Vermonters urge Jeffords to challenge Electoral College results

[kuozzman]

http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/0904/votefraud.shtml

MONTPELIER — A small delegation of Vermonters is calling on Sen. James Jeffords to refuse to certify the Electoral College vote until all ballots cast on Nov. 2 are verified.

In a letter presented Dec. 13 to Jeffords staff members in Montpelier, Vermonters for Voting Integrity called for “a thorough investigation of all voting machine malfunctions, disclosure and investigation into all electronic voting machine software, and a full audit to disclose discrepancies between exit polls and the final vote.” The Electoral College vote occurred that same day.

[Straight Shooter]

1. It's nice to know that Vermont is part of the concerned citizens movement

They don't care how small a state they are, they know they stand tall.

[mattclearing]

2. I've been calling for this one...

And since Jeffords isn't part of the Democratic Party, he doesn't have to follow whatever bizarro script they're reading from.

[mom cat]

4. What a great idea! Good work!

[Broken Acorn]

3. Just wrote them a thank you note on their site n/t

[cali]

5. Well, this is one Vermonter

who isn't going to urge either of Vermont's Senators to refuse to certify the Electoral College vote. Jeffords was battered over his resignation from the repub party, he doesn't need this, and he doesn't need to prove himself to me. Vermont's been in the crosshairs of the 'thugs because they loath Jeffords for swinging the Senate, Leahy for his stand on Judges, and Sanders for being Sanders. We've lost needed federal funding, and we'll continue to do so. That's OK, and I love my reps for standing up and representing us. I believe Kerry or Kennedy should be the one refusing to certify.

[verdalaven]

9. I see your point, Cali, but humbly disagree

It seems to me that Kerry is the wrong person to block certification of the election. He really is in a delicate position, more so than any of the other Senators. Also, it might not be good for the democratic party for him to contest the election like that, after conceding. I don't know, I am just speculating.

Jeffords, on the other hand, doesn't seem beholden to anyone (except his constituents, of course). But if he fears what might happen to Vermont if he stands up to *, if no one stands up to * and company for the sake of that type of fear, wouldn't the end result be just as bad for Vermont, indeed, the entire country?

I am feeling a bit melodramatic this morning, but I see this as an all or nothing fight. We win back our Democracy, or lose it forever. No middle ground.

I've been putting the pressure on my own Senators, Levin and Stabenow. I'm sure all the Senators have felt our heat. I hope to god that one of them stands with US.

[cali]

11. I understand how you feel

and think your points about Kerry are valid. But what about Kennedy? I suppose I'm overly protective about Jeffords. I don't think most people realize how disgustingly he's been treated. It's not something he talks about publicly but I know someone on his staff, and it's just worn on him.

[verdalaven]

16. Kennedy should stand up.

I guess I'm not surprised that Jeffords has been abused. It's a damn shame he has been penalized for following his conscience.

I wonder if he'd like to contest the election just to poke those repub bullies in the eye? ;)

[jsascj]

22. I truly admire Jeffords

regardless. It is rare to find one who actually stands up for his principles and he did!

[HeilChimp]

25. Jeffords = gutless wonder

Jeffords is soooo overrated, it seems like few want to look at his actual voting record.

He has done precisely ONE good thing for progressives, and that is qutting the Repug party and getting the Senate out of the hands of right-wing facist evagelicals. Too bad he doesn't have the guts to go all the way and join with the progressive wing of the party instead of being a "moderate Independant"

As SOON as the repugs stole the Senate back, this guy was practically BEGGING to rejoin their party if he got his precious little committee chairmanship back. Obviously Jeffords top priority to advance his own clout in Washington, not advance progressive ideals. As long as he remains with the "inpependant" label, we're stuck with the LEAST "influenticial" progressive in the Senate.

It's amazing that a state like Vermont (home to Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, and Pat Leahy) has only had ONE Democrat senator in their entire history. No wonder we have only 44 Dems in the Senate when people settle for second best.

