Boxer to Contest Bush

by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 03:26:41 AM EST

NOW says so (netroots action at link), we'll have to wait and see for sure. It looks like at a minimum, around 1 PM today, fireworks are going to breakout on the Senate floor:Procedural Background [from the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi]

Several Members have indicated that because of numerous and very serious election irregularities in Ohio in the 2004 Presidential election, they intend to challenge the Ohio ballot when Congress meets in Joint Session on Thursday, January 6, at 1 PM. The point of this challenge is to highlight the urgent need to enact further voting and election reforms so that these irregularities never happen again.

Under the electoral ballot procedure, if a Member of both the House and the Senate challenge a ballot for any state, a separate session is triggered in each body. The issue of whether or not to sustain that challenge is debatable for 2 hours in the House and 2 hours in the Senate, and the debate occurs simultaneously in both bodies.

With a link to this report:
Ten Preliminary Reasons Why the Bush Vote Does Not Compute, and Why Congress Must Investigate Rather Than Certify the Electoral College.

Update (Chirs): Here is some further information on the procedure in the event of a challenge.

Here is a link to a long, large PDF file that consolidates information on 2004 election irregularities.

Update 2: Here is the C-SPAN feed on the debate.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Comments

37 Comments

Sort by

permalink

AAR reporting one senator will contest election

Posting the confirmation again...

"BREAKING NEWS!
On Thursday's "Morning Sedition," the Rev. Jesse Jackson told hosts Marc Maron and Mark Riley that, at a meeting last night, Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid revealed that at least one Democratic senator WILL stand up with Rep. John Conyers
to oppose the certification of Ohio's vote, thus forcing a Congressional debate on the state of America's voting system!

Rev. Jackson did NOT deny that Reid named Sen. Barbara Boxer as the Democrat expected to stand up today. And her office wants to know whether you support her in doing so. LET HER KNOW YOU DO!

Numbers for Sen. Boxer:
Washington -- 202 224-3553
Inland Empire -- 909 888-8525
Sacramento -- 916 448-2787
San Diego -- 619 239-3884
San Francisco -- 415 403-0100

YOUR CALL COULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER SEN. BOXER CHOOSES TO STAND UP FOR FAIR ELECTIONS!"

http://www.morningsedition.com/

That makes it look pretty official.

Need a historian to jump in here, but I think we now have the first Presidential election in at least 100 years in which the results have been contested. Need a historian to jump in here. I know that Hayes/Tilden election was a mess, but was that election contested, or was it just close?

by afs 2005-01-06 03:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

About time!

Finally, a Dem Senator with the ovaries to stand for something.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-01-06 04:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: About time!

Good one :-)

by Parker 2005-01-06 04:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

alright

Let's she what she's got. This could be Boxer's breakout day. She's got another six years to spend whatever capital she earns today, I'm hoping she makes us all proud.

by Bob Brigham 2005-01-06 04:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Where are all the WHITE GUYS???

Have you noticed that it is minorities and women who who usually put their necks on the line for Democracy?

...the GOP says Blacks vote Democratic because they get welfare benefits...(it is about time that we dismantle this frame, doncha think)

*It is about fairness...*that is what seperates this country from the petty dictatorships of the world...the minorities and women rely on the government most to be fair to protect them from the tyranny of the majority.

If jokers like Al From and the weasel Democratic senators can't see this then they are in the wrong biddness.

by Parker 2005-01-06 04:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Aren't Wexler and Holt on-board?

They've both been very supportive of voting rights issues.

by afs 2005-01-06 04:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Where are all the WHITE GUYS???

Kucinich joined the objection.

by Geotpf 2005-01-06 10:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Where are all the WHITE GUYS???

