How The Senate Screwed Blacks and Civil Rights On Jan 6, 2001

[Q]

- This is one of the most shameful days in Democratic history. The Congressional Black Caucus objected to the certification of Florida's electoral votes on that day because of "overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout."

- All they needed was ONE Senator to stand up with them. Just one. If ONE Democratic Senator had signed on to the objection...the Florida certification would have been open to appeal, debate and investigation.

- What happened on that day will go down in history as the day Democracy died in America.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES--JOINT SESSION OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE HELD PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1 -- (House of Representatives - January 06, 2001)

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair now hands to the tellers the certificate of the electors for President and Vice President of the State of Florida, and they will read the certificate and will count and make a list of the votes cast by that State.

   Mr. FATTAH (one of the tellers). This is the one we have all been waiting for.

   We, the undersigned duly elected and serving Electors for President and Vice-President hereby certify that we have this day met in the Executive Offices of the Capitol at Tallahassee, Florida, and cast our votes for President of the United States and our votes for Vice-President of the United States, and that the results are as follows: Those receiving votes for President of the United States and the number of such votes were: George W. Bush, 25. Those receiving votes for Vice-President of the United States and the number of such votes were: Dick Cheney, 25. Done at Tallahassee, the Capitol, this 18th day of December, A.D., 2000.



   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection?

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. President, I object to the certificate from Florida.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. HASTINGS ) will present his objection. Is the gentleman's objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and by a Senator?

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. President, and I take great pride in calling you that, I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair must remind Members that under section 18, title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President. To answer your question, Mr. President, the objection is in writing, signed by a number of Members of the House of Representatives, but not by a Member of the Senate.

   Thank you, Mr. President.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Florida for his courtesy. Since the present objection lacks the signature of a Senator, accordingly, the objection may not be received.

   Are there other objections?

   Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. President, I have an objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. MEEK ) rise?

   Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. President, I have an objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House and by a Senator?

   Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. President, it is in writing and signed by myself and several of my constituents from Florida. A Senator is needed, but missing.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from Florida for her courtesy.

   For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. BROWN , rise?

   Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. President, I stand for the purpose of objecting to the counting of the vote from the State of Florida as read.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. President, it is in writing and signed by several House colleagues on behalf of, and myself, the 27,000 voters of Duval County, of which 16,000 of them are African Americans that were disenfranchised in this last election.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The gentlewoman will suspend. The part of the question that the Chair will put again is, is the objection signed by a Member of the Senate?

   Ms. BROWN of Florida. It is not signed by a Member of the Senate. The Senate is missing.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. The objection, on the basis previously stated, may not be received.

   For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON ) rise?

   Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus to object to the 25 electoral votes from Florida.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the gentlewoman state an objection, and is it in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. It is in writing, signed by a number of Members of Congress, and because we received hundreds of thousands of telegrams and e-mails and telephone calls, but we do not have a Senator.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection signed by a Senator?

   Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. It is not signed by a Senator, Mr. President.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from Texas. On the previous basis stated, the objection may not be received.

   For what purpose does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CUMMINGS ) rise?

   Mr. CUMMINGS. I have an objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The gentleman will state his objection. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House and a Senator?

   Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. President, it is in writing and signed by myself on behalf of the many disenfranchised people in the State of Florida, and it is signed along with many of my other colleagues from the House.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is it signed by a Senator?

   Mr. CUMMINGS. No, it is not.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Maryland. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received.

   Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE ) rise?

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. President, I have an objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. President, thank you for your inquiry. It is in writing, it is signed by myself on behalf of my diverse constituents and the millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida's inaccurate vote count, along with my House colleagues, Mr. President.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection signed by a Senator?

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. President, I do not have a Senator who has signed this objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from Texas. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received.


   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. President.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WATERS ) rise?

   Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electorial votes.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House and a Senator?

   Ms. WATERS. The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a Member of the Senate.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will advise that the rules do care, and the signature of a Senator is required. The Chair will again put that part of the question: Is the objection signed by a Senator?

   Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, there are gross violations of the Voting Rights Act from Florida, and I object; and it is not signed by a Senator.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from California. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received.

