...Visit the NEW Democrats.com blog community!....

We - the broad progressive movement - won a huge victory today in Congress.

No, we didn't win the vote to reject Ohio's Electors - but we never thought we would.

We did win the debate.
[URL=(C-Span: http://tinyurl.com/672p9 )]cspan.com[/URL]

Our side won the debate because we talked about the fundamental basis of Democracy: the right of everyone to vote, and the right to have every vote counted.

Republicans could not challenge our facts. So they viciously attacked our motives. If you missed Tom DeLay's closing argument, you must watch it. It was pure poison - like everything Tom DeLay says and does. We're counting the days until his theft of the Texas legislature puts him behind Texas bars - where it won't be "Camp Cupcake."

But our champions did not wither under withering fire. They stood their ground. They stood tall.

What now?

First, Ohio is not over. There are two cases still in the courts. They raise crucial substantive questions that go to the heart of whether Ohio's election was fair or fraudulent. We will continue to track these cases, to make sure justice is done.

Second, Election Reform is not over. Every Democrat - and even a few Republicans - emphasized the voting problems that need to be fixed. If Republicans block action on basic reforms like paper trails, they will confront millions of very angry voters.

Third, Bush's "legitimacy" is not over. Millions of Americans know that he certainly stole Florida in 2000, and possibly stole Ohio in 2004. The dark cloud over Bush's head will not be lifted until the questions raised in the Conyers Report are answered. As long as Ken Blackwell refuses to answer those questions, Bush's second term will be as illegitimate as his first.

Finally, the pro-Democracy movement is not over. We fought for this debate against infinite odds, and we got the debate we demanded. We fought against the fear of Democratic leaders and the rage of Republican leaders, but they could not silence us or repudiate our cause. Our champions have stepped forward, and we will work with them until we guarantee every American has the right to vote.

Let's thank the Democrats who fought with us for Democracy - call 800-839-5276
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones
Senator Barbara Boxer
Rep. John Conyers
Rep. Corrine Brown
Rep. Julia Carson
Rep. Bill Clay
Rep. James Clyburn
Rep. Danny Davis
Rep. Lane Evans
Rep. Bob Filner
Rep. Raul Grijalva
Rep. Alcee Hastings
Rep. Maurice Hinchey
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. John Lewis
Rep. Ed Markey
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Rep. John Olver
Rep. Major Owens
Rep. Frank Pallone
Rep. Donald Payne
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Bennie Thompson
Rep. Maxine Waters
Rep. Diane Watson
Rep. Lynn Woolsey
The Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee

Let's congratulate ourselves for fighting all the way to the end.

Let's have counter-inaugural protests across the country on January 20.
http://democrats.com/protest

And let's meet in Washington DC with Progressive Democrats of America on January 21-23 to plan a progressive revolution in the months and years to come.
http://www.pdamerica.org/

Bob Fertik

Yes we did earthmother but unfortunately at the same time we lost alot of people after reading on some boards including Mike Malloy who have denounced the democrat party and some have gone independent,green etc and i can understand their frustration. So yes even though we won the debate we payed a heavy price with people leaving the party and it's a disturbing trend.

Frankly I find that a my way or the highway mentality. And what has it gotten us but Bush and a GOP congress. If you want the Dems to have more a backbone they have to know there will be people around to back them up. If everyone cuts & runs because they don't get 100% of what they want then we are doomed. Like Nader supporters in 2000, these people are part of the problem not part of the solution.

I find politicians who in the eyes of many seem to be "cutting and running" part of the problem not part of the solution. I mean I don't know what's more literally "cutting and running" than being in Jordan on the day of the certification of the vote. If John Kerry disagreed with the challenge then he should have bit the bullet, been present in the Senate, and voted against it, if he agreed with it, then he should have been in the Senate to join Senator Barbara Boxer as well as the Democrats in the House to vote for it. Being absent on that day seems like a half-hearted attempt to play both sides in my opinion and is the kind of thing that doesn't play well with people who are deeply involved in and very concerned about the efforts for election reform.

Don't get me wrong, often finding middle ground is the best way to solve problems, and arrogantly going about a problem without an open mind, or without a desire to make a comprimise is not a viable strategy, but some things you just don't compromise on, like purposeful voter suppression that caused 10 hour lines in Ohio (after thinking about that the other day, it occured to me that 10 hours is almost half a day). People shouldn't feel like their party does not represent them, people shouldn't feel the need to find another party that actually fights for their rights, people shouldn't wonder why David Cobb of the Green Party actually showed up to the hearings in Ohio, while John Kerry was nowhere to be found. In the United States, people aren't here to serve the government, the government is here to represent the people, and if 44 Senators feel that what happened across the country is ok or that the 101 pages of Conyers report are acceptable, while 20% of Americans no longer have faith in the electoral system, then the people who frustrated by this lack of representation are not the problem.