As did Bernie Sanders, of course he's not a Dem.

by raddude 2005-01-06 11:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

AAR update: AP confirmation

On Unscripted, they just read an AP report just off the wire that confirmed that Democrats would contest the presidential election.

by afs 2005-01-06 04:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Another AAR update: Sen Boxer's statement

I'm not sure if it was a letter or press release from Sen. Boxer that was just read live on Unscripted, but it was addressed to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones stating her intention to contest the election.

by afs 2005-01-06 04:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

the missing link

this diary should have linked to this georgia10 diary at DKos

by Pachacutec 2005-01-06 04:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

On this issue, Kos shouldn't be linked

Kos has been very insulting toward anyone who considered this a voting irregularities a serious issue, personally attacking those who did. He didn't say people who disagreed with him were wrong. Kos said people who disagreed with him were nuts.

by afs 2005-01-06 04:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On this issue, Kos shouldn't be linked

I've been in the thick of these matters at kos, and have performed what amounts to a small mediation role at the site among kos, front page diarists and election activists.

I disagree with your post because it oversimplifies the reality and performs the same function as Peter Beinart's divisive rhetoric: it weakens, divides us, mischaracterizes the real issues and dynamics and ultimately give aid and comfort to the Rovain Death Star.

With due respect, I dissent. Kos has not been pushing this issue, and he has not done very well in dealing with it, and I have called him on it, and he has responded. But he has also provided a forum for the development of this research, and he has granted people like Armndo the freedom to cultivate and promote this research without interference.

The reality is more complicated than you suggest.

by Pachacutec 2005-01-06 08:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

The reality is that Kos has banned many.

Kos has banned a LOT of people in the last two months that have sone nothing but protest his personal insults of them.

Kos has acted way out of line.

by afs 2005-01-06 09:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The reality is that Kos has banned many.

No one is banned for dissent.

To the extent that anyone gets banned, it is for a failure to accord consistent respect to others.

There has been no purge at kos. But those who cannot comport themselves like on-line adults wear out their welcome over time.

Actually, as a dkos community member for a few months, I am not aware of any bannings, personally, and it's not because I visit infrequently. It is because they occur so infrequently.

Those who make destrcutive, ad hominen attacks, lacking a spirit of contrustive engagement may often have their post trol-rated to the extent that their comments become invisible to all but trusted users, but this is not the same as banning.

Just to set the record straight.

by Pachacutec 2005-01-06 10:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Kos banned people for dissent to his attacks

Kos banned a lot of people for got upset when Kos insulted them. If you say he didn't you either do not know the facts, or are knowingly lying to cover them up.

I know of 3 people that Kos banned on one thread that Kos said anyone who believed in voting fraud were no different than people who believed that Saddam was linked to 9/11.

by afs 2005-01-06 10:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On this issue, Kos shouldn't be linked

and by the way, one of the mirrors to georgia10's work is one that I've established.

by Pachacutec 2005-01-06 08:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

AP: Democrats to Force Debate on Ohio Results

"Democrats to Force Debate on Ohio Results

11 minutes ago

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A small group of Democrats agreed Thursday to force House and Senate debates on Election Day problems in Ohio before letting Congress certify President Bush's election over Sen. John Kerry in November.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top. By law, a challenge 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.

While Bush's victory is not in jeopardy, the Democratic challenge will force Congress to interrupt tallying the Electoral College vote that was scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. EST Thursday. It would be only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/electoral_vote

It's on!

by afs 2005-01-06 04:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Democrats to Force Debate on Ohio Results

"While Bush's victory is not in jeopardy..."

Interesting, isn't it? Heaven forbid that the discovery that the election was rigged might actually overturn it.

by global yokel 2005-01-06 06:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Doesn't make sense....

How can this be?

So our laws are meaningless, then?

by ultraworld 2005-01-06 06:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

What the hell is a "law"?

It's just the most accepted form of the least acceptable imposition.

Apparently, most people accept having a stolen election imposed on them.

Worked for Kennedy, right? Didn't work quite so well with Bush, though. Well . . . some bunch of dumb commies killed Kennedy. Bush . . . apparently commies like Bush (well, at least, Russia and China are on his side; so Stalinists are on his side). At least enough to not kill him.

Go figure.

Democracy always has been a fraud. At least as long as we keep picking between the two dumbest, richest fucks we can find.