   For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. LEE ) rise?

   Ms. LEE. Mr. President, I have an objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Ms. LEE. Mr. President, it is in writing and signed by myself on behalf of many of the diverse constituents in our country, especially those in the Ninth Congressional District and all American voters who recognize that the Supreme Court, not the people of the United States, decided this election.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection signed by a Senator?

   Ms. LEE. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it is not signed by one single Senator.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from California.

   For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. MCKINNEY ) rise?

   Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. President, I have an objection at the desk to Florida's 25 electoral votes.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. President, it is in writing and it is signed by my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues, my House colleagues and myself; but it is not signed by one single Senator.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from Georgia. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received.

   For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. MINK ) rise?

   Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. President, I want to voice my objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. President, it is in writing, and I have signed it on behalf of not only myself and other colleagues of the House but my constituents. Unfortunately, I have no authority over the United States Senate and no Senator has signed.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from Hawaii. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received.

   For what purpose does the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. CLAYTON ) rise?

   Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. President, I rise in objection to the Florida electoral votes, and I rise to object to the process that, indeed, that voters do count, the essence of democracy demands that we speak to it.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and is it signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. President, it is in writing and it is signed by more than 10 of my Members in the House.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection signed by a Senator?

   Mrs. CLAYTON. Unfortunately, it is not.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

   Are there any other objections?

   For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. MCKINNEY ) rise?

   Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. President, I object to Florida's electors, and in view of the fact that debate is not permitted in joint session and pursuant to title 3, I move that the House withdraw from the joint session in order to allow consideration of the facts surrounding the slate of electors from Florida.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will remind the Members of the joint session that even though a Member's motion may affect only one House, the statutory principle of bicameral signatures must, nevertheless, be applied. The gentlewoman will suspend.

   Reading sections 15 through 18 of title 3, United States Code, as a coherent whole, the Chair holds that no procedural question is to be recognized by the presiding officer in the joint session unless presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator.

   Is the gentlewoman's motion in writing and signed by a Member and a Senator?

   Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. President, the motion is in writing, it is at the desk, and because it involves the prerogatives of the House, therefore Senate assent is not required.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will advise the gentlewoman respectfully that reading sections 15 through 18 of title 3, U.S. Code, as a whole, the Chair holds that no procedural question, even if involving only one House of Congress, is to be recognized by the presiding officer in the joint session, unless presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator.

   Because the gentlewoman's motion is not signed by a Senator, on the basis previously stated, the motion may not be received. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from Georgia.

   For what purpose does the gentleman from California rise?

   Mr. FILNER. I have an objection to the electoral votes from Florida.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing; is it signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Mr. FILNER. No, it is not in writing, but I rise in solidarity with my colleagues who have previously expressed their objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The objection will not be allowed on the previous basis.

   Mr. FILNER. I thank the President.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WATERS ) rise?

   Ms. WATERS. I have a motion of objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the motion in writing, and is it signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Member of the Senate?

   Ms. WATERS. The motion is in writing, Mr. President, and I rise to offer a motion to withdraw from the joint session. There is no reference to the section that you have referenced to quorum or withdrawal.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will respectfully advise the gentlewoman from California that sections 15 through 18 of title 3, as previously stated, in the opinion of the Chair and the Parliamentarians require the Chair to rule that no procedural question is to be recognized by the Presiding Officer in the joint session, even if it applies to only one House, unless presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator.

   Since the Chair has been advised that the gentlewoman's motion is not signed by a Senator, on the basis previously stated, the motion may not be received.

   Ms. WATERS. Let the RECORD show that is an opinion. It is not written in that section in reference to quorum or withdrawal.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from California.

   Are there any further objections to the certificate just counted?

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. President, I rise to make a point of order.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the point of order in writing, and is it signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. President, being that this is a solemn day and a day that we are affirming the voices of the American people, we

wish to delay this until a quorum has been maintained.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The gentlewoman will be advised, as all Members of the joint session will be advised, that a motion for the presence of a quorum is not in order unless it is signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator.