I really don't know what Kerry's reasons were for being out of the country that day, but it did strike me as an act of cowardice. Even if it that wasn't what was behind it, it gives that appearance, which I think is very unattractive. Granted, Gore didn't have the choice of not being in the Senate that awful day in 2002, but I don't think he'd have not been there if he'd had the choice. Appearances are half the game in politics, and I think Kerry flunked this one big time. I didn't support him for the election except insofar as he was the Dem. nominee, and I sure as hell don't support him now. I think he wimped out, on many scores. He's a good Senator. He should stay in the Senate and give up any thoughts of another run in 2008. Leave that job to those who've proven they can take the heat. Like, uh . . . Al Gore? :rolleyes:

When you said he's a good Senator, that's partly why I'm so disappointed with his decision. He seems to have a good record, his efforts to shorten the Vietnam war, his trip back to Vietnam in - was it the late 80s or early 90s? - also, as Bush repeated thousands of times "the non-partisan (whatever) commission named him as the #1 Liberal Senator in the Senate" - I figured, the #1 liberal senator can't be that bad right? I also thought that what he did during the election - some stuff which was a little hard to explain - was all in good concience, but after Thursday, all of a sudden I find myself questioning all that.

In addition to my last post, while I maintain what I said, there's still the question of who's more likely to keep the Circus Elephants in check, the Green Party or the Democratic Party?

He could have shown great leadership by appearing in the Senate chamber that day to see the counting of the electoral votes. Even if he did not join Boxer in challenging it, he could have made a great, concilitory speech in trying to unite the nation or in acknowledging the problems with the voting in Ohio and other places. He could have stood and faced it bravely like a true leader.

Jordan could have waited another day.

I agree with you, Erin. And GS, that thing about him being the #1 liberal Senator is bullshit, ya know? That was just spin from the right-wing. They said, I believe, that Kerry and Edwards were #1 and #2. Now, truly, what's the likelihood of that? It's not true, but because they said it is, everyone believes it. Anyway, I agree 100% with what Erin said. Kerry should've been there to face this boldly and squarely, as Gore did (and what Kerry had to do would've been far less painful than what Gore did--Gore actually won, to begin with, Kerry didn't, and Gore had to preside over the proceedings, which Kerry wouldn't have--he just had to BE there). I think it was very poor judgment for him to be out of the country on that day.

I don't think we should criticize before we know the whole story behind why he wasn't in Congress the other day:

John Kerry visits Syria
1/8/2005 5:10 PM
By: Capital News 9 web staff

Senator John Kerry was in Syria Saturday, where he and that country's leaders talked about how to prevent militants from moving into neighboring Iraq.

The former Democratic presidential candidate met for two hours with Syria's president in Damascus.

Kerry said they found "a great deal of areas of mutual interest." And he hopes Saturday's talks can lead to common initiatives that can help improve relations between the two countries.

The U.S. has accused Syria of doing too little to stop insurgents from infiltrating into Iraq to attack coalition forces. Syria denies the accusations, but said it can't fully control its long, porous border.

Kerry is on a two-week tour of the region.

He'll be in the West Bank for Sunday's Palestinian elections.

Also, here is what else he was doing overseas:

Kerry visits Iraq as part of fact-finding mission
Senator determined to see whether country is drawing nearer to stability or falling deeper into chaos

By Borzou Daragahi
Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, January 08, 2005

BAGHDAD: Senator John Kerry, who's shifting positions on the war in Iraq may have cost him the presidency, arrived in the Iraqi capital this week searching for clues about the ongoing conflict. Kerry visited U.S. soldiers from his home state, American intelligence officials and Iraqi officials on a pair of quick trips to Baghdad and other parts of the country as part of a fact-finding mission through the Middle East. The veteran Massachusetts senator, who waged an unsuccessful presidential bid based in part on the premise that U.S. President George W. Bush had botched the war effort in Iraq, said he came to Iraq to see for himself whether the country was moving toward stability or deeper into chaos. Kerry declined to compare the insurgency in Iraq with the one he faced in South Vietnam as a navy gunship lieutenant three decades ago. But he insisted that superior firepower alone wouldn't quell the Sunni Arab uprising disrupting Iraq.

"No insurgency is defeated by conventional military power alone," he said.

