BS: (Senator Barbara) Boxer saves Democracy

Subject: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 04:17 PM

Senator Barbara Boxer of California was the only Democratic Senator to stand up to the malpractice of Ohio voting along with the dissenting House Democrats. She is probably the only Democrat left with any backbone. The Republican Senators threw their usual brickbats (not that they are concerned with the right to vote in this country although they purport to care about elections in Iraq and the Ukraine). I think that all progressive women should be proud. None of the Senatorial men revealed such courage. It took a brave woman to stand up to the Old Boys Network. Bless Barbara Boxer!

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 04:28 PM

So are they going ahead with the debate on the floor now? What happens next?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: PoppaGator
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 04:30 PM

I heard on NPR this morning that Rep. John Conyers was expected to challenge the Electoral College (specifically, the Ohio electors) today.

Did he back out? Did Ms. Boxer take up the fight instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 05:33 PM

Go, Babs...

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 05:54 PM

it will be good to see this debated and thus put into the record....but we all know that it will not accomplish much.

I commend Senator Boxer for agreeing to make the airing of the situation possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:03 PM

Yeah, a great way to begin the new session on a bi-partisan basis. Barbara Boxer is simply looking for headlines. The effort will go nowhere.

Give it up guys, YOU LOST!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:06 PM

DougR, define "lost".

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:08 PM

Congressional rules require that at least one member of both the Senate and the House challange the vote of the electoral college for it to be brought to a floor vote. This from the Washington Post:

By law, a protest signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Lawmakers are allowed to speak for no more than five minutes each. The Senate session lasted just over an hour and ended when the chamber voted 74-1 to uphold Ohio's votes. Boxer was the lone vote.

Doesn't seem like there was much in the way of debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:10 PM

Lost means that you didn't win.

What other idiotic questions do you have?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:21 PM

Define "win".

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:21 PM

I sure would have loved to read comments by the local conservatives here if their guy had lost by small margins under dubious circumstances...ESPECIALLY if he had won the popular vote 4 years earlier, but was denied victory under VERY dubious circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:22 PM

Ah, you beat me to it Martin. I guess it depends on what the definition of "lost" is or maybe even what the definition of "is" is.

I will try to simplify for you Carol C: Bush got more votes than Kerry and Nader. Bush won, Kerry and Nader lost.

Get it now?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM

How do you know Bush got more votes than Kerry or Nader, DougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:40 PM

I applaud Sen. Boxer and Rep. Conyers for at least standing up and putting this question into the public record. Unfortunately, we'll have another four years of Bush Misadministration.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:47 PM

C'mon Carol C.

Can you go your whole life as a sore loser? A defiant renegade? An acceptor of nothing that mainstream America wants?

I would suggest you go to your neighborhood library, get a dictionary, and look up "win" and "lose"

Also, look up "fruitcake" and notice your picture next to the definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 07:16 PM

It is real curious that the Ohio vote totals were so far off from the exit polls??? Not that I loiked Kerry, 'cause I didn't but...

... I think Diebold has done what they promised to do all along: Deliver the White House to Bush...

I would think that since the Bushites are reduced to one single reason for invading Iraq, ahhhh.... democracy... that they would have some level of interest in at the very least having a paper trail to recount so that no big corporation can take over the election process...

But what do we hear from the Bushites? The usual crap...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM

You haven't answered the question, Martin. But I imagine DougR will answer it for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 07:36 PM

CarolC,

Answers ain't one of my pal, Martin's strong suits... And Dougie, bless his heart ain't got any either...

But, hey, ya' gotta admits. They're both loveable... Okay, maybe not loveable but likeable... Right?

But no answers...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 07:40 PM

Conyers' effort on behalf of the Black Caucus (and Barbara Boxer's support of that effort) was not about changing the outcome of the election, but about addressing the multiple reported problems inner-city and black voters had casting their ballots on Election Day.

I mean, if we're going to go around pushing democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan, would it not behoove us to try to implement it at home?

