Well, the January 6th Contest is over. Some initial thoughts:
- I was impressed by how prepared the Democratic speakers were, in both houses, and how very unprepared the Republican speakers were. While Democrats were citing example after example of actual vote suppression efforts, partisan electioneering on the part of state officials, etc., etc., Republicans who got up to speak mainly read from newspaper clippings or otherwise strutted and blustered about. It seems fairly clear that the Republicans weren't actually expecting a contest, and were unprepared for it.
- The issue was framed very well. This isn't a contest of the outcome, but of the process, and the partisan corruption therein. Republicans will spin it as they will, but they will have very little ammunition, from Democrats, to work with. The talking point needs to be, at this point: Democrats are standing up for the right to vote of all citizens. Why aren't the Republicans?
- Blackwell got hammered spectacularly, as he should have been. But for Blackwell, this is just the beginning. An investigation needs to take place as to the pattern of abuses found in Blackwell's office before, during, and after the elections -- especially those pertaining to the requested recount.
- Tom DeLay is the Eric Cartman of the House. A self-centered, perpetually pissy figure with no apparent motive in life other than to cravenly scoop whatever political power he can before people get wise to him. The odds of him being indicted are soaring rapidly; couldn't happen to a more deserving nut.
Now for the aftermath. Will the media report on the actual, concrete examples of voting problems the Democrats raised? Will the media instead play clip after clip of DeLay and other cronies whining and bubbling about the sheer
partisanship of bringing election problems up? And will any member of the media even leave their chairs, to do their reporting?
Let's find out.
Update [2005-1-6 18:11:15 by Hunter]: Many people are peeved that, when it came to a final vote in the Senate, only Boxer voted to object, despite the raft of support she was getting in the debate. Personally, I think is was a good strategic move -- the objection is now on the record, and has been debated, but the vote itself was always meaningless. If the objection is to the process, and not the result, I think it's perfectly legitimate to raise the issues in debate, but in the end vote to confirm the electors so that the whole thing doesn't look like the partisan sniping the Republicans will be attempting to paint it as. If the vote was 70-5, or even 60-15, would it have made any difference? Strategic voting is commonplace, and necessary, in the House and Senate.
This issue got moved about as much as it realistically could, in one day, and moved about twenty times as far as I expected it would even a week ago. There was a Senator. There was a lively debate. Congratulate each other on the fact that, based on how prepared many of them were today, it seems a goodly portion of America's Congress is very aware of the precise voting issues you wanted them to become aware of.
And it's high time we stopped calling people "sellouts" when they don't think or do exactly as we would on every single issue. This is national politics we're talking about, not whether Cindi gets to join our afterschool mall walk. God help Obama when the blogosphere suddenly learns he has opinions on things.