Please tell me why...

[Stop_the_War]

The only senator to resist was Barbara Boxer who bravely stood up and fought against the stolen election. My question is, why was she the only one? There are many many more Democratic senators.

Why don't we consider Barbara Boxer for Democratic Party chairwoman. I think she would do a much better job than Howard Dean, who appears to be right now the popular choice. Especially since she was the only person in the Senate to resist the stolen election.

end of rant.

[Pam-Moby]

1. Please tell me why-I wish I knew too n/t

[laura888]

2. amen to that!

it is certainly a mystery that investigating voter problems is considered "too left-wing" by some democratic senators.

[Stop_the_War]

3. yeah

I just don't get why only one Senator protested the election. It makes me kinda sad really that not even those Senators (except Boxer) in our own party are not willing to stand for what is right against the corrupt Republicans.

[tkmorris]

4. I may be mistaken

My understanding of Senatorial procedure is kind of murky in this case but I believe that only one Senator is needed or desired, perhaps even only one is permitted, to protest per state. If you watched the events take place on CSPAN you saw that each states vote were announced and recorded in turn, with the opportunity to protest taking place as the state in questions votes were announced.

At that point a Senator, in this case Barbara Boxer, can request the attention of the chair and once receiving it is allowed to object. Since only one Senator at a time can be recognized by the Chair it is impossible for multiple protests to be lodged simultaneously. Furthermore once the protest is made the procedure for dealing with it is automatically started, there is no need or even ability for other protests to be lodged against the same states electors.

Instead, other Senators offer their support (or lack thereof) through making arguments for or against the objection, and afterward through their final vote. Now the votes that were cast, those you might find offensive, but saying that Boxer was the only one to object is just misunderstanding the procedure I believe.

[noamnety]

5. I'm sure as a group they discussed a strategy

One person was needed to trigger the debate.

Personally, I would have preferred if they all voted not to accept it, but I accept that the outcome was the same either way, and I'm grateful someone did object, and others spoke.

I will donate to her next campaign, and I hope if enough others support those that spoke, and those that voted, the other dems will get the message that they're safer politically if they do speak out against things that are wrong.

As we get closer to 2006, once the folks running again have campaigns set up, it would be very cool to organize donations based on votes. Instead of sending $200 to a candidate, we could see how they vote on issues, and send them a contribution with X amount of dollars per vote we approved of, with a little score card, so they know which events cost them money.

"You would have received $200 from me, but because you voted to confirm Gonzales you are only receiving $175."

Or it could even be incremental donations as the votes roll in, with emails to explain why they didn't get a contribution after a certain vote.

If it was done in an organized way, I think they'd catch on pretty quick, and be able to anticipate what we want them to do - and force them to explain to their supporters why they voted a position we don't understand. I don't know if that would officially make us lobbyists or what the ethical and legal ramifications are, though.

[Sydnie]

6. Boxer is not running for party chair

How many things should one person be expected to tackle and do any of them well? She is doing her thing and doing it well, with support of many others (including Kerry, I might add). Leave her to her business and tap someone else to do that job.