain that the end result would have been the same. It was over when the Supreme Court decided our votes dont count.

[tom_paine]

24. it's the UNCONSTITIONALITY of the Judicial Arm of the Coup's "Ruling"

I can't bring myself to call it either supreme nor a court, because it's neither.

Hell, if the Consttituion had said the Judicial Arm of the Coup is the Final Arbiter of pResidential "elections", then I would have no problem, even GIVEN the massive fraud and crruption evident in the biased decision made by Conflict "Judges".

[mzmolly]

26. LOL. Indeed. I should correct myself!

When the Judicial Arm of the Coup ruled that our votes as Americans don't count-it was over. ;)

[Orangepeel]

21. IIRC, there was a deal in place

If Senators had contested, the matter would have gone to the House (the same house that impeached Bill Clinton) and bush/cheney would be voted in. Afterward, the Senate, which was "tied" 50 - 50, would have had a republican president (cheney).

The Senate struck a deal for the Democrats to have equal representation on committees, rather than the republican majority that would have been called for with a republican majority in the Senate. I believe that contesting was what the Democrats gave up in order to make this deal happen.

Was it worth it? Well, not after 911. BUT, remember the first part of Moore's movie, where everything was going bad for bush before 911? Where he couldn't get anything done? That was largely because the Dems had equal representation in Senate committees (IIRC, even before Jeffords switched).

If I am correct and the this was the deal, then it wasn't a bad one for us given that there was no way that Gore would have been picked in the house anyway (or it wouldn't have been a bad one had 911 not occurred).

[mzmolly]

22. I had forgotten about that aspect.

Thanks.

[JI7]

27. it wasn't equal representation, the republicans still controlled which is

why jeffords switched.

[mzmolly]

30. Color *me* confused.

:crazy:

[Orangepeel]

31. Jeffords' swtich gave us a majority, but I believe membership was equal

before that.

Article after Jeffords switch, alluding to the deal:

http://www.ausa.org/www/legislation.nsf/0/dee4bb501bb7e61b85256a5c0048d33c?OpenDocument&AutoFramed

Republicans who currently chair committees and subcommittees will be forced to relinquish their gavels and move to the seat of the ranking minority member. Early in this session of the 107th Congress, Lott and Daschle worked out an agreement evenly dividing committee memberships based on the 50-50 Senate split. Although the Democrats will retain 50 seats after the Vermont Senator leaves the Republicans, they will be in the majority. The Lott/Daschle agreement stated that the even division of committee seats would remain in effect until one party "attains a majority of the whole number of senators."

Article before the new Senate took office in 2000:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/07/senate.power/

According to one aide to Daschle, the Democratic leader tried to impress on Lott the unity of the Democratic caucus in wanting equal staff, equal votes in committee and input on setting the Senate's legislative agenda. Lott was reportedly positive about wanting to work something out.

edited for clarity

[JI7]

32. yeah, i was referring to majority leadership which controls the agenda

even more important than just committees since they actually control what the agenda will be for the senate and are responsible for when votes actually come up. and republicans were being assholes which is one of the reasons jeffords switched giving the power to daschle to set the agenda.

but lott was a lot better than bill frist. of course lott got a lot of pork for his state in return for willing to work with democrats including clinton throughout his years as republican leader in senate.

[Orangepeel]

33. Yes, holding the majority leader position is more important

but committee membership is also very important since committees decide what gets voted on (e.g., judges). For example, if Russ Feingold had voted with the party in committee, Ashcroft wouldn't even have gotten a vote as AG.

My original point was that having equal committee representation was, IMO, an important part of the reason that bush's agenda was largely floundering prior to 911. I don't have proof of this, but I believe that no Senators contesting the election was part of the deal to make this happen.

If I'm right, then Daschle was either smart or lucky to get that, since the outcome of the presidency would have been the same in the end.

[mzmolly]

35. kick

:kick: