"it was a mistake not to object four years ago."

[BurtWorm]

That says it all.

[Merlot]

1. When no one objected in 2000 I thought it was because

objecting was some large, drawn out proceedure with huge ramifications.

Imagine my suprise to find out an objection only causes a 2 hour delay in the process as congresspeople meet in what is an apparently optional discussion of whether or not the objection is groundless.

Wow, now I'm even more dissapointed in the 2000 performance!

But kudos to Boxer. Hopefully she can keep this issue on the front burner despite the ridicule of the repubs and msm. I'll be calling her office again to thank her and suggest that she keep up on election reform.

[progressiveandproud]

3. Thank you...

...for committing to following up and supporting Sen. Boxer. It means a lot to me that people are gonna do this.

[Merlot]

12. I've been a Boxer fan for years!

Shes' smart, liberal, and popular in CA. To me she's the voice of California. To bad we need her in the Senate, because she'd make a great Gov. Hey, forget Hillary, she's got my vote for prez.

I have both Boxer and DiFi on my speed dial, and call them often. They are both very responsive. Since DiFi is putting up the electorial college reform amendment, I am contacting them about requiring that a non-partisian entity to count the votes be included in this amendment.

[BurtWorm]

4. Exactly. Today's action was nowhere near as necessary as 2000's.

It was in 2000 that the Party completely failed us. It's a miracle any of us are still Democrats considering that, when you think about it.

No one (except thinking people) begrudges Republicans for wasting the colossal amounts of time and tax payer's money in the 1990s punishing a political opponent with investigations and finally with a totally pig-headed impeachment, not because they knew they would oust Clinton but just to get his name linked with the word "impeached" for all time. But the Democrats can't even get respect from the progressives who were screaming for this action yesterday, and who were beside themselves with excitement when they knew Boxer would stand with the CBC this time. This one lousy little 2-hour side track from the Bush coronation, which is vastly too much for the "mainstream" media and "centrist" Democrats (those fucking hypocrites!) is nowhere near enough for those of us who most wanted it.

What a mess we're in!

[NJCher]

8. yes

I,too, found it incredible that everyone of them said the same thing: that it's a disgrace--a disgrace, I tell you!--to even be discussing this. It undermines the voter's belief in the system.

Now seriously, how effed up is that? Because the system failed, talking about it is a disgrace. That is what Delay said.

As far as why Dems didn't do anything about it in 2000, maybe they are just plain incompetent.


Cher

[BurtWorm]

9. Incompetent and disorganized as usual.

The Republicans are always on the same page, or near it. Democrats can't seem to hear each other.

[fasttense]

2. You are absolutely correct

I was just thinking that before I logged in to DU.

It seemed the Democratic Party was afraid to do anything in 2000 for some reason.

And yesterday before the electoral votes, about twenty percent of DU was saying that horrible things would happen if we stood up to the Repugs. And looks what has happen? The Repugs spewed forth their nastiness, calling us names, trying to slander every person who stood up and it hasn't affected us one tiny little bit. The Repugs are more impotent than they let on.

[Hephaistos]

6. Wrong

The Repugs are more impotent than they let on.

They were in absolutely no danger whatsoever of anything bad happening to them yesterday. They swatted at us as they would at an annoying fly, not wanting to get distracted while plotting the complete destruction of the American Dream.

They didn't even bother to prepare arguments because yesterdays events were meaningless and of no consequence to their plans.

[flordehinojos]

5. didn't maxine waters, carrie meeks, and a few others, mostly black

americans in the house of representatives object to the vote in 2000 except that they had no SENATOR to stand with them? I think I recall many a representative from the house objecting to the vote.

[BurtWorm]

7. Of course!

But Boxer, whose quote is the title of this thread, meant specifically that she or another Senator should have objected to the Florida electors in 2000. Yesterday's objection was actually about 2000, regardless of the legitimacy of the objection to 2004's Ohio vote.

The Democrats need to get together on how to cure the 2000 disease. Too many in the party think we can bury it and "move on," but it's a disease in the American system that MUST be eradicated. Only the Democratic Party can do anything about it. Yesterday did not do it, that much is clear. Yesterday is like a Bandaid over a scar.

[NYC]

10. You are correct,

but not ONE senator.

[BurtWorm]

11. kick