I just wish she'd had the balls to do this four years ago, when not a single senator would stand up to challenge the Florida fraud. We might still have a country worth living in...

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 08:37 PM

CarolC:

Did it ever occur to you (as it has to me) that Martin Gibson and DougR might be two names for the same person?

If not, it is proof that there is on God; He/she/it would never have made that mistake twice!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Franz S.
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 08:46 PM

I count my vote for Barbara Boxer in 1992 as one of my best ever, right up there with voting for Wayne Morse in 1962 (That'll get them checking their history books!) and I was pleased to vote for her again this year. And clearly there were serious problems with the vote count last year in Ohio and elsewhere. And the use of electronic voting machines without auditable trails and with "proprietary" codes should be outlawed.

But...

Even if the vote in Ohio turned out to be a fraud and Kerry actually won there, he still lost by about 3,000,000 votes (though he got mine). What is happening here, I think, is that for perhaps the first time in our history we are paying some serious attention to fraudulent voting, but I think Dougie had it right. We lost. To defraud enough votes to change the results would have required fraud on a Ukrainian scale, and they couldn't even get away with it there. To base accusations of fraud on what people SAID they did after leaving the polling booth is to put more faith in polls than in elections, a risk I am not ready to take.

Assuming fraud in the lections relieves us lefties of the responsibility of figuring out where we went wrong. If we assume our principles are valid, and I do, we need to figure out how to do it right next time. Crying foul does not aid us in this process.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: RichardP
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 08:58 PM

When, if ever, will the USA recognise that democracy needs votes to be of more or less equal value. It is at the best idiosyncratic to have a presidential election by an electoral college representative of the states and with votes broadly proportional to their electorates. However, a system which deliberately over-represents the smallest states by over two hundred per cent, is a very poor example to emerging countries. Earlier in this thread the questions of defining "win" and "lose" were posed. As far one can assess presidential elections from abroad nGerry Mander rules. OK?

Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 09:13 PM

LOL. I don't think a Texan could pull off the Chicago thing, or visa versa, GUEST,observer.

What is happening here, I think, is that for perhaps the first time in our history we are paying some serious attention to fraudulent voting

And that is the whole point. The efforts of people like Barbara Boxer and John Conyers has absolutely nothing to do with trying to overturn the electoral college, and absolutely everything with making sure every vote is counted fairly and in a way that is verifiable, regardless of who wins.

But DougR and Martin aparantly aren't big fans of democracy. In fact it looks to me like they hate democracy. They would probably be much happier living in a totalitarian state such as Italy during WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 09:20 PM

ah, yes...good old Gerry Mander! He did well this time.

I have no doubt Bush got more votes this time...he had 4 years to polish the technique, manipulate the system, and give Rove time to work his clever(really...clever) bit with surreptitious registration where it counted. Yeah...you won, and ol' GW goes from resident to president.

But Bush should not have HAD those 4 years...he lost the popular vote first time around, and if Florida had REALLY been administered and counted fairly, Bush would be just another blip in history.

(and Franz...I remember Wayne Morse well...I grew up on stories of his ability to seek for truth and fairness, no matter WHO it upset!)

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 09:45 PM

Meanwhile,in Ukraine...

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: mack/misophist
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 10:58 PM

I voted for Boxer every time. I shall continue to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM

Carol C: I assure you that I am not Martin, and Martin is not me.

I don't know what your definition of "democracy" is, but I assure you it is not mine. But I would remind you ( I assume you are aware of it of course) but he United States is a consitutional republic, not a democracy.

Someday there will be a free Iraq, just as there will be a free Afghanstan. As GWB has pointed out numerious times in speeches, free countries do not make unjustified war on others. The coalition's invasion of Iraq was fully justified based on Saddam's violation of numerous UN resolutions. You know that! The Iraqi people will be better off for it, and so will the world.

Now that Arafat is dead and gone, there might even be a real chance for peace between Palestine and Israel. I'm sure, Carol C. that you would be happy to see that, right?