The least we should do is pay better. You never know. Control of several trillion dollars probably does deserve a CEO's salary.

by jcjcjc 2005-01-06 07:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Kennedy/Nixon myth

The reality of the Kennedy/Nixon election situation in Illinois was the whole state had been broken for a long time and both sides were wrong there. Yes, the Daley machine cheated, but the GOP cheated downstate just as badly. There were just as many dead Republicans voting on election day in those elections.

by afs 2005-01-06 09:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Kennedy/Nixon myth: lessons learned

In the old days, our crooks were as good as their crooks. Even as late as Clinton we could claim this.

Somewhere between 1960 and 2000, we lost parity in the vote rigging game. Aside from a few bright spots (say, Ed Rendell's delivery of the Philly machine) our ability to slam the GOP with their tactics has fallen by the wayside.

By 2000, we just lost our edge. It takes bodies, genius, innovation to rig elections the right way. It takes gigantic balls. Frankly, it takes deranged perverts like Karl Rove and his legion of spreadsheet junkies soft-pedalling Jesus while Diebold pulls a couple sticks of RAM out of select machines in Democratic counties.

It takes the kind of balls that lets you tell the American people, with a straight face, that their voting machine run on WINDOWS!!! (Reform, gang, means Linux.)

All things being equal, it takes a political machine to rig votes. We simply have to get our machine back into the game.

That means building a Noise Machine. That means controlling mid-level state offices, such as Secretary of State, say, in Ohio. That means puting our people in the offices where voters call to find their precincts. That means paying our preachers big filthy wads of money to turn out the vote. That means baby-sitting our corporate interests (insurance industry, venture capital) and paying them off in kind when we seize power.

It means cutting this play-nice shit out before some goofy bunch of pricks downs somebody like Feingold in 2008 with ads from "Winsconsin Rabbis for Truth" claiming that Feingold is in fact a Kabbalist or a Scientologist.

It means running ads against someone like Guiliani in 2008 with the "Italian-American Comb-overers for Truth" saying that Guiliani never really hated black people, he just let the NYPD kill Haitians because he was too cheap to fund shooting ranges.

So, I stand by the standard interpretation of the Kennedy-Nixon myth. Because it's reminder of what it will take to avoid another Kerry-Bush truth.

by jcjcjc 2005-01-06 08:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Doesn't make sense....

You don't get it.

The point isn't to win an election. The point is to find a criminal and throw him in jail. Hopefully, the criminal is Bush himself.

There's a difference.

Suppose, for example, that it could be proved that Bush personally cast two votes, and that no other fraud occurred. Suppose, also, that Bush won by more than one vote, so that Bush's extra vote didn't matter in the long run. In that case, proving that Bush committed fraud wouldn't change the outcome of the election. But it would put Bush in jail. Which, in the long run, amounts to the same thing, but it's not technically about the number of votes. It's about finding a criminal.

by joshyelon 2005-01-06 09:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Sighting of first Boxer 2008 discussion

That didn't take long ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x246245

by afs 2005-01-06 05:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Boxer signs to contest electoral vote challenge

Just saw this on cspan----Senator Boxer signs something to challenge Ohio's electoral votes.

by Marie Smith 2005-01-06 05:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Typical political stunt: no substance

So what? I mean really, this is just like Republicans with their "base". They throw them symbolic bones which they gobble up, while year after year nothing changes. Criminalize abortion? No chance in hades! Reduce the size of government? Ha! Forgo nation building? Are you out of your mind!

We need to stay focused on the big-picture, if that is possible.

Please remember that you can only govern FROM THE CENTER! And to control the center you need a concensus about reality. We don't have that. Is the economy strong getting stronger or is it on the verge of a great depression? Are we winning in Iraq or are we getting bogged down in another Viet Nam? Is religion the solution or is it the problem?

