Tahar Joblis
06-01-2005, 20:28
As you may be aware, an objection was officially filed to the electoral votes of Ohio just this afternoon. I bring you the breaking news, with my editorial reaction to the first few speakers. I'm here to bring you the coverage with intelligent analysis first through the door.
The initial speaker is the one who brought the objection to the table. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio. She thanks Boxer many times.
"Undermine the confidence" - Representative Price of Ohio is basically playing the conformity card here. She does not address, in any way, shape or form, the allegations of irregularity, and simply calls it ridiculous and engages in ad hominem attacks on the objectioners. Cites 1988 as the "last year a presidential candidate won a majority of the popular vote." "Not a single official has objected." These seem to be proving the main talking points of the Republican speakers, along with "get over it, you silly person." I will wager now that no Republican speaker will bring up the apparent post facto conclusion that Gore, with all votes (re)counted in Florida, may well have won (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/opinion/3973122.htm), and I suspect that no Democrats will allude to 2000 more specifically than citing it as an election that "showed problems with the system."
The next democratic speaker brings up voters directed to the wrong voting table, the multiple precinct station irregularities. Plays the "we have a duty to make sure our people have the right to vote" card. "Not a single official has explained the irregularities," in apparent response to Price's assertion that no official has objected.
Bernie Sanders: I(V). "I agree & think GWB won ohio, but nobody should wait four hours to vote." There must be a paper trail, he says - absolutely must. "Every voter must feel secure and confident that every vote is counted accurately and every voter is treated with respect and dignity." Nice line there
Missouri Whip: "You will accept, then, this is about accepting Ohio, we should handle at a different time." (Addressing Sander.) Being elected is unique as a representative body, he claims - hardly the case, there are fifty State Houses as well as similar elected legislatures in a very large number of countries. Definitely trying to play to the "Festung Amerika" crowd there, casting America as the sole bastion of democracy in a hostile world. Again, plays the card "Thou shalt not cast doubt on the process." "118 votes would be justified to bring to debate." (It becomes clear he's later talking about margin, rather than recounting change, in which case his 118 vote comment would quite easily be construed to apply to this very situation.) States that the election result is "unquestioned," propaganda at its best when there are many questioning. Reiterates that "doubt is evil." Says it's the greatest democracy in the world, says something about working the system to produce results that nobody would believe - key repeatable quote I wish I'd gotten down directly, as it's a very quotable quote that, out of his incoherent context or taken literally, would indicate manipulation of the process. He is working from the same talking points sheet as prior Republican speaker, I suspect - not surprising, as the Whip, he probably went over it with their speakers last night. The Republicans will present a fairly unified field, I suspect, with none speaking against.
15 second speaker (Florida): "Get over it!"
Charlotte NC: "Everyone who wants to vote should be provided the opportunity and be county." Our country is the model, but falling woefully short [by international standards.] "We cannot claim to be fighting for democracy while unwilling to do whatever is necessary." House in uproar. "We must do whatever is necessary to insure opportunity & equality." He sounds like a Baptist preacher, incidentally. Reiterates this is not about the election, says he will vote to certify, but states this is not frivolous and must be addressed. Cites "three provisions of the constitution" as violated; these, he says incredulously, are frivolous? "We must take additional steps," he says.
Tano (CA): Cites to speak for minorities. "Disenfranchised." "Full participation," cites "deep abiding faith" as necessary, in a mirror of Republican speech thus far.
Nay(R/OH): "Accept defeat and go on with it." You, he says, are bitter and resentful in challenging the results - results, note, not the methodology. The Republicans are focusing on the results, the Democrats and Sanders on the methodology. Nay's praise of Kerry sounds almost like pulling teeth to me; he then cites irregularities as not confined to Ohio - nice to hear somebody acknowledge the widespread nature of the problems. Says again the results are important, then finally mentions objections specifically. "Elections were run by the county boards, not the secretary of state." "Long lines weren't caused by allocation of machines." Is the first to actually address the objections, although he generally just says that Democrats are responsible for any problems with the election in Ohio - by extension, they shouldn't complain, since "they" are responsible. Smooth shift to blame the Ohio state Democratic party, but still leaves open the question of racism in my mind. I wonder if he thinks the Ohio Democrats screwed up the election in Ohio in order to set the stage for objections?
In any event, this objection and delay cannot but bring needed attention onto the numerous screwups and continued effective disenfranchisement of certain voters - for this reason, I will not be surprised if many news stations failed to cover this rather unprecedented action in detail. Much needs to be done. From these initial speakers, I believe I can state the summary of both sides, as expressed and condensed very briefly by the House Representatives:
Republicans: "Whiny *****es, shut up, you lost, get over it, you're unpatriotic to express doubt."