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 12:16 AM

I don't know what your definition of "democracy" is, but I assure you it is not mine.

DougR, democracy is government by, of, and for the people. It is government by consent of the governed. It is one person, one vote. G.W. Bush has said that we are spreading democracy in the world, and specifically at this point in time, in Afghanistan and Iraq. He hasn't said he is spreading "consitutional republicanism". So I suspect you have your definitions a little confused. In terms of the voting process, please explain the difference between "democracy" and "constitutional republicanism", and then explain why democracy is good enough for Iraq and Afghanistan, but not for us.

Now that Arafat is dead and gone, there might even be a real chance for peace between Palestine and Israel. I'm sure, Carol C. that you would be happy to see that, right?

What's your point there Dougie? I would have been happy to see peace between Palestine and Israel when Arafat was still alive. Why would I be any less happy to see it now?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 12:24 AM

We know nothing of the kind regarding the war in Iraq, DougR. Many people believe, with sound evidence, that Dubya had no good reason other that personal vanity and a desire to wield power to invade Iraq. "Coalition" is a term that was misapplied to describe the ragtag collection of tiny principalities that signed on to Bush's plan when the UN Security Council, composed of more substantial nations, brushed him off.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 12:37 AM

Here you go, DougR. Here's someone who's on your political side of the fence (in favor of the "constitutional republic" definition of our system of government) explaining what a constitutional republic is supposed to be and what Bush has done to undermine it...

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

June 2, 2003

NewsWithViews.com

"The principle of limited federal authority is the bedrock principle upon which our government was created. America's founders envisioned a nation of strong, independent but united states, and a very limited and myopic central system.

However, when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, the vision of the Founding Fathers was destroyed. The principle of limited federal authority was cast aside and a nation preoccupied with unlimited federal power and authority took its place...

...Conservatives would have us believe that President Bush and the Republican Party are working to reverse the rush toward bigger and bigger government. They aren't. In fact, Bush and Company are putting the pedal to the metal when it comes to promoting a bigger-than-ever federal system. In fact, Bush has used the events of 9/11 to strip Americans of more liberties than any President during the 20th Century, including Bill Clinton or Franklin Roosevelt...

For example, Bush has selectively suspended the right of habeas corpus, which means the right to know the charges one is being held under. Through his attorney general, Bush has also authorized using federal agencies to conduct searches and seizures without requiring them to first obtain proper warrants. This is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional!

Furthermore, the Bush government now even has the power to investigate American citizens with absolutely no probable cause. Under Bush's policies, a citizen could even have his or her citizenship revoked if they were found to violate these newly enacted and loosely defined anti-terrorism laws.

Obviously, you will not find these kinds of policies in the U.S. Constitution. They are right out of Orwell's "1984" and Hitler's Third Reich. But it doesn't stop there.

Now, President Bush wants to give the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency the authority to demand personal and financial records of individual citizens. Beyond that, sources are reporting that private pressure groups are currently being organized to collect taxes for the IRS. They will be paid by commission, of course.

Furthermore, bankers are already being told that beginning this fall all new customers will be subjected to a required background check which will be forwarded to the federal government. That's right! Your banker is soon to be a private snoop for the federal government..."

More here

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 01:11 PM

Carol C.- I would be happy to define "win" and "lost"

The Senate voted about 76 to one against the Boxer rebellion.   The house voted something like 230 to 35 against it.   That means you lost and we won.   Bush is confirmed.    Be proud of the spineless democrats who caved like a deck of cards.

Let me give you another definition.   There are 7 branches of government.

President-          Republican
Vice President-    Republican
Senate-             Republican
House-             Republican
Supreme Court-      Republican(5 side with republican/4 with democrat)
Governors-          Republican majority
State Legislatures- Republican majority

That means we "won" and you "lost".   Now there are some southerners who still think the south won the war.   If you want to continue thinking that please go right ahead.   Just remember, in 1964 the democrats had 67 seats in the Senate.   (a super majority) Today they have 44- the lowest number in about 100 years.   