   Since the Chair is advised that the gentlewoman's motion is not signed by a Senator, it is not received.

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. President. It is signed by me, but I do not have a Senator.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from Texas.

   For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. JACKSON ) rise?

   Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. President, I have an objection.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the gentleman's objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?

   Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Yes, sir, I have signed it.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection signed by a Senator?

   Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. President, I am objecting to the idea that votes in Florida were not counted; and it is a sad day in America, Mr. President, when we cannot find a Senator to sign these objections. New Democratic Senators will not sign the objection, Mr. President. I object.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but, on the basis previously stated, the objection is not in order.

   For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. HASTINGS ) rise?

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. President, point of order. Would the President advise whether or not there is an opportunity to appeal the ruling of the Chair?



   The VICE PRESIDENT. This is going to sound familiar to you, to all of us.

   The Chair finds that section 17 of title 3, United States Code, prescribes a single procedure for resolution of either an objection to a certificate or other questions arising in the matter. The Chair rules that the appeal is subject to the requirement that it be in writing and signed by both a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator. Since the Chair presumes that it is not signed by a Senator, it is not received on the basis previously stated.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. We did all we could, Mr. President.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Florida.

   Are there further objections?

   Ms. WATERS. Further objection, Mr. President.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WATERS ) rise?

   Ms. WATERS. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent that the debate on this issue go forward.

   The VICE PRESIDENT. Notwithstanding the fact that an objections were heard, the Chair is advised that that request should not even be entertained.

   For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. JACKSON ) rise?

   Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. President, is it possible to ask at this hour for a Democratic Senator to sign one of these Democratic objections by unanimous consent? Is that within the House rules?

   The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will advise the gentleman from Illinois that any Member of either Chamber may do as he or she wishes, so long as it is within the rules of the joint session. So it is possible, as long as it does not violate the rules, but the Chair will not entertain debate, because that is a violation of the rules of the joint session.

-----------------------------------------------------

[Q]

1. Please take a moment and read this...

...for the sake of Democracy.

[Mairead]

2. Yep, not one had the integrity, or gave a damn for democracy

Not Hillary
Not Kerry
Not Edwards
Not Graham

and, in self-betrayal worse than other-betrayal, not even Wellstone

Not any of them

It certainly should be a major wake-up for us all: they don't care about us except in the same way the owner of sheep, or cattle, or slaves cares about his property.


Thanks for the reminder, Q.

[Q]

3. Here we have dozens of members of congress alleging election fraud...

...in a national election and not ONE Senator could be bothered to help them with their concerns?

- Why were their appeals for fairness and justice ignored?

[Fla_Democrat]

5. Don't forget

Not Lieberman, and in all honesty, I don't recall seeing Kucinich or Gephardt being recognised by the Chair in the post above. Perhaps they thought there was enough House members voicing objections, that they would just be in the way. :eyes:

[Mairead]

16. I didn't include Lieberman because he was an interested party

Something that tacky would have been used to deflect focus from the real issue.

As far as Dennis and Gep goes, yeah, it's a blot on them that they didn't stand up, if I'm right in remembering at least one non-CBC member standing with the CBC members. It's a blot on everyone who didn't stand up, because it was democracy at stake.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. Mairead....Hillary was not a senator then...during the florida debacle

[goobergunch]

9. Wrong

Hillary took office on 3 January 2001, three days before the selection was finalized.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. goobergunch...correct...my bad...thank you

but ...for arguements sake...perhaps senate rules prevented her from doing so after all she had just been sworn in.....she was a new senator and also coming from the 1st Lady's position it might have been controversal for her to do it :shrug:...

[2cannan]

21. Not Feingold, Kennedy

or Wellstone--noone. Did they all hate Al Gore so much? This is so heartbreaking to read--really adding insult to injury. Poor Al Gore had to endure the right-wing attacks 24/7 for months and then to have to stand there on that day in the Senate and listen to his fellow Democrats sell him out...