Two months ago we had an election, and you know what the Republicans won. They won handily and they won across all levels of government. You can fight your tactical battles for social security and for election reform, but Karl Rove doesn't care. They can't wait to brand you as enemies of progress in 2006! Its not as if they really are hell-bent on changing anything, they just want to win and preserve the tax-cuts!

The so-called "netroots" needs to realize that they are the high-end of the citizen bell curve; yes they're motivated, yes they're knowledgeable, but you know what? politics, like everything in America obeys the rules of the mass market. That is why in the end the political business goes to those who cater to the mass market. The leaders cannot please you everytime. Be glad if Dean doesn't win because the moment he has to make a tough decision, he won't side with the minority, he will side with the majority, and then you will all start denouncing him and bemoaning your foolish support for a "traitor". It happens every time.

by Paul Goodman 2005-01-06 06:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Typical political stunt: no substance

I know it is a bone. But, I like it. I am tired of Democrats afraid of throwing bones. Nobody will remember this by 2006 except the activists who worked under the radar exposing fraud in Ohio even though they knew it wouldn't change the outcome. This ultimately has little impact, but that is kind of the point. Democrats have for so long been unwilling to rock the boat even a little bit. This is part of what Josh Marshall calls "losing the right way." Think about what you said: Republicans do it all the time. Is it any mystery why they have such a revved up base? Could it be that they spend a good amount of time displaying their appreciation for their base and validating their feelings? I think so...

by Garemko 2005-01-06 06:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Typical political stunt: no substance

I'm exicited to see the stunt. Taking a longer lunch so I can go home to watch C-SPAN.

I totally agree that netroots needs to realize that it's on the higher side of the bell curve too.

We need to label the GOP as the enemy of the common man. Isn't that what the facts say anyway?

by pacified 2005-01-06 07:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Of course it is

do you think Hillary would be joining in if she were to lose real political capital.

But it will bring to light an atrocity and jumpstart the need for election reform and publically humiliate Bush...that is a hell of a lot compared to the last four years where they did absolutly NOTHING

by Parker 2005-01-06 07:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

The high-enders defeated slavery in this country

The governing center of American politics LEGALIZED SLAVERY. The governing center counted Blacks as 3/5s of a person. The consensus about reality was that Bible allowed slavery, and the if the Bible allowed slavery, slavery must be okay. A few "high-end" abolitionists spent hundreds of years doing political stunts to get any attention they could get to pointing out to the governing center that owning human beings was wrong. Thank God they kept doing their stunts.

The governing center of American politics forbid women from voting. The consensus about reality was that women were to fragile and emotional to handle the responsibility of voting. Take a look at the HBO movie Iron Jawed Angels if you want to see some of the political stunts the suffragists did in the nearly-century long fight for voting rights for women.

How dare you criticise the process in which Americans speak their minds on their beliefs.

by afs 2005-01-06 09:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Handily?

I wouldn't call their victory a mandate.

The margin was razor thin and if you discount Texas's gerrymandering, it was pretty much a tie, arguably..

Democratic margins in the blue states actually went up, as well..

by ultraworld 2005-01-06 06:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

In the House, if you ignore Texas

We gained seats.

by Geotpf 2005-01-06 11:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Fighting Democrats

Kos just broke the following:

Rosenberg endorses EC challenge

I'm writing this on the road, from my Treo. So it must remain short...

Simon Rosenberg, announcing his candidacy today for DNC chair, endorsed a challenge of the electoral college vote.

Asked whether Dems should mount such a challenge, Rosenberg responded, "Yes. Next question."

by Bob Brigham 2005-01-06 07:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Ooops... that was Kos' candidate

So... does Kos think Simon Rosenberg is nuts now, too?

by afs 2005-01-06 09:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Go to c-span.org RIGHT NOW

the roll call vote is about to start

by ericd1112 2005-01-06 08:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Here's the list of 31 House supporters.

---- YEAS 31 ---

Brown, Corrine
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Evans
Farr
Filner
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McKinney
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Schakowsky
Thompson (MS)
Waters
Watson
Woolsey

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll007.xml

by afs 2005-01-06 12:23PM | 0 recs