I wish Howard or another lifelong, GENUINE Democrat from Vermont would seek that Senate seat. We need the real deal representing us, not a “free agent” like Jeffords who rubber-stamped Ashcroft's appointment and chimp's tax cuts for the rich.

[crazyzoeillinois]

26. Jeffords has to go

I agree!!! Jeffords has to go!!! He does not IN ANY WAY represent the views of Vermont. How could people elect someone like him?? He brings the state of Howard Dean to shame.

[cali]

31. I like Jeffords, and I'm not alone.

Lots and lots of liberals in Vermont like him. We voted for him when he was a republican and we'll vote for him as an Independent. He's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, voted against Clarence Thomas, and is pro-environment. In the sixties he fought the paper mills that dumped sludge into Lake Champlain, when he was in the Vermont state Senate. He battled nuclear power. He's been a leading advocate for funding special ed. He was instrumental in passing the 1976 legislation that promised that Washington would pay for up to 40% of the costs of educating disabled students. (never happened, but that wasn't his fault.) He managed to slice $300 billion off the tax cut. Jeffords voted against the IWR, and more recently against the most recent bloated budget with its anti-choice bomb.

You said:
How could people elect someone like him?? He brings the state of Howard Dean to shame.

To answer your question, we vote for him for all the reasons I gave above, and because he's a a decent human being, quirky, to be sure, but humble and smart and responsive to his constituents. Yes, there are some Vermont liberals who don't like him, but they're a pretty small minority. As far as bringing shame to the state, hey aren't you from Illinois, didn't you guys elect Denny Hastert and Ray LeHood, as well as Durbin and Obama? I'm proud of Vermont and it's representatives. I'm proud of the vital democracy to be found in the small villages and towns thoughout the state.

[coreystone]

32. Having lived in Vermont for 54 years I really don't understand your post!

Your profile indicates that you reside in Illinois. Please spend some time here. You may find it educational. Perhaps you have read some Political Science studies which have been conducted in Vermont, which have indicated that Vermonters may be confused who represents their views. I guess I am really confused by your post.

OH! By the way, Howard Dean ascended to the Governor's office of Vermont after the Republican sitting Governor Richard Snelling was found deceased by his swimming pool from a heart attack. Dean was Lt. Governor at that time. Chances are that if Snelling had not died in office that Dr. Dean still would be a "practicing" Dr. Dean.

I still am quite confused my your post!

:-)

[HeilChimp]

36. "progressive" Jeffords voted 71 percent of the time in support of chimp

“Vermont GOP Chairman Joe Acinapura prefers to highlight the fact that Jeffords voted 71% PERCENT OF THE TIME IN SUPPORT OF ISSUES THAT BUSH FAVORS, according to National Journal rankings.”
--Gannett via Bloomberg, 3/3/03

I have visited New England many times. Vermont is the flip side of Georgia. The state of Georgia used to be solid Dem only 30 years ago, and is now overrun with Repugs today. Vermont used to be bought and paid for by GOP, Inc. for most of the 20th century, and today it is a SOLIDLY progressive state that was the first place to give gay americas civil unions and a woman's right to choose in unrestricted. It is the only state where a candidate (Sanders) can openly state he is a socialist and win statewide. There is a Repug governor (after 12 years of Dean), but he is a fluke in a sea of blue-state Democrats holding the rest of the statewide offices. Any non-Democrats holding office in VT are relics of another era, including the Jeffords family who are around today because his daddy was a right-wing repug on the state supreme court.