[Q]

77. The Democratic party and the American people also 'lost' that day...

- I have that day on video. Looking back over the tape...the Black Caucus was passionate in their defense of the people and democracy. The GOPers looked at them like they were crazy...and the Democrats simply turned their backs.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. that's why Lieberman makes me sick! in the debates he brags about.....

his civil rights activism and how he marched with MLK and goes on and on about the black causes....and i find myself screaming at my TV set "what about the black caucus's walk out and their plead for one senator to stand up for them during the electoral vote"....he should be ashamed to utter the words "I marched in the "civil rights movementwith MLK"....lieberman makes me sick! :puke:

granted ...none of the others stood up either but none of the others are bragging on the campaign trail either

[Q]

7. How can the US pretend to be a democracy when things like this...

..happen? There was proof of widespread fraud and that Florida's EC votes were bogus...much like that of the 'votes' of the illegal SC 'one time' decision.

- What happened in the Senate on that day? The CBC and others were begging them to step forward and help expose the fraud.

- I sincerely believe Democracy died that day. What does this say about the 2004 election?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. Q correct! and it says that we should be afraid...be very afraid!

Democarcy is Dead! :scared:...did it really ever exist? :shrug:

[Q]

10. The problem is we never seem to learn from our mistakes...

...and keep repeating them over and over again.

- It's a troubling sign that most Americans don't seem to care about what happened in the 2000 election. Could it be that they don't care because they've been told to 'move on' by Republicans AND Democrats?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. Plato's cave people?

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Does Wellstone make you sick as well?

I noticed your Wellstone icon. He was a member of the Senate at this time as was just as silent as Lieberman that day.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

78. freddiestubbs...yes as a matter of fact...on that day he also made me sick

[goobergunch]

11. Thank you for posting this

I still have it on video tape. We complain of the Supreme Court's Selection, but on this day, when the Selection was confirmed, no Senator rose to protest.

[Q]

14. K

i
c
k

[ShaneGR]

15. Link??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

.

[Mairead]

17. Link to what?

[ShaneGR]

20. to this debate

Where's the link???

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. here's a link .....

http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2001/07/04/bugliosi/

The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President

What else can explain the lack of what Green calls "any will to resist or defy" the unprecedented outrage of the Supreme Court stealing an election? The lack of such a will in the Democratic Party (with the notable exception of the Congressional Black Caucus) is another story, one that I'll return to. For the rest of us 50 million Americans -- whose votes, we were told by the highest court in the land, simply didn't count -- it can't be simple apathy. How do you oppose the policies of a presidential administration when the U.S. is operating without a legitimate president? How do you participate in a democracy when Rehnquist and the four other thugs on his court -- Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy -- have used the democratic system to nullify the very idea of democracy?

We may, as a nation, have sprung from a revolution, but no matter what fairy tales the hard left is now telling, we are not a revolutionary country. So what do we do? Vincent Bugliosi, the author and prosecutor most famous for putting Charles Manson behind bars, argues that knowledge is power in his slim, trenchant time bomb of a book, "The Betrayal of America." By clearly understanding what the Supreme Court did, we can remove the cloak of respect and legitimacy that shields its actions from protest. Bugliosi's book started out as an article in the Nation last fall, and it received a greater response from readers than any other piece the magazine had ever published. It has been expanded here with a preface by the Nation's editors, forewords by Molly Ivins and Gerry Spence, an introduction by Bugliosi, a series of 20 amplifications on various points made in the article and a summary of the legal proceedings that climaxed in the Supreme Court's Dec. 12 ruling in Bush vs. Gore.

The article's original title reveals Bugliosi's intent: "None Dare Call It Treason."

[Q]

26. It wasn't a 'debate'...

...take a closer look.

[goobergunch]

75. Congressional Record Link

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r107:H06JA1-0024:

[Cocoa]

18. this is where credibility comes in

I ask myself, does Q really have an interest in civil rights, or is he using an otherwise valid civil rights issue as an arrow in his campaign against the dems?

Then I remember that my own congressman is a member of the CBC, and notice that when I hear him speak, or read any of his mailings, the 2000 election rarely if ever appears. I ask myself, is rep. Davis a sellout of some kind for not continuously denouncing the democratic party? Does it mean that he doesn't care about civil rights or democracy?

