Sen. Hillary Clinton's floor statement on the Need for Voting Reform to Protect our Democracy

U.S. Senate ^ | January 6, 2005 | Hillary Clinton

[Ooh-Ah]

I commend Senator Boxer from California for joining with members of the House, most particularly Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, in raising the objection because it does permit us to air some of these issues, something that I believe is necessary for the smooth functioning of our democracy and the integrity of the most precious right of any citizen, namely, the right to vote.

As we look at our election system, I think it's fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy, about its integrity, and they are not confined to the state of Ohio. They are questions that have arisen throughout our country and certainly because of the election of 2000 have been given high relief in the last four years. And then questions were raised additionally with respect to this election, which deepened the concern of many people about whether or not we can assure the continuity of our democratic process by ensuring the consent of the governed and the acceptance of the results of elections.

Several weeks ago, we stood in great admiration as a nation behind the people of Ukraine as they took to the streets to demand that they be given the right to an election where every vote was counted. In a few weeks, we're going to see an election in Iraq. And we know that there are people literally dying in Iraq for the right to cast a free vote. I am very proud of our country that we have stood with Ukrainians, Iraqis and others around the world, but increasingly, I worry that if this body, this Congress, doesn't stand up on a bipartisan basis for the right to vote here at home, our moral authority will be weakened. I take that very seriously.

This year, we will celebrate the anniversary of the voting rights act, and it will be an opportunity for us to take a look at this landmark legislation and determine how we're going to move it into the 21st century so that it really stands for what it was intended to do when it was first passed. I would be standing here saying this no matter what the outcome of the election because I still think the best rule in the politics is the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I worry whether it's a Democratic or Republican administration or a local, county, state or federal election that we are on a slippery slope as a nation.

My colleagues, Senator Boxer, and I along with former Senator Bob Graham of Florida introduced legislation last year to try to assure a verifiable paper audit. We didn't get anywhere with that. We didn't get a hearing before the rules committee. I would hope that the distinguished chair of the rules committee would hold such a hearing this year. Because if we can go buy a lottery ticket or go to a bank and get an ATM deposit, then we know we can use an electronic transfer mechanism that gives us a record.

Last spring, India had an election and 550 million or so people voted from the dot-com billionaire to the poor, illiterate peasant. They all voted. Mr. President, they voted on electronic voting machines. They voted in a way that guaranteed the safety and security and accuracy of their vote. They had uniform standards. They had a nonpartisan board that oversaw that election. The result was shocking-they threw out the existing government. Nobody predicted that. Yet they did it with integrity. Surely, we should be setting the standards. I would hope that this body, and thanks to the objection of my friend from California, this debate which has started today will continue.

[Banjoguy]

I agree with all that.

How did my snide comment about the Senator, lead you to believe that I thought otherwise?

"Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that we live in a representative republic where laws are decided by representatives, not by the citizens themselves."

Two ideas come to mind here: 1.) Not everyone does know it, and especially the media morons and elected representatives who insist on referring to our Government as if it were a democracy. This is wishful thinking and further, they know full well the demographics of that paradigm. and, 2.) It's not trivial. The prevalence of the word democracy when used to describe our form of government, imo, is a reflection of the poor and purposeful job being done by governmment schools. It also raises the expectation of certain results based on this false premise. Re: the recent questions and suggestions about the electoral college.

[OldFriend]

Once I heard him discussing how brilliant her heinous was I knew he was nothing more than a political whore.

[daybreakcoming]

***the need for voter ID.***

Let's add that a picture ID (issued by state license bureau) be included and this unphotogenic voter will go for it.

[FreeKeys]

Thanks!

[FreeKeys]

I've been thinking, maybe absentee voters should have to send in a signed copy of their ID along with their ballot. Also, everyone showing up to vote should have to show ID to verify that they are the person listed on the poll roster. And there needs to be a national clearinghouse, to cross-reference names and make sure that when a person registers in a new district, their registration is cancelled in the old district.

Yes! All excellent suggestions!

[FreeKeys]

These dummycrats complaining about in Ohio some districts have only 1 voting machine. I wonder if these districts had more when Clinton won both times?

Gee, I dunno. Can YOU find many of the 88 Ohio COUNTIES which suffered a major drop in turnout as a result? (You can check them all out very quickly HERE.)

[upcountryhorseman]

Hillary ought to know by now that we have a "Republic".
Our Founders didn't believe in rule by the masses (as per the french revolution).

[OPS4]

Is that including stealing campaign funds as her campaign director has done, to her own profit. Hillary of Whitewater Fame?

The tempest is in the teapot.
OPs4 God BLess America!

[CyberAnt]

OR WASHINGTON STATE - WHERE HER PARTY IS BUSY TRYING TO STEAL THAT ELECTION ..????

