AAR (Unfiltered) is asking IF we WANT a Senator to stand

[Not_Giving_Up]

tomorrow. They say every one of them should stand so that no one can be singled out.

[tk2kewl]

1. That would be awsome

just imagine a dem party that united

[Not_Giving_Up]

2. I spent yesterday watching C-Span

Based on the voiting for House rules, they unity within the parties in the House seems pretty concrete. Why can't we have that in the Senate?

[itzamirakul]

4. My God, YES!

TOTALLY AWESOME! It would restore my belief in them so much!

[HootieMcBoob]

5. It would be beautiful no doubt

but also too good to be true. That would send one very strong message to the thugs on the other side of the aisle. I would love to see that.

[Pharaoh]

6. that would be awesome

but i would be really suprised,,I'll be happy just to get 1, thats all we need is 1 right?
O8)

[Jo March]

7. Yep. All we need is one! nt

[mattclearing]

3. I think it's important to reject a corrupt election system.

And also to reject a corrupt President.

Showing that they will fight tooth and nail against President Bush, even on his re-election, would be good for the country, and good for the world.

It will show the world that we are not all out to rape and pillage them and convert them to Paris Hilton.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. won't happen

We're the nice guy party, remember.

Or to put it another way, the "catcher" party.

[femme.democratique]

9. You know...the fact that FIVE of the AAR shows covers this...

...quite fairly shows me that we are NOT in the minority like some here on DU would like us to believe. ALL of the people who were calling in were saying the EXACT SAME THINGS that we all have been saying.

[vireo]

10. "NOT in the minority"

It's not called "The Majority Report" for nothin'
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/index.php

[robbedvoter]

11. Only candidate Franken and Moron Marks stay away - but even on

their shows - guests twart their attampts to sweep this under the carpet. I turned on the Marks sarcasm-fest this morning - first time since November. John Mickols from the Nations was talking about this, significance of tomorrow in a very articulate way (started with "I think the wrong person will be innaugurated"), while the Marks showed their usual interviewing skills: "uhuh...ahah..."
Laura Flanders also has been on this from day one. On Ring of Fire, they had once Reno - hosting for Bobby kennedy - and she did give Papantonio a run for his money on stolen election.

[jswordy]

12. HA-HA-HA-HA! No Senator will stand as a signatory to...

...any protest of the validity of the vote, or protest of its due certification.

So let 'em stand up at their chairs if they wish. It will be a meaningless charade unless they are prepared to be a signatory to an official protest of the vote that would then call into question the legitimacy of its validation.

I mean, here's John Conyers in the House...

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/coner104

...saying he will object, but he knows full well it takes a SENATOR to sign on as objecting for any damn thing to be done.

And they were too knock-kneed in 2000, when the fraud was more clearcut and evident than now!

The electoral vote will be certified. Bush will be sworn in. We need to move on.

[jswordy]

13. Here ya go, this fully explains...

...just how futile it is to keep living in the past when we need to move into the future!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/010405.html

[Dhalgren]

14. The point of a Senator "signing on" to Congressman Conyer's

move is not to overturn the election (no one thinks that that will happen); the reason to do it is to force a public investigation into the suppression of African American and poor citizens' votes. It is a civil rights and enfranchisement issue. The well documented suppression and disruption of African American voter rights is what is at issue. It is a crime and must not be allowed to go uninvestigated. That is why at least one senator must stand with Conyers and the CBC tomorrow.