THEY Can'ts HANDLE the Truth!
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 07-15-2004 - 9:30pm |
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Think the passions from the 2000 presidential election have cooled? Certainly not in the House, which voted Thursday to strike a Florida representative's words from the record after she said Republicans "stole" that closely fought contest.
The verbal battle broke out after Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., proposed a measure barring any federal official from requesting that the United Nations (news - web sites) formally observe the U.S. elections on Nov. 2.
Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., and several other House Democrats have made that suggestion. They argue that some black voters were disenfranchised in 2000 and problems could occur again this fall.
"We welcome America to observe the integrity of our electoral process and we do not ask, though, for the United Nations to come as monitors at our polling stations," Buyer said.
"I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again," Brown said. "Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said, 'Get over it.' No, we're not going to get over it. And we want verification from the world."
At that point, Buyer demanded that Brown's words be "taken down," or removed the debate's permanent record.
The House's presiding officer, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ruled that Brown's words violated a House rule.
"Members should not accuse other members of committing a crime such as, quote, stealing, end quote, an election," Thornberry said.
When Brown objected to his ruling, the House voted 219-187 to strike her words.

Pages
On the upside, although it doesn't address this issue, Kerry is assembling a legal team to cover as many swing states as possible in case voter issues happen this year. Good move. Heard the UN turned down the request to monitor our elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
It needs to be said again though that most of those methods being used in many counties were contrary to state law on the issue. According to the state of Florida, the only type of chad votes which were valid and countable were those where the chad was completely removed... not dimpled, not detached on one corner, not pregnant, etc.
It also needs to be said again that the USSC didn't appoint Bush. They basically said that the federal election deadlines had to observed, and that Florida Supreme Court had overstepped it's bounds and couldn't change the method of counting controversial ballots after they had been cast.
~mark~
~mark~
"Wasn't the war in Iraq "justified" by enforcing UN resolutions?"
Yes, though it's a somewhat different situation, since we haven't militarily invaded Canada or Mexico with the purpose of usurping their natural resources.
"Can't use the UN as justification when it suits you, and not when it doesn't!"
Radically different situations Lady. Sit back and consider the various aspects of those situations for a few moments and you'll see what I'm talking about.
"UN has supervised other elections, when people from the country have asked for it, or it's deemed necessary."
I'm not aware of the US government asking for such oversight, nor have I heard that the UN has deemed such oversight necessary.
"Do policemen not also have to follow the law? Are judges excluded too?"
Yes, police have to follow the law, judges as well though it's not unknown for them to create law as they go.
"What a totally ludicrous concept!"
Yes, comparing the US electoral process to Iraq and it's actions which brought down UN sanctions on it is completely ludicrous.
~mark~
What is the point anyhow of denying them vote other than to exclude a certain group of people who are likely to vote a certain way? For most felons, it isn't exactly seen as a big 'punishment'... And those that would see it as punishment are exactly the ones who are now trying to become good citizens!!!
Are former felons also denied such things as Old Age Security and whatever other social programs are available to americans? If the intent was 'really' to punish felons, why not have these benefits go instead go to a fund that pays for their victims? That would be much more appropriate than excluding them from voting!
Not allowing them to own firearms, now that actually makes sense!
Not sure however what the criteria is, but then again people are just saying NO to it no matter what, even if the criteria would be fully met! What would be the harm in having it supervised? After all, everyone was saying that about Saddam. If he wasn't allowing inspectors in, then that meant he had something to hide. Well.. right back at you!
Hey Nicecanadianlady!
Welcome back to the board!
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Pages