But the Dems COULD HAVE presented a unified front

[cyberpj]

I agree with Randi Rhodes --- if they were willing to stand and speak, they should have been willing to vote to challenge. They chose to stand behind Bush winning and refuse to believe there was legitimate fraud. They made objectors appear to be the crazy fringe liberals again and left them there, alone.

I AM SO VERY PROUD OF THE CBC and will be writing each and every one by hand.

I think the others just tried to have it both ways. (As usual.)

[cyberpj]

1. kick

:kick:

[booksenkatz]

2. Exactly!

Bush still would have won with 266 EV's even if Ohio had been thrown out completely, so voting YES would have been a beautiful symbol without any 'scary' risk of actually overturning/challenging anything (too much for the spineless). So what's behind the fear of voting YES???

What am I wrong about here?

[glitch]

4. I don't know. I think it too, so I don't get the rationales about targets

as if Dems weren't already targets. And even it that were true, letting Barbara Boxer stand alone and take all the fire is JUST SHAMEFUL.

[cyberpj]

9. absofreakinlutely

And callers to CSPAN are noting that no Dems voted to contest.

[tx_dem41]

5. Well, if you believe what many said on the floor today...

they didn't believe there was evidence of enough fraud to change the election, while they did cite problems with the present vote counting system in general.

Do you want them to vote against their beliefs?

[booksenkatz]

13. But...

if they believe in fraud to any degree, doesn't that invite at the very minimum an investigation? Doesn't it at the very minimum suggest that the Ohio vote cannot be trusted and should therefore be disqualified? They could vote YES and still not overturn anything. It would have shown solidarity without changing anything about who gets crowned at the inauguration.

I guess that's what I don't get about a NO vote.

[tx_dem41]

14. No...in fact most of them said...

that they didn't see evidence of massive fraud in Ohio that would overturn a 130,000 vote difference.

[booksenkatz]

19. But to my mind, the goal isn't to overturn the vote

The goal is to say: Ohio had alot of crap going on that invalidates whatever number they submitted. Not that Kerry won; but more like, WE DO NOT KNOW who won Ohio. In other words, the Ohio vote cannot be trusted, so it should be invalidated. Bush would still win w/266 EVs and then Ohio could be investigated like hell, as it should be. And then everyone wins. The Bushes get their presidency and we get our serious investigation, after which real changes could be implemented.

But this way, I fear we don't get a damned thing because we Dems, ourselves, downplayed it with our NO votes.

[cyberpj]

6. Nothing.

The Republicans are totally partisan and Democrats are just always afraid.

[Casablanca]

3. Right on Randi and cyberpj.

Although I don't agree with Randi that it's the end of democracy. Democracy ends when noone stands up.

[Walt Starr]

7. Um.......they did

I don't know what debate you were watching, but even Reid was talking up voter rights etc.

[cyberpj]

10. Um... they didn't... they SPOKE to unity - then voted against it.

[tx_dem41]

12. You still don't get what this was all about.

Read a lot of posts from DU during the last few days. This is about electoral reform.

[slay]

8. I agree. Democrats must stand united for a full investigation into electi

on of 2004.

[Goldeneye]

11. I just sighed again...

Can you give me a strategic reason the dems should have voted yea today? They would've become instantaneous sore losers and the issue of election reform would be dead. Just like having Kerry involved would kill any hope of election reform. If this becomes about Kerry, or Bush it becomes partisan and useless...nothing will come of it. Its not like the election was going to be overturned even if every dem stood up and voted yea.

Note:I believe there was fraud, I believe Kerry won, and I believe it will come out with time. Lets try to hold it together for a little longer.
Another Note: You should all be listening to C span still...there are tons and tons of democrats and republicans calling in saying they support election reform...this is only the begining.

[roenyc]

15. because like boxer said "it is the right thing to do"

[Goldeneye]

17. It definately was right for Boxer to challenge.

I'm absolutely glad she did it. But I just don't want this to turn into a partisan issue. I can easily understand wanting all the dem senators to sign. However, the ball is rolling now at least on election reform, without the signatures of the dem senators. I mentioned this in another thread and was jumped all over, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe unity would've been the best thing..but the republicans are already trying to make this a partisan issue, we have to fight that at all costs.

[derby378]

16. Last time we tried election reform, we got Diebold

Remember the Help America Vote Act? It was written especially for the Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia crowd.

[Goldeneye]

18. too true.

I didn't pay attention to politics when hava was being written and was passed, so I have no idea the kind of attention it got. I can only hope this time americans will pay more attention. I know I will.

[righteous1]

20. Classic illustration of talking the talk, but not walking the walk