If ALL Dem. Senators & Reps voted "yes" would it have made any difference?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

I don't think it would have.

Until we take back control of the media and boot out Murdoch, Sinclair and ClearChannel the Dem Party and Progressives are screwed....

Also until we take control over the election machinery - we are screwed. The Repubs were careful to install partisan hacks into the top spots of the two important states (Blackwell in Ohio) and (Hood and Bush in Florida). They also had partisan hacks who owned the voting machine companies (Diebold).

George Soros would have been much better off buying CNN instead of pumping money into the Kerry Campaign.

The media would have just beaten up on the Dem. Party and would have "spun" it to make it look like they were all "disgruntled partisans" and "conspiracy theorists." In addition, they would have spun it to look like they were not "uniters" and were unpatriotic.

Then in the midterm elections, the Republicans and BushCo would have gone after any "yes" voters with a vengeance. They would raise money and run a "disinformation" campaign against them. Any of the Reps. or Senators from a "Red" or Purple state or area would be voted out.

In addition, there wouldn't have been enough votes to change anything.

Why should a candidate from a purple or red area have voted for this?
Why should they risk their careers?

[AlbizuX]

1. Until the Democrats become the party of the progressives

we won't win.

We got the irreconcilable difference of having Centrists ruling the party and advising party policy, with a base of progressive activists.

First things first...being Liberal is not only ok, it's a sign of noble worth. IF we keep playing centrist politics, we will lose our base in the process, and our base could be growing, if we paid attention to the Hispanic vote more.

[shraby]

4. It wouldn't have made any difference in

the outcome of the election. What it did do was get Conyers papers into the record and highlight the problems of the Ohio vote. It also highlighted the Pugs making fools of themselves because they used "talking points" in their arguments in a challenge to an election that has only happened once before since 1877.

[Q3JR4]

2. It is my belief that

it is better to die standing up than to live on your knees.

[nickinSTL]

3. Any difference?

Not in the sense that the vote would have gone their way, but as a message, yes.

It would have said 1. The Democrats are united against the tactics employed by the Republicans and 2. The Democrats will FIGHT for the voting rights of Americans.

It would have been symbolic, and if ALL Dems voted for it, I think the impact to their careers would have been minimal.

[wiggs]

7. Agree. Would have made a stronger statement.

Since the whole point of the action yesterday was to make a statement, I think they should have tried to make a strong statement instead of a mild one.

Simple.

[malmapus]

15. Aye a statement more than anything else

But to just curl up and "stay in line" to as not make ripples...I'm just glad that my Senator was the one who did stand up to make ripples.

[nickinSTL]

17. Lucky you, my 2 Senators are both Repubs

But, my Rep was one of those who voted for it.

Wm. Lacy Clay of MO!

[glitch]

18. Effect to their careers would not have been minimal. It would have been

spectacular. They would have declared themselves to be real leaders to the world and into the future.
Of course I know you meant as far as republican attacks go, the effect would have been minimal.
But I wanted to emphasize what they lost by not voting.

[nickinSTL]

20. right.

I did mean negative effects.

Unless the Repubs launched an all-out attack on ALL of the Dems, they wouldn't have been any more vulnerable than they already would have been if the Dems all stood united.

And, any individuals that stood, and those that did stand, I agree, they have proven themselves to have courage and to be worthy to be the leaders of our party.

[Cheswick2.0]

5. yes, they would still have been out voted, however

there is power in numbers.

[Zenlitened]

6. I think it would have been an impressive symbolic act.

And symbolism is a powerful thing.

That said, Boxer has stated that she's okay with it all, so I'm willing to be patient and see where this goes next.

[mzmolly]

8. No, but quit interjecting logic and raining on my parade of discontent!

:P

[FreepFryer]

9. It would have been a very bad idea, imho. Here's one argument.

Remember what DeLay said? That inane skeevy threat about how the challenge itself would threaten the nation itself, and how the Democrats would pay?

Well, if 1 Democratic Senator stands and votes, a symbolic 'faithless' vote, and a debate results.

If all the Democratic Senators stand and vote, the GOP will never let another election pass without a formal protest.

And, if they control House and Senate, that means they could effectively select the President regardless of the will of the people.

1 vote = prickly debate, makes retribution delicate
unanimous vote = unforgivable partisan precedent, makes retribution a mission

[Carolab]

12. Exactly.

That's why Senator Dayton stood and spoke to the "precedent" it would set if the house and senate tried to overturn the election using the 1887 law. Particularly without an indisputable body of evidence of fraud sufficient to prove Kerry won. Plus, the Repukes would have eaten them alive in the MEDIA.

I was pretty angry yesterday that only Boxer stood, especially since I lobbied Dayton and met with an aide.