Democrats: "There were ****ing problems that need desperately to be addressed, because everybody's got to [be able to] vote for this to work."
The initial speaker is the one who brought the objection to the table. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio. She thanks Boxer many times.
"Undermine the confidence" - Representative Price of Ohio is basically playing the conformity card here. She does not address, in any way, shape or form, the allegations of irregularity, and simply calls it ridiculous and engages in ad hominem attacks on the objectioners. Cites 1988 as the "last year a presidential candidate won a majority of the popular vote." "Not a single official has objected." These seem to be proving the main talking points of the Republican speakers, along with "get over it, you silly person." I will wager now that no Republican speaker will bring up the apparent post facto conclusion that Gore, with all votes (re)counted in Florida, may well have won (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/opinion/3973122.htm), and I suspect that no Democrats will allude to 2000 more specifically than citing it as an election that "showed problems with the system."
The next democratic speaker brings up voters directed to the wrong voting table, the multiple precinct station irregularities. Plays the "we have a duty to make sure our people have the right to vote" card. "Not a single official has explained the irregularities," in apparent response to Price's assertion that no official has objected.
Bernie Sanders: I(V). "I agree & think GWB won ohio, but nobody should wait four hours to vote." There must be a paper trail, he says - absolutely must. "Every voter must feel secure and confident that every vote is counted accurately and every voter is treated with respect and dignity." Nice line there
Missouri Whip: "You will accept, then, this is about accepting Ohio, we should handle at a different time." (Addressing Sander.) Being elected is unique as a representative body, he claims - hardly the case, there are fifty State Houses as well as similar elected legislatures in a very large number of countries. Definitely trying to play to the "Festung Amerika" crowd there, casting America as the sole bastion of democracy in a hostile world. Again, plays the card "Thou shalt not cast doubt on the process." "118 votes would be justified to bring to debate." (It becomes clear he's later talking about margin, rather than recounting change, in which case his 118 vote comment would quite easily be construed to apply to this very situation.) States that the election result is "unquestioned," propaganda at its best when there are many questioning. Reiterates that "doubt is evil." Says it's the greatest democracy in the world, says something about working the system to produce results that nobody would believe - key repeatable quote I wish I'd gotten down directly, as it's a very quotable quote that, out of his incoherent context or taken literally, would indicate manipulation of the process. He is working from the same talking points sheet as prior Republican speaker, I suspect - not surprising, as the Whip, he probably went over it with their speakers last night. The Republicans will present a fairly unified field, I suspect, with none speaking against.
15 second speaker (Florida): "Get over it!"
Charlotte NC: "Everyone who wants to vote should be provided the opportunity and be county." Our country is the model, but falling woefully short [by international standards.] "We cannot claim to be fighting for democracy while unwilling to do whatever is necessary." House in uproar. "We must do whatever is necessary to insure opportunity & equality." He sounds like a Baptist preacher, incidentally. Reiterates this is not about the election, says he will vote to certify, but states this is not frivolous and must be addressed. Cites "three provisions of the constitution" as violated; these, he says incredulously, are frivolous? "We must take additional steps," he says.
Tano (CA): Cites to speak for minorities. "Disenfranchised." "Full participation," cites "deep abiding faith" as necessary, in a mirror of Republican speech thus far.
Nay(R/OH): "Accept defeat and go on with it." You, he says, are bitter and resentful in challenging the results - results, note, not the methodology. The Republicans are focusing on the results, the Democrats and Sanders on the methodology. Nay's praise of Kerry sounds almost like pulling teeth to me; he then cites irregularities as not confined to Ohio - nice to hear somebody acknowledge the widespread nature of the problems. Says again the results are important, then finally mentions objections specifically. "Elections were run by the county boards, not the secretary of state." "Long lines weren't caused by allocation of machines." Is the first to actually address the objections, although he generally just says that Democrats are responsible for any problems with the election in Ohio - by extension, they shouldn't complain, since "they" are responsible. Smooth shift to blame the Ohio state Democratic party, but still leaves open the question of racism in my mind. I wonder if he thinks the Ohio Democrats screwed up the election in Ohio in order to set the stage for objections?
In any event, this objection and delay cannot but bring needed attention onto the numerous screwups and continued effective disenfranchisement of certain voters - for this reason, I will not be surprised if many news stations failed to cover this rather unprecedented action in detail. Much needs to be done. From these initial speakers, I believe I can state the summary of both sides, as expressed and condensed very briefly by the House Representatives:
Republicans: "Whiny *****es, shut up, you lost, get over it, you're unpatriotic to express doubt."
Democrats: "There were ****ing problems that need desperately to be addressed, because everybody's got to [be able to] vote for this to work."