[Q]

27. Having a difficult time handling the truth?

- The issue is clear: Many members of congress...led by the CBC...alleged that widespread corruption and election fraud took place in 2000. They objected to the certification of Florida's EC votes and had an opportunity to appeal IF they got ANY senator to add their signature to ANY of the numerous objections.

- You can always be counted on to blindly defend Democrats...even when they're found to be lacking in concern for the American people.

[Iverson]

30. You're close.

Here is the form of the objection: although you may be right on an issue, doubt about your motives is a sufficient reason to ignore that issue.

[Cocoa]

33. kind of

I would put it, there's plenty of valid things to criticize the dems about. Tons, really, and Q has brought up a lot of them.

But it does matter who's bringing them up. If it's someone who really knows about the issue and sincerely cares about it, then it's worth discussing.

When it's someone who has an agenda, and is merely USING the issue as ammunition, forget it, imo.

So, when Rep. Davis or someone with similar credibility has something to say at this point in time about the events of Jan. 2001, let me know. Until then, feh.

[Iverson]

38. inescapable

Your construction presumes that Q has an agenda hostile to the Democratic party, whereas that is not a safe assumption at all. You can verify that you disagree with him, but that is not the same at all as ascertaining his motive. It is his motive that you are using to determine whether or not you will engage with this issue.

[Cocoa]

45. I realize I'm going out on a limb inferring Q is hostile to the dems

/irony :-)

[Iverson]

47. important difference

I can read too, and Q's tone is as obvious to me as it is to anyone. However, this is not the same thing as discovering a motive. In fact, I am convinced that Q wants the Democratic Party to succeed, and that is his underlying warrant for his posts.

Now here's the essential point: even if my perspective was the same as yours, I still could not logically conclude that Q was right (or wrong) on an issue by looking at his motives alone. The merits of the case are what count.

[Cocoa]

55. both points unreasonable, imo

How anyone could assume Q wants the dems to succeed is beyond me. He only points out their failures, and ignores, denies, minimizes, and explains away any of their successes. Successes for the dems are like bitter pills to Q.

Regarding the merits of the case, what is the case? If the case is that the dems are highly flawed, this is not a case, this is a truism. But that's not Q's case, his case is that the dems are the worst thing since sliced bread, and that's a totally bogus case, imo.

[Forkboy]

58. head...sand

have fun.

[Terwilliger]

65. rancor!

watch that rancor!

[Forkboy]

68. lmao

cut that out!

[Q]

80. Cocoa:

"How anyone could assume Q wants the dems to succeed is beyond me. He only points out their failures, and ignores, denies, minimizes, and explains away any of their successes. Successes for the dems are like bitter pills to Q."

- I'm compelled to point out that you've posted several times now while completely ignoring the topic of the thread. Every one of your posts have been about my motivations and nothing about why no Senator...Dem or GOPer...would stand up for Democracy on that day. Not to worry...we're all familiar with this tactic of trying to destroy the messenger instead of addressing the message. It's SOP for RWingers.

- Bush* has been in office for three years now and even the most gullible have to admit that the Democrats have performed miserably on a majority of the issues. While the Dems have held him back on a few matters...they've caved in or kept quiet on the most important issues of our time.

- The 'bitter pill' I'm more concerned about is the SUCCESSES OF THE BUSHIES. Why are the Bushies successful in so many ways? Because they have little or no opposition and conservatives in 'our' party are sellouts to Democratic values and principles.

"Regarding the merits of the case, what is the case? If the case is that the dems are highly flawed, this is not a case, this is a truism. But that's not Q's case, his case is that the dems are the worst thing since sliced bread, and that's a totally bogus case, imo."

- It's too bad you're obsessed with hyperbole instead of the truth. My case was that no one in the US Senate stood with the CBC in a very important cause: free and fair elections. It's telling that you're more interested in my motivation than the motivations of those who failed America on Jan 6, 2001.

[Terwilliger]

48. *I'M* hostile to Democrats

Q loves 'em

If you don't see that, you're trying to read something else into what he's saying.