As for my home state of Illinois, we are progressive state because of Chicago but we don't let any "moderate Independants" hold office when a progressive Democrat can win an office handily. Repugs don't really have any statewide office. Hastert and LaHood are are in isolated, rigged repug districts full of "God-fearin'" hicks that would vote for Richard Nixon if he were around today. LaHood, incidentially, is a bad example because he spends most of his time tearing down his fellow repugs.We like to see the repugs eat their own. Perhaps you are thinking of hypocrite henry hyde? (also in a rigged repug district that doesn't represent the majority of Illinoians)

Jeffords has made a whole career out of proclaiming he is a "moderate" who does his own thing. He is simply NOT a good Democrat. As Governor Dean pointed out, we need to elect people who proudly stand for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, NOT "moderates" who "caucus" with our party because they have NO OTHER CHOICE. Vermont is not a big state. It has 600,000 people. Yet this one Senate seat counts the same as any other. There a numerous big name Democrats that can run. With a modest sum of money, we can increase our numbers from 44 to 45 without breaking a sweat.

True, he is pro-choice and favors gay rights. So does Ahnuld, Mayor Jailiani, Tom "Homeland Security Alert System" Ridge, and Christie Todd Witless. This does NOT make them good Democrats.

Since you don't "understand" why I distrust him and haven't bothered to check his "liberal" voting record, here is a small sample of how "progressive" Jeffords has been since he "left" the Repugs in 2001 and refused to become a full-fledged Dem:

§ In his first year as an “Independent”, Senator Jeffords spoke out in favor of the Ashcroft nomination and voted to rubber-stamp John Ashcroft as Attorney General. He also voted to confirm right-wing extremist John Robert Bolton of Maryland to be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, as well as dozens of other Bush cronies.

§ In his first year as an “Independent”, Senator Jeffords refused to switch parties until he could assist with the final passage of Bush’s $1.35 trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich.

§ In his second year as an “Independent”, Senator Jeffords was AWOL during the critical vote on the Democratic Stimulus and Spending Bill introduced by Majority Leader Daschle

§ Senator Jeffords was also “absent” during a vote to obtain quality environmental incentives to construct animal waste treatment facilities for large cattle and dairy farms, and voted NO on H Con Res 83, the Corzine (D-NJ) Funding for Environmental Programs amendment that proposed increasing funding for a wide variety of environmental programs by $50 billion and setting aside $50 billion for debt reduction by reducing the Bush tax cut.

§ During that same session in 2002, Senator Jeffords voted to rubber stamp Bush’s “free trade” proposal to give Bush expanded authority to negotiate trade agreements and outsourcing with other countries and extend trade “benefits” for Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

§ Senator Jeffords voted against our children’s future by opposing S I. School Renovation and Construction, the Harkin (D-IA) amendment to authorize $1.6 billion for the construction and renovation of public elementary and secondary school buildings; and HR 1836, the Kennedy (D-MA) amendment to condition the reductions in the marginal income-tax rate on full funding for Head Start programs.

There are dozens of other examples, but you can see why "some liberals" fail to see why we should support a guy who re-election who votes with chimp 70% of the time when we can have an authetic Democrat who votes with Bernie Sanders 70% of the time.

If you want to put your trust in Jeffords, fine by me. This guy is on-record praising Trent Lott's racist "leadership" mere monthes ago. $50 says Jeffords won't even lift a finger to even mention about the Bush theft in Ohio. With 44 Democrats in the Senate, the LOWEST amount since the 20s, I'm of the opinion we should go for evey seat we can get. Who would you rather have voting with Senator Leahy, Howard Dean or "Independant" Jeffords?

[coreystone]

41. GEE! I forgot about the "fairness doctrine" of Mayor Daley in 1968,...

During the Democratic Conventions in downtown "Windy City". That certainly was event to be proud of. I believe your facts to be correct. You obviously have the right to draw your own conclusions, as do I. I vote here in Vermont. You vote in Illinois. The facts that you have listed are rather screened to support your conclusion. I do not put Jeffords on a pedestal, but, there are many things which one cannot just research about the political climate in this state unless one spends a bit more time looking at it more objectively; and, LIVING HERE!!!

