Democrats are quick to say: investigating Ohio won't change outcome

[ProfessorPlum]

But if you put Ohio's 20 electoral votes into Kerry's column, then Bush loses.

I understand this is only for propaganda purposes, so that the reich wing doesn't think the Dems are getting uppity, but who is fooling who here? An investigation into Ohio could certainly mean changing the outcome.

Or aren't we even interested in that?

[emulatorloo]

1. too late to change the outcome, not too late for indictments, though EOM

[Goldeneye]

2. oh we're interested

but we won't get investigations if its considered partisan by the pubs...so we say bush is the winner, we investigate, we prove kerry won....then i don't know what happens...

[princehal]

3. Then

We Impeach The Bastard.

[naryaquid]

5. That sounds good...if it can be traced directly TO him, LOL

[naryaquid]

4. ..I feel the same...I found it frustrating to keep hearing that....and why

does it HAVE to be too late?

[Dhalgren]

6. Because all of the electors have been certified.

The Congress has voted that all of the electors are legitimate. That's it, end of story.

[naryaquid]

7. Right...that's why so many people were pissed that all the Dems

din't refuse....although that wouldn't have stopped it from going through, right?..Dems being in the minority?

[Dhalgren]

8. Right.

The Dem's should have voted with Boxer and Waters, Conyers, et al simply on principle. And also as a pragmatic display of support for the African American community who has been the main target of Republican voter suppression and, not coincidentally, one of the primary and most established bases of the democratic Party. What would the Repubs have done if Democrats had suppress the votes of the Christian Right? That's why the Dems who did not vote with Boxer, et al, not only betrayed their own Party, but acted in a short-sighted manner, as well.

[naryaquid]

9. You're right...They (in the main) show so little spine...