[HFishbine]

19. This Should Be

A priority question for the presidential candidates who serve in the senate. It's amazing that it wasn't asked at the CBC-sponosred debate. Never the less, Graham, Edwards, Lieberman and Kerry need to explain their lack of action.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. Well, maybe it was because the non-registration was a separate issue

The voter purge pisses me off as much as anyone, but all this was about was certification of the VOTE. The USSC decided that (unfortunately) and so to challenge the vote at that point made no sense.

So, if I were to be pissed at anyone at this point in time it would be the NAACP for agreeing to a settlement with Jeb and Kathy et. al. whereby they got off without a trial and there arer STILL thousands of purged voters off the roles.

[MSchreader]

25. Wrong!

The USSC decided that (unfortunately) and so to challenge the vote at that point made no sense.

Section 2 of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution gives Congress the authority to reduce or discard the Electoral Votes of a State that violates a person's right to vote. Thus, for members of Congress to challenge Florida's EV count was the proper was the correct -- and constitutional -- course.

Martin

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. Should have asked Graham or Wellstone or Kennedy

Clearly, these Senators must have had good reasons for not signing it.
My hunch is that nothing was provable, and so the state of Florida had deniability as to the accuracy of choicepoint's purge list.
We always 'know' when something stinks, but in court you have to prove it. God, most Senators are lawyers so they know what is going to hold water or not.

[MSchreader]

They certainly did

They wanted "power sharing", so to hell with such trivial things as civil rights!

Martin

[NewYorkerfromMass]

57. Yeah, Wellstone and Kennedy could have cared less about civil rights

try again.

[MSchreader]

61. Did they object?

No. Did they side with the CBC in this obvious case of voter fraud aimed primarily at African Americans? No. They made a deal with the Senate GOP to share power -- committee seats, offices, etc. The price was handing the White House to Bush.

I don't need to try again, NYFM, you do. Try and find a reasonable explanation why they didn't side with their fellow party members from the House. Many have tried; all have failed ... and then raise the specter of Nader's penis.

Martin

[sangh0]

31. Impractical

ISTR the Republicans had a majority in the House which is where the vote to accept/discard Fla's EV's. I doubt the Repukes would've voted to discard EV's for Bush*Cheney

[Iverson]

32. comparative impracticalities

Let us suppose that you are correct. In that case, the alternatives seem to be a relatively veiled fraud versus a relatively exposed fraud.

It is likewise impractical to let Republicans get away with electoral fraud or to offer them extra cover. Compliance only helps them to appear legitimate.

edited typo

[sangh0]

34. I disagree

I find it hard to believe that there's anyone in this country who thinks what happened in Fla was covered up after being faily news fodder for weeks.

It should be noted that this transcript involves a vote on whether or not FLA EV's should be accepted. Given the R's numerical advantage, do you have any realistic hope that the objection would have prevented the acceptance of Fla's EV's?

And as far as publicity for the fraud, that takes place in the media. I don't see any explanation of argument as to how a Dem Senator's support for this objection would have led to more publicity for this issue.

[Iverson]

37. OK

I would ask you what people thought they were disagreeing about. The daily news fodder emphasised hanging chads and personalities. Substantive details were not in people's faces the same way. To my eye, the mainstream media emphasised the most frivolous details to the exclusion of others.

I note, as an aside, that Palast had to go to England to get his stuff published.

But perhaps we just disagree, and that's fine too.

[sangh0]

42. OK

I would ask you what people thought they were disagreeing about

It depend on the person. Different people had different levels of awareness.

The daily news fodder emphasised hanging chads and personalities.

That was the majority of the media's focus, but there were also stories about disenfranchisement.

Substantive details were not in people's faces the same way.

And this vote would've changed this.....how?

To my eye, the mainstream media emphasised the most frivolous details to the exclusion of others.

Well, it should be no surprise to you that the media concentrates on the frivolous and spectacular. Note Gore's "invention" of the Internet. And this vote would've changed this.....how?

Don't get me wrong - Blacks WERE sold out. However, it wasn't the result of this vote.