:-)

[newyawker99]

43. Hi crazyzoeillinois!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[crazyzoeillinois]

44. :-) thank U

Thanks!!!

[cali]

33. Baloney! Please see my post to crazyzoe. n/t

[coreystone]

34. I was first introduced to Senator James Jeffords in 1970...

when he was the Republican Attorney General. I was attending Castleton State College at that time. He had given a speech in the "Fine Arts Center" on that campus. The main gist of that speech was to impress his audience (mostly college students) how important it was to participate in the electoral process. At the end of the speech, Attorney General Jeffords of Vermont registered those students who had not registered to vote, and chose to do so at that time.

For years, many of the hard core "Republicans" in Vermont have always considered Jeffords as a Democrat with an (R) next to his name. I was privileged to view "Fahrenheit 911" with Senator Jeffords and his wife sitting two rows in front of me in the movie theater last summer. His home office is 2 1/2 blocks from my residence. I graduated from high school with one of his aides. I have not always agreed with him, but, he has deserved my respect for standing against Bush for the broken promises by Bush to Jeffords and the rest the nation prior to the time when Senator Jeffords realigned his party affiliation as an (I)!!

I can't understand your assertions. They don't seem to have any validity in terms of the lack of facts regarding a state which I have known for 54 years.

I am so confused!

:hi:

[Cheswick2.0]

12. I think they should all do it

I understand your unwillingness to have Jeffords put himself out there again. If enough senators do it they can't target just one for bad treatment. But what is more important is that our representatives stand up for what is right no matter what.

[zann725]

13. That's what I've been visualizing since the beginning...

that they get up slowly...one by one on Jan 6. Work on it! (Oh, and just to be sure, email them all as well!)

[Viktor Runeberg]

14. As another Vermonter

I've already mailed both our Senators urging them not to certify. As for the "needed federal funding," neighbor, certainly you know that Vermont is one of the few Blue states to take a lot more back from the Feds in funding that we pay in federal taxes? Having two senators for a population a quarter the size of Brooklyn's does that for us. All sorts of federal funds are falling on my town thanks to our Senate representation. Has yours missed out?

[coreystone]

27. HERE ! HERE! From Rutland!....

:-)

[bearfan454]

6. kick n/t

[KerryDownUnder]

7. Someone please explain...

I thought you needed one Democratic House member and one Democratic Senator to officially challenge the electoral results. Does Jeffords have to change parties or does the fact that he meets with the Democrats mean that his party affiliation doesn't matter? Just curious and want to stay informed.

[absolutezero]

8. party affiliation doesn't matter

You need one rep and one senator to challenge the elction, but the odds of a repub challenging Bush is pretty slim so they'll most likely both need to be dems.

By the way, :hi: welcome to DU!

[crispini]

10. I believe it would be ANY house member and ANY senator. n/t

[Razorback_Democrat]

15. Kerry should do it! Here's why

Kerry will be up for re-election in the Senate in 06. He is going to have a tough race I think if he runs again. Tough races aren't new to him, but we now know that the GOP has figured out how to win elections by fraud if necessary.
Kerry wants to run in 08 for Prez, but if he doesn't take a strong stand he will never get my vote, and he isn't likely to get the nomination anyhow just looking at history.

So, if he signs on to not certify the election, then he wins in a couple of ways: a) the possibility that he is actually the Prez elect; b) he gains in standing among the Dem base necessary for nomination in 08.

If he is only thinking in terms of his Senate campaign in 06 I don't think he can win anyhow.


JMHO

[verdalaven]

17. He may win over Dems

and lose lots more, particularly those who do not believe that fraud occurred. Rather they might see his action as petty. I don't think it would make him a hero to refuse to certify the election.

Now, I like Zann725's vision of ALL the Senators standing up, one by one, for the sake of our Democracy (dramatic music swelling) and refusing to certify the vote. Talk about a history making, flag waving, moment! Yeah, Zann725! I caught that vision and will hold it with you!