[Mia T]

THE CLINTON VOTE-FRAUD LEGACY

 

The clintons' refinement of the DNC "drag and drop," a vote fraud technique by which unwitting, unwilling and/or illegal blacks are coerced into voting multiple times, is not merely illegal and exploitive. It is racist.

Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing.

In the senate race against Rick Lazio, it is widely understood that the "drag and drop," (followed by the OLD ANGLE / NEW SQUARE / OVAL OFFICE SCHEME ) was clinton's vote fraud technique of choice used to overcome her low poll numbers, high personal negatives and consistent public failures.

Mia T
HILLARY CLINTON, DESIGNATED DEMOCRAT ATTACK DOG, MAKES HER DEBUT

"I did not have any involvement in the pardons that were granted or not granted," insisted Sen. KnowNothing, seeming to forget her presence at the New-Square/Oval-Office schmooze that secured pardons for the four Hasidic felons who set up a phony school in Brooklyn to swindle the government out of millions intended for the poor.

Mia T
Sen. KnowNothing Victim ClintonEffectively Pleads 5TH in Press Conference
by Invoking Spousal Privilege

Clinton's psychological problem was evident when he talked about September 11 in terms of the "politics of personal destruction." According to Schippers, "Clinton believes that the whole world revolves around the feelings of William Jefferson Clinton."

We talked about politics in general and the Democratic Party in particular. He was sad to admit that the party he supported during most of his lifetime cares about one thing only --- retaining power. Their issues involve scaring people. That's all they can do. Scare people. Schippers talked about a 1998 recording of Hillary Clinton in which she tried to get out the vote by telling her minions that she had inside information about the Republicans plan to "close down all of welfare..."

There is a difference in the parties that is paramount. The Democrats have no sense of shame. Schippers commented on the role of the media in the shameless activities of the Democrats. "The media is the bad guy," he said.

Regarding the illegal activities in pushing alien criminals to become citizens in 1996, Schippers really wanted to go after that case. They were ready to take the next step and was told that he had the support of the FBI. He believed that U.S. Attorneys were going to file criminal charges against those involved. But it was all suddenly shut down.

David Schippers
FREEPER EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW:
| 4-02-02 | Doug from Upland

Although Act I had no rating, the new clinton soccer-mom directive will require a photo ID for any viewer without independent proof of illegal alien DNC <-> DNA sequencing.

In Act II, rabid anti-clinton voters, roughly 33% of the U.S. populace according to as-yet-unpodded pollsters, become increasingly aware that they are disappearing in droves and being replaced by alien pod replicas which have their physical attributes but lack all anti-clinton affect.

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

Mia T, THE ALIENS
June, 1999

Voter fraud, again!

---

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Stop the presses! I mean it. Stop the election!

Something is going on in Washington and California that will have a great impact on tomorrow's election -- and it stinks to high heaven.

Let me start by telling you how I found out about it.

A very good friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, has a long-time live-in housekeeper from Guatemala. The housekeeper has a daughter who just turned 18. The immigration status of both mother and daughter has been pending for years. Papers have been filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Hearings have been held. But they are not citizens.

This is very important: The daughter has not registered to vote.

But, a few days ago, the 18-year-old got a very attractively packaged "Dear friend" letter from Bill Clinton, paid for by the California Democratic Party.

Here's what it said (on one side in Spanish and on the other side in English): "While every election is important, the November 7th election will determine our future for the next decade, and beyond. The stakes are high for America's Latino families. And California is the critical battleground.

"That's why I'm writing. We need your help to elect a Democratic Congress.

"Despite our strong economy, many hard-working people still struggle to make ends meet. Quality, affordable health care, a world-class education, aging with dignity, and well-paid jobs are part of the American dream -- rather than an American reality -- for too many people.

"Electing a Democratic Congress is essential for our 'Families First' legislative agenda.

"Congratulations on your decision to register. Registering to vote is a basic responsibility of citizenship that far too many people ignore.

"Now that you are registered ...

 

• "Can I count on you to vote Democratic on November 7th?

   

• "Will you make an extra effort to elect Democrats to Congress -- and to your State Legislature -- by talking to your family, friends and neighbors?

"Remember: Your Vote is Your Voice.

"Su Voz, Es Su Voto. Make your voice heard on Election Day.

"Sincerely, President Bill Clinton"

Below that letter is a P.S. that explains: "Here is your personal Voter Identification Card. Sign your name, then detach your card. Bring your card with you to your polling place on Election Day. It will help your voting go more smoothly."

Apparently all the recipient needs to do with this Voter Identification Card is sign it to be eligible to vote. Keep in mind, this was sent to a previously unregistered voter.

As my friend points out, only the U.S. government knows her age and pending residency status, and, obviously her Latino background. How did this information wind up in the partisan political hands of the California Democratic Party? And what kind of impact will a mailing like this -- obviously utilizing a government database for political purposes -- have on the California legislative races? How widespread is this fraud?