But now I understand.

[mzmolly]

19. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y!

And if you think Republicans would have worked with Democrats on election reform after they "stood in unison" about voting issue in Ohio, I've got some swamp land in Florida ...

We need the Republicans in order to reform the system. Sucks, but that's a fact.

Thankfully most Republicans in the house/senate don't feel the election was stolen, thus they have no excuse but to support legislation that initiates long term electoral reform.

They don't want another 2005, they will work with us to reform the system if we play our cards right, and so far we played this in the best possible way.

[Warpy]

10. yes, there's no way the MSM could have downplayed that

a whole party united in crying FOUL! against the current administration.

Alas, those old maids in pants sat on their hands and hoped nobody would notice them.

I noticed. I'm voting Green in the next senatorial race.

[Richard D]

11. I do . .

It would have been a very strong statement. One of unity. One of a recognized purpose. Instead we got a bunch of wimps wimping out yet again.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. I totally disagree. I think every Democrat should have voted YES

Q3JR4, nickinSTL, cheswick2.0 and Zenlitened ..that was my exact point yesterday in saying I was disappointed that ALL the DEMs did not stand up together for the principle of unity. It did not matter whether they believed Kerry won or lost in Ohio..the point was that they were united!!!! The truth was that there was no way to know if Kerry actually won or lost in Ohio due to the massive voter fraud, supression and intimidation, and THAT is what they should have stood up for!!!
The fact that they did not stand up for voters should make it clear to voters why they should not stand up for them when it is time for them to be re-elected!!!

[mzmolly]

21. Principal and unity sounds great, but it won't get us election reform.

Republicans are in the majority in the house and senate and we have a republican president.

We have to tread carefully, like it or not.

[Emillereid]

14. It would have been one hell of a powerful message that would have

put Bush and his so called mandate on notice. I think as long as Democrats assume the defensive posture afraid to stand up for real progressive values they will be nothing more than sheep taken to slaughter -- whether that takes the form of defeat in the mid-term elections or just irrelevancy. Acting like a real opposition party with principles is not going to lose them the elections -- standing for nothing will. We have got to stop cowering, afraid to be progressive for fear of how the repukes will react. Let them react -- we can play hardball too. Our representatives should be screaming on the mountain tops about the the civil and voting rights violations and election fraud that took place in Ohio and all over this country. They should put the repukes on notice that we will not tolerate our democracy being stolen and a fascist government put in its place without an all out fight. We can frame a message too -- the dems don't always have to be worrying about what the repukes will say or do. We've got to make them worry about what we will do -- not appease them. To paraphrase something Howard Dean said at a UCLA talk -- don't worry about convincing republicans of anything -- we're in a civil war for the life of our democracy. This is not the time to play nice!

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Standing ovation....

Truth be told. If the Repukes were not so afraid that our message would have won the people's hearts and minds, they would not have had to cheat so much to win the elections....both in 2000 and this time as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is so obvious!!!!! If they knew they had the true message they would have been for open and fair elections!!!
The further to the center/right we move, the more we cede the elections to them, because we then seem to give the message that their policies are the correct ones. You know the more to the right the Democrats move, the more to the right the Republicans will move.
The way to win is to move left. To show the people the opposite way is the correct way!!!

[mzmolly]

22. Whoopy, powerful message does not equal election reform.

Period. We NEED the Repugs in order to change the system we have in place today.

[Emillereid]

23. Don't hold your breath -- if you're looking to the repukes to

save our democracy, you're looking in the wrong direction. Not that there aren't any 'good' republicans out in the heartland, but the Republican party has morphed into the party of corporatism (i.e. fascism) and no amount of playing nice is going to change them.

The great progressive movements in this country did not play nice -- for instance, in the civil rights movement (in which I played a small part) we had to make lots of noise and engage in a lot of civil disobedience in order to get the attention of the powers that be that Jim Crow was going down -- it was not open to negotiation. I believe that the none too polite anti-war movement in the 60s (of which I played a larger part) was effective in preventing the complete obliteration of Vietnam -- even Nixon knew he had to get most of our troops out, which he did in his Vietnamization of the war -- his version of an exit plan with 'honor' -- or face an increasingly violent 'revolution.' After the war, a lot of good reforms were put in place in an effort to avoid further such adventures -- which they did for a while.

I can guarantee that if the democrats in the senate and house had all voted not to certify Ohios electors with real follow-up action, it would have in all likelihood electrified a movement for real election reform and got the notice of both the repukes and the Bushits. Don't kid yourself -- it would have been more than the small symbolic moment that Boxer's lone vote provided. I'm proud of her and the 31 reps -- she's my senator after all. Unfortunately the way it played in the LA Times was as a small symbolic vote, not to really question the election of Bushitler, but to serve a small, symbolic cry in the wilderness to put a light on the 'irregularities' in Ohio. Boxer herself said that it was nothing more than a symbolic gesture and not in anyway meant to disturb the status quo -- and that's all it was. It could have been much, much more!

