SignonSandiego.com - Suit seeks to annul Murphy's victory (Donna Frye)

[cascadiance]

... Legal challenge is 5th filed since mayoral election

Noone posted this here earlier today, but it deserves being talked about, since it is one race where Dems still have the cahonas to fight on and not give in, unlike our presidential race.

Donna Frye herself didn't start the lawsuit, but said that she might later become involved in Woocher's lawsuit that was filed on Friday. She hasn't conceded, and doesn't intend to, since she knows that she has more of the votes from the recounts. It's just whether or not they are counted or not, since technically the bubbles next to written in names weren't filled in.

The suit notes that:
1) Although they used a technicality to not count Frye's votes without the bubbles filled in, even though her name was clearly written there, the registrar did count votes for Murphy and Roberts that had not been "fully filled in", also a technical violation of the rules that excluded her votes being counted.

2) "Woocher said in an interview that the portion of the municipal code governing elections clearly says that any name written on a ballot 'shall be counted.' He said he will argue that in municipal elections, city law in a charter city such as San Diego overrides any state law."

Keep fighting Donna! Show the rest of the Dems that when you *know* the voters voted for you, you shouldn't give up and hopefully democracy here in San Diego will be restored.

www.signonsandiego.com article by Greg Moran:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050107-9999-1n7mayor.html

[Moderator]

1. Please edit your subject line

to read:

Legal challenge is 5th filed since mayoral election


The subject line must match the article headline exactly. Please check the posting rules for LBN pinned at the top of the forum. Thanks.

[cascadiance]

2. Actually the full subject line won't fit the subject line length...

but I'll edit the first part and continue it with the part you noted here as I'm doing this post.

The full subject line should read:

Suit seeks to annul Murphy's victory
Legal challenge is 5th filed since mayoral election

This will also get ignored by most people searching for Donna Frye's name in the subject line too. Please advise what I should do in that regard. I will edit the link to include that full subject line within the post though.

[Moderator]

3. The link you have says

Legal challenge is 5th filed since mayoral election

That's what it needs to read.
You can put Donna Frye in ( )

[cascadiance]

4. No that's a subheading

I think you're missing the line at the top of the page of the article. The line you mention is a sub-heading and isn't very meaningful in and of itself. What I have now *is* the subject line of the article, and I did add the subheading as the first line of the post.

[Moderator]

5. Think of it this way

all this back and forth is kicking your thread :-)

I saw the smaller tag line. In the world of journalism, the bold type is considered the headline. It is also considered the headline for DU purposes.

[cascadiance]

6. It's rather ironic...

That we are hijacking the thread which illustrates the same constroversy that this article is about (how to and now not to follow rules when they are obeyed differently, etc.).

SignonSandiego does have a curious way of putting in subject lines at the top where they look like category headings, and making the sub-heading lines look like the heading of the article. You'll note that the google hit for this article also reads "Suit seeks to annul Murphy's victory".

Oh well... I know now how many of the voters felt when they thought they were voting for Donna Frye and playing by the rules and being told that they weren't. :)

[cascadiance]

7. Hmm... In the time we've been talking on this thread...

A new story has shown up about an Orange County judge being assigned to hear the suit on Signonsandiego.com just within the last hour. I'll go ahead and put a new post for that which I'll ad link to the new article as well as the more in depth article here and you can lock this thread if you like.

[nofurylike]

8. she didn't file the action. her supporters did.

and, presuming that's your phrase for testicles, SHE doesn't need "cahonas" for anything.


peace

[cascadiance]

9. Sheesh!

Where did I say that "she" filed the lawsuit? I said that she didn't. I only included her name in parenthesis so that people would have a clue about what the article was about! Sheesh!

All you guys here disappoint me. I try to bring up a relavent article here and folks only want to talk about technicalities here instead of the substance of the issue. If *NOONE* cares about democracy and having votes counted and have become well trained by our current administration to follow rules and not talk about anything substantive, I'll go someplace else! :eyes: BYE!

[nofurylike]

12. it was you who used this important news to couch your frustration

with kerry and other leadership. i replied to that.

it would help if you didn't do that, but you did. you opened that line of issue.

tantrum?


no worry replying. it bugs you so much.



peace

[nofurylike]

10. please note that by your reasoning it is WE who did not have the

courage or fortitude, or what...to file such actions.