This is making my head spin. The recipient of this letter happens to live in congressional and state legislative districts that are very hotly contested in Southern California. But this appears to be a statewide mailing from the Democratic Party headquarters in Sacramento.

It's mind-boggling. The fraud is so blatant. Yet, not a peep out of the Republicans. They apparently won't even know what hit them. The polls in recent days show them making big gains in this once-invulnerable Al Gore stronghold state. A mass mailing like this effectively registering tens of thousands of potential Democratic voters days before the election is a secret weapon held back deliberately to avoid detection, scrutiny and publicity. After the election, the party will be happy to pay a fine for any illegalities involved. Clinton will be out of office and untouchable as always. There will be a new regime in at the INS. And it will all be swept under the rug.

And who knows if this technique is not being deployed by other state Democratic Party units? I don't doubt it for a minute.

This is voter fraud, pure and simple. And those responsible include the president of the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, possibly the Census Bureau and certainly the California Democratic Party.

I'm outraged. Are you?

---

Q ERTY4_{REALITY CHECK}bump

SENATORS FOR VOTE FRAUD

By ARNOLD ALHERT

 

October 19, 2002 -- IT'S more than a little ironic. On the same day it was announced that Saddam Hussein has been "unanimously" re-elected, the only two senators preventing a unanimous vote in the Senate on the election-reform bill were New York's own Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

Why? "This would make it more difficult to vote in New York. It's designed to suppress minority voting participation," said Sen. Clinton.

The "this" Sen. Clinton is referring to is the new anti-fraud provisions in the bill. They require that every person wanting to vote show a driver's license, Social Security number or other approved ID in order to cast a ballot.

Clinton and Schumer preferred a system where a potential voter merely had to sign his or her name.

So who is it exactly that this bill is "suppressing"? U.S. citizens have all the requisite ID - no matter what their ethnicity. Could it be that Clinton and Schumer are "sensitive" to some of the leftist fringe groups in this country who are clamoring for the right of illegal aliens to vote?

It is no secret that New York is home to thousands of undocumented "residents" - who would vote overwhelmingly Democratic if they could just get past these darn ID requirements.

New York's dynamic duo have a lot more 'splainin' to do on this one.

E-mail: ahlert@mindspring.com

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.

Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.

 

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,

by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

 

 

 

MISSUS CLINTON ENTERS POST-ELECTION MORALITY-PLAY FRAY
(THE LEFT CONTINUES TO DEMONSTRATE ITS UNFITNESS IN REAL TIME)

HAROLD ICKES: on winning the presidency by terrorizing white women
 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com

hillarytalks.blogspot.com
virtualhillary.blogspot.com
hillarytalks.us
hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women. By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points. In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%. That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values. I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."

HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN

"Crucial to this protective wall was the secret police, a group of private detectives hired to protect hillary and 'Saturday night bill.' Their tactics included digging up dirt on women who might be linked to bill in order to cow them into silence. There is even some evidence of possible physical intimidation."

HEAR DICK MORRIS

 

There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that... [f]urthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

GEORGE WILL
SLEAZE, THE SEQUEL

 

Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays said on a talk radio show Wednesday that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice.

Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators.

Shays, who is often hailed by the New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling:

"I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."

HEAR CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
'Shays Shocker Clinton Raped Broaddrick Twice'
National Review Online
By NR staff
8/02/2000

The rape took place while Bill was running for governor. Hillary came bursting into the room to talk to two people, one of whom I personally know.

She said "You won't believe what this [expletive] did now. He tried to rape some b*tch."

It was the job of these two to squelch the story.

doug from upland to Sean Hannity,
WABC, 10/16/00

"It's no longer acceptable to say that the abuse and mistreatment of women is cultural. It should be called what it is: criminal."

Hillary Clinton
addressing the UN, 3.4.99

 

"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.

For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed.

Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.

Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.

Richard Poe
The Hillary Conspiracy

[Hillary Clinton] began by insisting that the entire Middle East region work to socially and politically enfranchise women. "Human rights are women's rights," she said.

Though some Middle Eastern nations have taken small steps in the right direction, Clinton said women and girls are consistently marginalized in all aspects of society....

Clinton described herself as "one of the early voices speaking out against the treatment of women by the Taliban in the 1990s...."

Clinton recommends U.S. foreign policy shift
The Tufts Daily
Patrick Gordon
November 11, 2004

"Gay marriage was an overwhelming factor in the defeat of John Kerry... With one decision of one Supreme Court, all of a sudden we have a constitutional amendment designed, I think, to whip people up, to inflame them, make them stop thinking about other issues, [the result of which was] "an astonishing turnout among evangelical Christians who were voting on the basis of moral values.... I do not believe either party has a monopoly on morality or truth."

bill clinton
Hamilton College, Utica, N.Y.
Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2004
NewsMax.com

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004  

[Cindy]

bttt

THANK YOU Mia.