[Iverson]

53. answer(s)

For most of your queries, that takes us back to my posting #32 on comparative impracticalities.

[sangh0]

70. And you still haven't described

how this objection would achieve the goals (increased publicity for the crimes) you desire.

It seems as if you are "begging the question". Instead of explaining how this objection would lead to greater publicity, you assert that it would. When I ask "How?" you refer me back to your assertion that this objection would lead to greater publicity.

[Q]

41. Wrong...the EC votes had already been accepted...

...the CBC objected afterwards.

- The CBC was attempting to pass an objection to the EC vote...which would have lead to an appeal process if accepted. It had nothing to do with Republican 'advantage'. All the CBC needed was for ONE senator to sign on to their written 'on the record' objections.

[sangh0]

44. So what?

the CBC objected afterwards.

So what? The sequence is irrelevant. At least, you give no reason to think the sequence is relevant.

The CBC was attempting to pass an objection to the EC vote...which would have lead to an appeal process if accepted. It had nothing to do with Republican 'advantage'. All the CBC needed was for ONE senator to sign on to their written 'on the record' objections.

Silly boy. Even if the objection had been accepted, it would not have stopped the EV's from being awarded to Bush*Cheney because, in the end, the decision would have been determined by a vote, and the Repukes controlled the majority of the votes.

[Q]

46. The sequence is relevant because objections can't be heard UNTIL

...the EC votes are read in Congress.

- And there's no way in hell you can say the votes still would have been accepted despite the objections. The process itself is important. Once an objection is accepted according to the house rules...the EC votes are put on hold while the objection is heard, appealed or debated. It has nothing to do with 'majority' votes at that point.

-

[sangh0]

52. Tell that to SCOTUS!!!

I can't imagine the level of naivete required to think that a Repuke voting to support the objection is anywhere within the realm of possibility.

Basically, you're arguing that the Dems wouldn't support the objection, but the Repukes might.

[Q]

60. One more time...

...the CBC didn't need a 'repuke vote' to support the objections. A 'vote' wasn't needed...just the signature of a senator.

- Please read/reread the topic description...it says it all in there.

[sangh0]

67. One more time

the objection, even if accepted and debated, would have had no effect on the disenfranchisment of voters and no effect on the public debate.

[Q]

29. Context: the objections to the Florida EC came during...

...the reading of the votes in congress. The CBC Dems immediately registered their written complaints...but the house rules state that an objection can't be recognized without a signature from a Senator...any Senator.

-

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cocoa]

36. maybe Nader's face belongs in your graphic

I think he'd fit in nicely. :-)

[Q]

39. Please tell me you're being sarcastic...

...otherwise I'll have to assume you don't understand what went on Jan 6, 2001.

- Nevermind...I KNOW you don't understand.

[Iverson]

40. your scholarly argument

There is a difference between an opinion and a fact. For example, I could say that it is a FACT (using capital letters for emphasis, like you)that such a weak argument is informed by a desired to pick on small targets while avoiding big ones.

That too is an opinion.

But by all means, be pointlessly hostile. It will surely help.

[Q]

43. Speaking of 'pointlessly hostile'...

...how in the hell did Greens and Nader come into the equation?

- The issue is the Congressional Black Caucus objecting to the Florida EC votes based on their conclusion that election fraud had taken place...making the EC votes invalid.

- As mentioned above...if one senator had added their signature to the objections...an appeals process and debate would have taken place in which the fraud would have likely been exposed.

- What could be wrong with upholding the tenets of democracy? Why was no senator willing to at least take a step forward and support the many Dems asking for their help?

- On edit: now I understand why some Dems readily accepted the 'move on' order from those not willing to stand up for free and fair elections.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

Q exactly....it is a hard thing to view oneself in the mirror of the soul

with all its wards and blemishes....you are correct on All counts on this issue

[Terwilliger]

50. like I've said before, Q

Dems (and I realize we're talking sgr here) MUST talk about something else so that they can avoid critical examination of their own problems.

