Why did the other Senators vote no? An explanation

[nmoliver]

I got this response from Mike, of the Coalition Against Election Fraud (CAEF):

>Hi,
>
>Could you please clarify this for me (us)? I don't understand why Boxer's
>voting for her own objection was a "plus", and any other Senator's voting
>for it was unimportant. Why did Senators stand by the objection but vote
>no? Why would Barbara have voted against her own objection under any
>circumstances? If she had, would that not have weakened us? If other
>Senators had voted yes, would that not have strengthened us? Why did they
>not?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Response
>
>Bear in mind only 31 in the house voted in Favor of the resolution.
>
>Boxer could not oppose her own resolution. I'll give you my interreptation
>of the senate vote. The senate could not ever push through a rejection of
>the Ohio electors. There was a belief widely held in the senate that they
>were to get shafted if they take a stand on an issue this is something
>Barbara Boxer said in her press conference. The fact is minority party
>members mostly keep their mouths shut in the senate and rarely take a stand
>on anything tangible
>that they introduce. They mostly engage in the process of finger pointing.
>The finger this time was delegitmizing the entire government by publicly
>stating a Federal Election is invalid. I know of no case where a sitting
>government says its own leadership doesn't have a right to rule. Its simply
>too dangerous and profiles in cowardice is the norm when legitimacy is at
>stake. This is simply not a revolutionary situation.
>
>The logical reason is that the senate thought that it had to decide at the
>current time based on the evidence at hand as to whether there was enough
>widespread fraud to overturn the election particularly in Ohio. The answer
>was no. Robert Byrd for example said he might have voted otherwise if the
>evidence from a criminal investigation was in. At the moment there was not
>compelling evidence in his mind the election was thrown. This being said it
>was politically advantageous of the democrats not to entirely antagonize
>this active part of their base by calling their objections illegitimate.
>Hence you found zero votes and stirring speaches.
>
>Since this is a battle that could not be won the question is politically
>whether or not this would motivate the Democratic Base by voting the other
>way. Bear in mind if not done en masse it would mean that a Democrat say
>Boxer is going to be shunned and disadvantaged if they take a stand. The
>fact is of course it would be better if this was a pure partesan vote, in my
>estimation but the question is to the leadership does it weaken the party.
>They differed from us in their judgment on this score. Also please do not
>underestimate the ignorance of our government nor its classism and racism.
>>From time to time I pass on articles to Barney Frank which he hasn't seen
>and he thanks me. The government exists behind a veil of flappers and often
>is quite out of touch with its own country.
>Its also extremely presumptuous to think that a hodgepodge of differing
>voting groups with multiple agendas from lots of places in the country could
>sway two extremely conservative institutions with well placed citizens
>lobbying in a months time. Add to our efforts a couple of million angry
>citizens demonstrating at the capital with a little less deference than
>usual and things could have been different. None of us has built such a
>movement and we should not expect results that can come from it.

[jdots]

1. damned if we do,damned if we don't

No amount of happy pills will cure the country from the reasons for this depression of the 21st. century.

[politicaholic]

2. A massive demonstration wouldn't have worked either.

There were massive demonstrations in 2000 and it didn't stop anything.

There were massive demonstrations globally against the war. That didn't do anything.

Political preservation is the name of the game in Washington.

Politicians see what happened to that loud mouth Newt Gingrich and cower.

I would like to thank Mike for defending the spinelessness of our legislators and putting the blame on our shoulders.

LOOK, MIKE! We've got jobs that keep us alive. Our senators have one job and that just happens to be representing US. The moment we leave our jobs to go demonstrate our precious jobs in this crappy economy our livelyhoods are put in jeopardy.

All we expect is that our Reps show the fuck up and do the right thing. Obviously, that's just not going to happen this time.

Fuck you Mike, whoever the hell you are.