[jellybean]

Mia, your work always astounds me!! You pack more into one post than many do in a year.

[remember]

I stood in line for over an hour to vote. So did my husband. We had the same number of voting booths we always do. Turnout in our precinct was HUGE. I don't see any way the election officials could have avoided a long wait for voters, since they aren't psychic.

This was the largest turnout I have ever seen since I began voting in 1972, and I have voted in every election since then.

A large number of new registered voters should have been a clue. However, it is well understandable that every district could not quickly increase the number of voting machines to deal with a possibly larger turnout. If a district had the same number of machines and election workers as prior elections and voting has not been a problem before, there was likely little that could have been done. However, the system does need to protect against partisan actions by which certain districts are purposely shorted on machines. I have no idea whether this happened or not. But if we wish for our voting system to maintain its credibility, we need to guard against this and any other form of voter fraud.

[remember]

National elections occur once every four years. If a voter is so uninterested in the process that standing in line for over an hour is just too strenuous, I would argue that we do not need that person's vote.

There should be a LITTLE effort put into the voting process and I think people who are shown to put in that effort, such as standing line for a lengthy period of time, are typically committed and informed voters. Just the kind we actually want voting.

As well, this was the highest turnout we've ever had in this country and that should be applauded.

Yes, I'm sure that you and everyone you know would have stood in line for eight hours, if necessary, to do your civic duty. The main point is that the system needs to protect against partisan actions. For example, I'll assume that you voted Republican. Would it have been fine with you if half of the machines in every heavily Republican district had been moved to Democratic districts on the whim of some Democratic operative? I don't know what currently determines the number of machines per district. But it should be determined by a completely nonpartisan formula, say the number of actual voters in the prior election and/or the number of registered voters for the current election. To the degree that such a formula is already in place, it should be publicized. However, the best solution is to attempt to keep the wait times to a reasonable maximum so that the controversy arises as little as possible.

[remember]

Not really - the whole issue of waiting in line somehow being a reason to question the validity of an election is a recent liberal invention. People willingly wait in line for lots of other things, like rides at Disney land, or tickets at Fenway Park, so what's wrong with waiting to vote?

The difference, of course, is that people to not have a Constitutional right to rides at Disneyland and tickets at Fenway Park. If voting were an optional free-market product created by a private company, it would be fine to make people wait in line and pay the going rate to buy it. Do you think that we should similarly charge people a fee to vote?

Its also not possible to control how long the waiting line at a polling place is, unless you restrict when people are allowed to come to the polls and that would be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to vote! If lots of people decide to arrive at the same time - say 8:30 on the way to work - you get a line. Just like you've probably noticed that highways around major cities get kind of crowded in the morning. And nobody seems to mind waiting in a line of cars for an hour to get to work.

If you don't want to wait in line go to the polling place when its not as crowded, like mid day.

Some people commute a long ways to work and cannot go to their polling place at midday. However, you do have a point that it is not necessary that someone be able to vote quickly at a popular time in the morning. I've voted late the past few years and have always been able to vote within fifteen minutes. The point is that people should be able to vote sometime before or after work without waiting hours in line. Perhaps I've been spoiled by being able to vote so quickly. But I find it hard to believe that most citizens would stand in line for four hours to vote. In any case, the key issue is the one that I raised in my posting above. The system needs to protect against partisan actions to manufacture a long wait in order to affect the election.

[remember]

I agree with all that. How did my snide comment about the Senator, lead you to believe that I thought otherwise?

I didn't mean to imply that you thought one way or the other about electoral policies. Your remark just provided a good lead in to what I wanted to discuss. Likewise, I suspect that you were using the Hillary's references to democracy to make a general point, not to imply that Hillary doesn't know the difference between a democracy and representative republic. In any case, I agree with your general point.

[Banjoguy]

Thanks...

[Peach]

Where to start.

You seem to not fully understand that every single district in the nation is allowed to have both Democrat and Republican input into the number of voting booths and who will man them.

Some districts are so heavily weighted by one party that the other party opts out. Your main point that the system needs to be protected against partisan actions is invalid. Both parties ARE permitted to make major decisions as pointed out above. That both parties don't choose to be involved in every district in no way supports your post.

And from your snotty tone, I shall assume you are a Democrat and a disruptor. Noted.

[Havoc]

Non issue posing as news. This is propaganda - pure and simple. A substitute for real issues that they'd rather not deal with.

[PGalt]

...our moral authority will be weakened. I take that very seriously.

I still think the best rule in the politics is the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Words certainly do not match the deeds of the rapist enabler.