I agree. Whatever effect Nader had from 1999 all the way through 12/12/00, it DOESN'T cover how the Democrats acted later.

[MSchreader]

49. Look! It's Nader's penis! It's coming right for us!

:evilgrin:

Now, answer my question I posed in your flamebait thread: Should other "third parties" exist, or should we all conform/comply?

Martin

[Iverson]

51. helpful suggestion

"Greenis" is the painstakingly developed term of preference.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

[Q]

56. I used to call them 'ganggreenies'...but that's another story...

- I can't comprehend why some Dems refuse to take responsibility for their own actions....or the actions of their representatives.

- The CBC led the way in presenting an opportunity to (at least) debate the 2000 election fraud and SC 'one time' decision in the framework of representative government. The result of no senator accepting that challenge was that it wasn't debated AT ALL by congress.

- That some Dems aren't interested in what happened or are busy finding scapegoats is an indication that the party is in deep denial.

[Forkboy]

59. Some of these people

really dont sound any different from the Clinton's cock crowd.

[Snellius]

54. Absolutely shameful cowardice!

This was a truly shameful capitulation of every democratic right! It's hard to say what's worse: the coup or the cowardice of those who gave in to it.

[Sweetpea]

62. So if Kucinich, Wellstone, Kennedy all were apart of the failing

of democracy too, are they members of the skull and bones club? Is this lack of support worse than the war vote?

[Q]

64. What are you asking?

- Not sure what you mean. Notice that I didn't mention any names in the title. I 'blame' the senate collectively.

- Skull and bones? War vote? These have nothing to do with the unwillingness of ANY Senator adding their signature to CBC house objections to the Florida EC. This happened on Jan 6, 2001.

- This is but one incident in a succession of events that led to Bush* grabbing unprecendented power.

[gully]

63. Q would you link your source

forgive me, but the story above is a bit tough to follow.

Thanks :)

[Q]

66. No problem...

...the source is the house of representatives. What you're looking at is the transcript of what transpired right after 'congress' certified Florida's electoral votes. This isn't opinion or spin or a conspiracy theory.

- One congressperson after another stood up and registered their objection to the certification. The house rules state that an objection to the EC votes couldn't be recognized and acted upon without at least one senator supporting and signing on to the objection.

- This doesn't mean the objections had no merit...simply that the house rules weren't met without a senator signature.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?r107:H06JA1-0024:e21325:20685

[gully]

72. Q this doesn't tell the whole story.

Your giving a piece of information and asking us to assume much.

[Q]

73. I'm not asking you to assume anything...

...just study the facts. The CBC was pleading for any Senator to come forward and help their objections be heard. That didn't happen.

- Make your own assumptions.

[goobergunch]

76. It's not just House rules, it's federal law...iSummarize

If somebody has a problem with the electoral votes from a state, they can make an objection on the floor when it is counted. This objection must be in writing and signed by a member of the House of Representatives and a Senator. If it is, then the objection goes to both houses for debate and a vote.

However, no Senator signed an objection.

[Solomon]

69. Thankyou Q!

Well done as are all of your posts. I always bookmark your posts.
Too bad the CBC isn't taken more seriously. Its funny. The CBC still naively believes in the rules and principles of american democracy but get no support whatsoever from anyone else.

[BeFree]

71. How sad.

Too bad we were incommunicado back then. We may have been able to get one Senator to grow some balls. We won't let that happen again, now will we?

[Q]

74. What's sad is that few Democrats seem to have a problem with this...

...it's just 'politics'. Just another election. Just another scam.

- History will show that the Democratic party fell apart in 2000. Not because they can't get the votes...but because they helped toss the voters to the wolves.

- Why was no Senator willing to help the Congressional Black Caucus fight for civil rights on Jan 6, 2001? Probably for the same reason they haven't investigated 9-11 or Bush's lies forcing this nation to war. They simply gave up...and left the people to fend for themselves.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. Shocking...

I almost don't believe this... Not ONE SENATOR... Graham should've taken the initiative, OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY SHOULD'VE!!!!
On a side note, since when does the Vice President preside over a joint session, I always thought the Speaker carried the gavel.