WE are the democratic party. it is up to us to do, and we are to blame when we want to blame that party. whenever things go wrong it is 'they' we blame.

that is exactly why when things get bad we want to defect, versus make OUR party what WE are and stand for.

i'm sorry, i'm going offline now. but if you do reply, i'll check in later. thank you.


peace

[cascadiance]

11. Once again... Why are we quibbling about semantics here...

Actually I'm registered as an independent. Have been for some time now, even though I mostly vote for Dems and occasionally for The Greens or other like minded parties. So using that "we" term in my mind should mean more "we" as Americans, not necessarily "we" as Democrats. I wasn't aware that this site was only for Democrats to participate in and that you don't want independents or greens posting here unless they "become" the "we democrats".

I'm all for unity of purpose and have tried to in the past, but playing the semantics games here, etc. is only going to help Republicans win later.

Someone give me a good reason here to post that new article and s-can this thread that's getting more useless with every additional post. Otherwise, I'll see you all sometime when we have a real presidential candidate again (if that day comes)... I'm going back to reading America 2014...

[nofurylike]

13. it is nice that you bring diversity here to the Democratic Underground.

when you say something stingingly critical of the democratic party, then it is best that you are accepting of debate on it.


i have to run, sorry. i'll check back for a reply later. thank you.


peace

[cascadiance]

14. I thought I was commending the Dems for not conceding in this case.

Fact is though, that John Kerry did concede the election already, when it is not only his political career at stake, but democracy itself. I am disappointed in that. If you're saying I shouldn't be, then so be it.

I am *very* proud of Barbara Boxer's challenge to this election. Many have said that she "had the cahonas" to do so too, despite her female persuasion as well. I'd say it a different way, but I do admire her courage. But that action by itself isn't solving anything. It's just a start in the right direction.

As Howard Dean notes, the party needs to be built up by the grass roots. If the democratic party can show that when we/they *know* the voters voted for someone/something that we/they don't give up, that will be when the Democratic Party goes back to representing us again, and not the DLC having it represent the corporations, like it has been hijacked into doing so recently.

Well, this thread has been hijacked enough and not in a constructive fashion. Mods, feel free to remove or lock it. I just posted a newer thread that has the more recent article on this topic anyway, which hopefully is following the rules and stays focused on topic like it should. Rossi would be proud of my "do-over" now wouldn't he!

[nofurylike]

15. true. not constructive if you can't endure being taught, and grow. n/t

[cascadiance]

16. Can't endure being taught what?...

Look I'm as liberal and progressive in my thinking as many people I know. I get called socialist by many who know me. I don't get off being lectured:

a) repeatedly for "incorrectly" putting up a subject line, when it was the moderator that had difficulty locating the proper article heading, not me. I'm not sure what I'm being taught there, except that sometimes one has to endure bureaucratic mess on this board, when I'm trying to be posting nicely in what I think the spirit is of everyone here.
b) for saying "Democrats" have cahonas to challenge this election (note not Frye, like you allege I did). If you have a problem with having other people accusing women of having cahonas, then why don't you criticize the many people that have the same thing about Boxer this week. I see it as a compliment, not a ridicule. What am I being "taught" there.
c) for distinguishing between Donna Frye's *not* conceding her race for mayor versus my concern that Kerry conceded too early before his constituency would have liked him to. I'm not sure why I'm being criticized for that. Many other Democrats and other progessives out there are having the same feelings of concern that our party can't fight back when we have to. I just try to point out that there's cases where we are fighting back, and I'm supposed to be "taught" that this the wrong thing to say?

I asked the mods to close this thread and redirect traffic to another one that I created that had a newer article that fit more with the rules of being less than 12 hours old, and actually had one useful response on that one before a mod closed it and redirected it back to this one.

I think that the only thing that I've been "taught" by this thread is that there are just as many sanctimonious people calling themselves Democrats as there are Republicans. Doesn't make me feel any better.

I didn't pose this thread to start a fight with Dems and criticize them/us for not fighting back there. I started it more to look at the potentially encouraging news of what might happen in the San Diego Mayor's race. I get the feeling that noone really cares about that. I'm sorry if I'm raising hackles with you and others that have succeeded in hijacking this thread (whether that was your intent or not), but it sure isn't encouragement for generating lively and thoughtful discussion when I get lectured too instead of a thoughtful discussion, especially when many of what's being lectured to me wasn't correct, substantive, or from my perspective that important anyway.

Well mods, you might as well lock this thread too. I guess noone wants to talk about Donna Frye's chances in court in Orange County. I'm sure she'd be glad to hear that. Might save her some money and time if she didn't go through with teaming up with those filing the "useless" lawsuit.