The democrats rejected Boxer 76 - 1.   Sounds like that Utah Phillips song on the Charge of Mother Jones.    As Utah says- it is always good to look behind you when you charge to make sure others are following.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 01:22 PM

Hear hear, Larry K.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 01:28 PM

Larry K, I accept this definition:

The house voted something like 230 to 35 against it.

However, this statement by you is an assumption:

That means you lost and we won.

And an incorrect one at that. I did not lose. And neither did Barbara Boxer. To whatever extent the election process in the US is not honest and fair, the American public has lost. As far as the question of who won or lost the election is concerned... based on the house vote, Kerry lost and Bush won. Based on numbers of actual votes and votes that might have been cast had people been given a fair chance at even getting to vote, we'll never know who won for sure. This is a victory for no one.

I know you want to categorize everyone who is concerned about fair elections as sore losers, but for my part, I have no hard feelings about Bush winning as long as he wins fair and square. It's the process I'm concerned about.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 04:54 PM

I've been wondering when someone would dreg up the "this isn't a democracy, this is a republic" gobblydeegook around here. Talk about bizzare definitions. Of course this is a republic. Duhhh. Any piece of land which has definable borders, a constitution (however badly written and detrimental to the populous), and which isn't ruled by a hereditary monarch, is by definition a republic. The republic of the United States is structured by it's constitution as a representative form of Democracy; government of, by, and for the people. Now, Doug, what is the difference between that and your definition, or your ideal government?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:07 PM

Also, Larry K, if this statement by you, "That means we "won" and you "lost"" indicates that you think I am a Democrat, you are incorrect in that respect as well. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Democrat. And I anticipate that I will never be a Democrat. This is something I have already told you on several occassions.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:48 PM

There never was a decent debate. The Repubs closed ranks and dismissed the objection as a publicity stunt. In so doing, they continued in their quest to make their party the only one in the country. This is anti-democratic.

It is significant that the country is now being run by rich white men with rural roots who have always fought against the right of African-Americans to vote. The Black Caucus stood valiantly against the Repubs. They were disenfranchised as voters. We see it here in 2005. It's racism. And it's immoral.

We will never know the outcome of this election. The figures vary wildly but it's all conjecture now that the paper trail has disappeared into black boxes.
There is still evidence available for anyone who cares that indicates that there was rampant and widespread fraud, intimidation and racism in Ohio by Republicans. I think that's unAmerican regardless who wins.

It's ironic that the Bush Administration is saying they want to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan when they don't have it here at home.

Afghanistan had fraudulent elections as well. Karzai probably would have won but since many voted sometimes up to ten times per person, this would indicate that the fraud brought about was for the purpose of giving George his way in time for the election and not about the Afghan people's participation in democracy. They are still under the "dictatorship" of narcotics-producing warlords who subjugate the farmers who are in turn forced into growing poppies for American drug consumption. 65% at least of the world's heroin-based products come from Afghanistan. So much for democratic elections there.

Barbara Boxer could not have stood for Gore in 2001 because he specifically asked her not to. As vice president, he was locked into a holding pattern which I believe he should have broken. If he were to entertain any credibility in office, he could have stood up against the Republican Tsunami.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:54 PM

Not sure of the outcome of the election, Frank? I suppose using your logic, one could not be absolutely certain about the outcome of ANY election. Not that I consider your argument logical mind you.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 06:18 PM

It borders on senile, Doug R.

Shame. Damn shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 05 - 06:43 PM

You two clowns ought to notice that you are twisting and altering for the worse the communications of another person. 'Course it might open a big can of worms, 'cuz you might have to notice how often you have done it, but if you made it through, you'd be a lot better for it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 04:09 PM

What did he say Doug R? Is it possible he doesn't like when he is criticized?

Do you think Amos just might subscribe to a double standard?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 05 - 07:03 PM

Well what do you know... even President George W. Bush says the United States is a democracy...