Thought I'd add the words of Malvina Reynold's -- just as true today as then -- just substitute some words like:"They hacked some votes in Mississippi, and stole some more in Ohio, There were long lines in the ghetto and some couldn't vote at all" -- you get the picture.

Words by Malvina Reynolds
Music by Malvina Reynolds & Barbara Dane

It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that's freedom's price, we don't mind.
No, no, no--
We don't mind,
No, no, no,--we don't mind.

It isn't nice to dump the groceries,
Or to sleep in on the floor,
Or to shout our cry of freedom
In the hotel or the store,
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that's freedom's price,
We don't mind. . .

Yeah, we tried negotiations
And the token picket line,
Mister Charlie didn't see us
And he might as well be blind;
When you deal with men of ice,
You can't always be so nice,
But if that's freedom's price,
We don't mind. . .

They kidnapped boys in Mississippi,
They shot Medgar in the back,
Did you say that wasn't proper?
Did you stand out on the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we're not nice,
We'll if that's freedom's price,
We don't mind. . .

It isn't nice to block the doorways,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice
You told us once, you told us twice,
Thanks buddy, for your advice,
Well, if that's freedom price,
We don't mind. .
WE DON'T MIND!

[mzmolly]

24. McCain Feingold (bi-partisan electoral reform bill)

You mention Civil rights, that movement took time. It also took eventual legislation.

I don't think we have to play nice, but we do have to play the game if we want reform.

I totally disagree that all Democrats standing up would have meant progress, I think it would have meant punishment.

It was much more than a symbolic gesture and according to Barbara Boxer "it was a great day for democracy" that's my take.

[Emillereid]

25. The civil rights movement didn't really take off until

it began to engage in civil disobedience -- and then the results were pretty damn quick historically speaking. The timeline is quite interesting on that point -- most of the dramatic events took place from about 1962 - 64 and by 1965 those legislators were feeling the heat -- and passed the civil rights bill. The powers that be realized that they had a social revolution on their hand -- and that they'd better act. Read Howard Zinn's "People's History" and you realize that almost all the social progress in this country came about as a result of the people holding the powerful people's feet to the fire. Even Roosevelt's social programs were his way of saving capitalism. Unfortunately Americans have become disconnected from their own fine history -- and have become little more than consumers of pre-digested entertainment.

[mzmolly]

26. We held feet to the fire, which is why the election was contested

yesterday.

And as you pointed out the Civil Rights movement happened because the people rose up. That is happening today. The "Voting Rights Movement" is in progress.

Edited to add: Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved for it to happen symbolically speaking, I'd have applauded loudly! But realistically I think it could have set us back on the road to actual election reform.

[Emillereid]

28. I think we need to "hold their feet" to a hotter fire!

I don't want their tootsies to be just comfortable warm and toasty, I want them to feel enough heat to squeal.

[mzmolly]

29. LOL.

I'm with you there. :hi:

[Mistwell]

27. The message would have been a LOT LOUDER

In case you missed it, the MSM barely touvched this issue yesterday, except as an amusing side note.

If ALL Democrats had voted NO, the coverage would have gone on a long longer, a lot louder, and it would have been taken a lot more seriously.

So the answer is YES, it would have made a BIG difference. With it being 1 senator and only 32 reps, most of whom were long ago written off by the MSM as "just the CBC", it's easy for the MSM to frame this issue as a silly sidenote. With all of them, it would have been a major issue.

I know many here think it WAS a major issue for the MSM...but I think that involves a lot of denial.

[ClarkUSA]

30. If every Democratic leader had been as outspoken as Conyers....

from the beginning, then this would have been front-page news and Sunday talk show fodder since the weekend of Nov. 6 and about 250 more million Americans would have heard more about what the funny business in OH had been about by now. The Rovian media couldn't have blocked all the noise if the Democrats had ROARED.

Notice that Dino Rossi of WA is not at all concerned with being called a sore loser as he and the GOP move to sue in court even though Gregoire is planning on being inaugurated this month.

Only the Democratic Party (with notable exceptions in the state of WA as well as Congressman Conyers, Tubbs-Jones and the other 29 House Representatives+ Senator Boxer) are such wimps that their concern with being called names
by the GOP is enough deterrent from doing the right thing -- standing up for the RIGHT TO VOTE.

[TNMOM]

31. They'll come after Democrats regardless of whether they

stood up or not.

here's a question for you: why should we let the Republicans intimidate us into not standing up?