Pelosi Strikes Again

r8dmarshall · #21 (**permalink**) 12-26-2006, 09:06 PM

Confirmation without addressing the discrepancy of an unusual 18,000 unregistered votes is no conformation, just the desire to be lazy and let it slip. The people diserve to know the truth about the missing votes.

The system must maintain credability at every step. Don't you want to make sure that next time it does not happen to a republican candidate, or is it alright only if it is with a democrat?

r8dmarshall · #22 (**permalink**) 12-26-2006, 10:15 PM

Your turn.

Kix · #23 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r8dmarshall

Confirmation without addressing the discrepancy of an unusual 18,000 unregistered votes is no conformation, just the desire to be lazy and let it slip. The people diserve to know the truth about the missing votes.

I may have missed it but I've read through the article three times now and can't seem to locate anything about 18,000 votes missing out of the 13th District in Florida and that's a LOT of votes. Mind if I ask where you got that number?

If there was no question about "missing votes" or "unregistered votes" (two totally different things) prior to the confirmation then it has nothing to do with being lazy or letting something slip. It could very well be a matter of one party simply refusing to concede and using every means availabe to prevent the winning party from filling the position for a good portion of what would be his term in office.

Quote:

The system must maintain credability at every step. Don't you want to make sure that next time it does not happen to a republican candidate, or is it alright only if it is with a democrat?

How odd, I was just getting ready to ask you that same thing. Since the Democrats have even admitted that seating a confirmed candidate when there are questions about the election is a "republican" thing that's not etched in stone, and since the Democrats are the ones who seem to be consistantly pulling this voting problem card, I don't think this situation in reverse is anything Democrats need to worry about happening any time soon.

I think it's more important that the constituents of the 13th District have someone represent them. Leaving THEIR seat empty, possibly for months, while people play political games is NOT how our government is supposed to work.

r8dmarshall · #24 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 12:49 AM

unregistered votes, meaning missing because the vote did not register in the machine.

There has been question of those missign votes before confirmation and within the time a candidate has legal responcability to submit a complaint. that complaint was made and the legal process to credify the outcome has been taken.

Only those who were favored in the confirmation seem not to care if the system failed due to the machines. One can only say the future confidence in our voting process is protected when there are no questions regarding outcome on both sides. the important thing is continued belief in the desire for both parties to care more about the country than their won power base.

cat's meow · #25 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kix

Pelosi to seat Democrat though Republican won?
(Complete article can be read at link above)

'Bottom line here is that nothing's off the table,' says spokesman for incoming speaker of House

Posted: December 25, 2006
8:05 p.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The certified winner of an office in the U.S. House of Representatives may not be seated with other members of Congress by incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi next week for one reason.

He's a Republican.

In an extremely close race in Florida's 13th District, Republican Vern Buchanan defeated Democrat Christine Jennings by 369 votes. But ongoing legal challenges by Democrats are putting Buchanan's claim to the seat in jeopardy, now that the party in control of the majority has shifted away from the GOP.

"may not" and other phrases are like this in the story, all conjecture...they are way ahead of where this actually is, figures with the source you are using.

r8dmarshall · #26 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r8dmarshall

I would leave the seat empty until an objective conclusion can be arrived at whether there was a tech. glitch caused the unclear outcome regarding the 18,000 unregistered votes.

The important thing is to insure the credability of our voting system. I was not in favor of the touch screen system because of no paper trail to verify disputed outcomes.

The fact of whether a democrat or republican fills the seat should take second place when it comes to the preception of the validity of our voting process. That is crucial for the future of our governing system as The United States under our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If no acceptable soluition can be reached otherwise, a new election on different machines should be used to satisfy the credability question of the first attempt.

Today in the St. Pete times an article was about the new Governor of fla. pushing to have the touch screen voting machines be replaced with the optical scanner machines. Reason,the inability to have a paper trail, and means to satisfy a contraversy regarding the missing 18,000 unregestered votes in sarasota.

To me it is a sign that people are listening and demanding recount certification of actual votes by the public. If the federal government were to follow suit it would insure more acceptable results of our very important electorial process.

I had stated my belief in the need for correct outcomes in our elections. I think the sarasota contraversy was a large porton of the reasoning of Governor Crist a Republican. The actions of our new Governor have shown him to be a man of his word, and reason.

r8dmarshall · #27 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 11:51 AM

reply did not register at first.

Please ck post above.

r8dmarshall · #28 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 01:29 PM

What is your take on Fla. governor's actions in the paper today?