"Look at the IRA," he added in reference to the Irish Republican Army. "It was defeated by a combination of time and political negotiation." The senator was also scheduled to meet with officials of the U.S. Embassy as well as members of the interim Iraqi government, including Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and a deputy to Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite leader at the top of an electoral list thought to be the front-runner in Iraq's Jan. 30 elections. On Tuesday evening Kerry met with about 20 soldiers based in his home state. "They all joked about how living conditions had changed since Senator Kerry was in Vietnam," said David Wade, the senator's communications director.

Kerry asked the Massachusetts soldiers how often they get to call their families and reminisced about writing letters home when he was in Vietnam. The senator spent Tuesday and Wednesday night in Amman as the guest of King Abdullah II. On Thursday, he flew back to Iraq, where he had lunch with U.S. troops in the city of Mosul and met with military commanders and local officials from the area. Kerry said he was more interested in asking questions of soldiers, American officials, Iraqis and even the journalists themselves than rehashing the battles of the presidential campaign. But on several instances, he attacked what he called the "horrendous judgments" and "unbelievable blunders" of the Bush administration. The mistakes, he said, included former U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer's decisions to disband the Iraqi Army and go along with a scheme to purge the government of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Both moves are widely believed to have fueled the Sunni Arab insurgency. "What is sad about what's happening here now is that so much of it is a process of catching up from the enormous miscalculations and wrong judgments made in the beginning," he said. "And the job has been made enormously harder," but he added that it was time to move forward. "Mistakes have been made," he said. "Now it's a different time and different set of judgments that have to be made. I'm here to make judgments about what moves are available to us." Kerry, who is visiting Iraq as part of a Middle East tour that also includes visits to leaders in Syria, Egypt, Israel and the Occupied Territories, said success in Iraq was very important within the broader context of a struggle for change in the Middle East. "The stakes are very important, very high and not just for Iraq," he said. "You have another election in the West Bank, a set of challenges to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the region that are quite daunting."

So what you're saying, Chris, is that Kerry had legitimate business and maybe, since there was little point in him being in Congress that day, he just looked at it as a regular business day and did what he had to do? Interesting. But I don't think I buy it. As Erin said, it could've waited. I don't have any idea what his motives were, but I just don't think it looked good.

It looks to me as though he is doing the right thing. Although I can see where you would think he should have been in the Senate that day, but I say it wouldn't have made a difference. What he is doing in Syria and Iraq is very good and helpful on maybe getting things straight over there. Hopefully he will be a voice in the Senate on these key issues over the next few years.

Either way, I got that line"55 Million people voted for the #1 Liberal in the Senate" from a list on Michael Moore's site called "17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists" :)

#17 was:
"17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008."

As far as Kerry doing good in the Mid-East, it seems what he did there was useful and is for the better good, but couldn't he have done it, on Friday? or Saturday? It's not like anything's really going to change whether he went 2 weeks ago or 2 weeks from now. As far as not being in the Senate not making a difference, let's say he did vote to contest (which I can't see him doing, and which would raise questions about his concession) if Barbara Boxer didn't vote to object in the Senate, then it would have made a difference. The 2 hour debate they had in the House and the Senate would not have happened, and the Democratic Party would have take a major blow from people who are considering leaving the party. You think it's bad now? Imagine how bad it would have been in no Senator had objected.

Also, I don't like the argument that Bush and Kerry got more votes than...... . I mean it was a record turn out on every level. However, I tend to look more how Kerry did in traditional Democratic bases such as blacks and women. Gore had record percentages in those areas, however, Kerry did worse in those areas than any Dem in recent history if my mind serves. I like percentages better than raw numbers. Just like Gore 49% = Bush 48%.

Also, Kerry had his middle east trip planned for months. I still don't think it would have mattered if he was there. Yes maybe in the area of symbolism, however, not in reality. Kerry has moved on and is working on real issues, which happen to include electoral reform, and that is what we all should do, and not keep fighting an election that we clearly have lost.

However many months one counts back though, everyone knows and always knew the votes would be certified on January 6th.

As far as what happened n Thursday not mattering, or it not mattering in reality, it was real enough to the millions who felt let down by the Senator on Thursday when watching C-Span, it was real enough to the people not unlike Mike Malloy who felt it was pretty "wimpy" that the Democratic Party didn't make a stronger stance for voter's rights on Thursday. It mattered to me when I saw Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Kuccinich, as well as other Democratic Representatives and a Senator speaking out about the deliberate attepts to suppress the vote in Ohio, enough to make 101 documented pages. It also mattered when I saw those Republican sorry excuses for Congresspeople questioning their motives, making childish personal attacks and saying things like "the only thing more unrealistic than exit polls are Godzilla movies" - when that's just a blatant lie.

It was real enough to see just about every person with integrety standing up for the people who were disenfranchised on November 2nd, except for one prominent Senator who was missing. It happened, it was real, and it mattered to many people, including me.