This is the month we celebrate great contributions of Latinos to our country. It's a special month. It really echoes our diversity and the strength of our great democracy...

...As governments fight the enemies of democracy, they must uphold the principles of democracy.

--President George W. Bush

www.whitehouse.gov

DougR, I think you need to have a little talk with that boy and set him straight on a few things.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 05 - 10:27 PM

LOL

Looks like I scared him away. Yoo hoo... oh, yoo hoo... Dougie!

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jan 05 - 12:42 AM

As John Wayne was won't to say in many of his movies directed by John Ford, Carol C., that'll be the day!
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: RichM
Date: 10 Jan 05 - 12:42 PM

Democracy,republic...
it's both and it's neither.
The USA is an empire, ruled by the same people whether you call 'em *republicans* or *democrats*.

like every other empire, its primary goal is survival of the ruling class , the continuation of the exercise of power, and the extension of control over the whole world.

Maybe the rest of us (non-amerkins) will have something to say about THAT...at least we can struggle against it until the Empire meets the ultimate fate of every previous empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 Jan 05 - 09:37 PM

Better watch it, little man RichM or we might let you get eaten. Or we might just protect you if you are nice.

What do you live in? A fake monarchy? Struggle all you want but keep using our products you love to buy.

We got to be "an empire" by hard work and great minds. Not like the conquering British Empire. Now that's one for decay.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 Jan 05 - 09:37 PM

BTW, it looks like Boxer saved nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 05 - 10:27 PM

The forces in favor of Crooked Systems flexed their muscles, did they, Martin? Makes ya proud to be a Merkin, huh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 01:56 PM

Hi Doug,

You say,

"Not sure of the outcome of the election, Frank? I suppose using your logic, one could not be absolutely certain about the outcome of ANY election. Not that I consider your argument logical mind you."

It begs the question that there was fraud in Ohio and Florida and that this was perpetrated by Republican operatives. Notice that all the questions about the validity of the so-called elections involved cases where Bush was always favored. You can ignore the facts at your own peril as an American. But you might want to question the validity of your own vote.

You might want to consider that the Black Caucus in the House of Representatives made the point that racism was a large part of the process and that most African-Americans know that their votes were stolen.

If Doctor King were still alive, he would be leading a march in Ohio and Florida.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:37 PM

In the mind of a liberal, democrats never lose an election and republicans never win an election.   Any time a democrat gets less votes it was stolen or cheated or disenfranchised.    Either that or the people were too stupid to elect the right person or as in 1994 they were labeled as "angry white men". "What fools these democrats be"

Several democrats went to counciling in Florida for post election depression while others threatened to go to Canada.    Clearly, they have never been to Nunavut in January.   Or June for that matter.

The biggest problem for democrats is that people want proof that elections were stolen and they never have any.   Democrats claim that Ohio was stolen but offer no evidence.   They only look silly.   Do you really think that Boxer looked good when not a single other democrat supported her in the senate.

Now Carol C.-   If you don't think 76 to 1 is an ass drubbing that I suspect you are a pregressive who believes that getting 1% of the vote in an election is a victory.

I apologize if you believed I was referring to you as a democrat.   When I said "we won" and "you lost" I was referring to patriots and traitors.   Sorry if you thought I had elevated you to a democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxer saves Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 04:07 PM

Now Carol C.-   If you don't think 76 to 1 is an ass drubbing that I suspect you are a pregressive who believes that getting 1% of the vote in an election is a victory.

No, I'm not a progressive, and I didn't say it wasn't an ass drubbing. I said she didn't lose. Her motion lost. She won an impressive victory of conscience over political prostitution.

I apologize if you believed I was referring to you as a democrat.   When I said "we won" and "you lost" I was referring to patriots and traitors.   Sorry if you thought I had elevated you to a democrat.

You have things reversed, Larry K. The people who favor secretive, non-transparent, and un-verifiable voting practices are the traitors. People like you, for instance. The patriots are the ones, like Barbara Boxer, who are upholding their oaths to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.