[Munich Democrat]

18. Kerry's term

I thought Kerry's term will expire in 2008(?)

[Quakerfriend]

19. I think Kerry has everything to gain

by standing up. The reason most of the sheeples don't believe that there has been fraud, is that they are totally in the dark. Once they know how easy these machines are to hack and etc. they won't be able to say, definitively, that fraud DID NOT occur.

I think it's a win-win situation for Kerry, given that he wants to run in '08.

[ginnyinWI]

21. Yes:

Unless Kerry and every other politician who cares about the people in this country stands up agains election fraud, we won't be having any fair elections any time soon. If he wins the White House, all the better, but they all need to make this the #1 priority.

All of their political seats are at risk if they don't address this issue--either by 1) election fraud, or 2) people losing faith that they truly care about them, and not voting for them again.

I would vote for Kerry again, but a lot of 2004 Kerry supporters just won't trust him a second time. I think he is thinking that he can just do it again in '08, but it won't be that simple. Many voters will want to get behind a new candidate.

His best shot at the presidency is NOW.

[jsascj]

23. Clever...n/t

[Zan_of_Texas]

24. "he will never get my vote" ??!?!?!

Welcome to Bizzaro land, where people vote all day long, but their vote doesn't count.

Welcome to the world where IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you threaten not to vote for someone -- electrons and chads are all that matters, and who hacked last.

Don't you get it? We are not choosing the people who represent us.

Once you get that under your belt, please put your efforts into getting fair, transparent, honest, verifiable elections.

None of the rest matters.

[hootinholler]

35. Absolutely...

That is all that matters. We need a grass roots effort to pressure the Justice department to vigorously prosecute election fraud / tampering / illegal disenfranchisement without regard to the affiliation of the perpetra(i)tor!

Why isn't the agent's oath of office on the front page of every Justice Department's web page. I haven't verified this next thing yet because I haven't been able to find the the actual text yet. That being said, how many people are aware that the US Marshals oath changed in 1988? Rumor has it, that the Allegiance to the Constitution bits were removed. I'd love to verify this.

That is why we should also pressure all of our reps, not just the Dems. They need to pressure Justice. Clearly, if they have gotten it by now then they are likely involved, and deserve to be annoyed. If they haven't gotten it, then they need to get it, and it's our job to give it to them. ;)

The problem here is visibility to the general population. We are generally a decent people. I believe the vast majority of Americans oppose the tactics used in this election, but, sadly the only tactic they seem to be aware of was the mud-slinging. I'm afraid that this will take a major bust to really break the story.

Look at Ohio Supreme Paul E. Pfeifer's weekly column from Nov. 10, 2004 titled: " Reflections on the Election". (Old school blogs) This is one of the people who will likely decide the Presidency, and he hadn't got it by the 10th. I hope that he's paid attention to Conyers' proceedings.

Nixon said it best: "The American people need to know that their President isn't a crook"

-Hoot

P! in an oval = Prosecute!

[Snivi Yllom]

28. you bring up an interesting point

Im not sure of the constitutional requirements.

Can a candidate be the one to challenge the electors himself?

If he can, I would expect no other Senator would sign on unless Kerry signs on. Imagine the coverage: "Kerry wont even contest it, so why is this other Senator sticking her/hr neck out?"

Unless Kerry himself signs on, the electoral votes will be accepted as normal.

[Kralizec]

20. Good news indeed. Let's keep this push up. We'll get at least one

Senator this time!

[ewulf]

37. Thats the spirit!

An Independent, or even a Republican would serve our purposes better (as, really, the challenge is mostly about perception, and the less partisan its looks, the more difficult it will be for the media to discount it), but any challenge would be better than none.

Keep up the good work, brave souls.

[coreystone]

29. I think if any of the Senators is going to "stand up", they will...

:-)

[SeekingDemocracy]

30. Vermont and Vermonters...

Rock!!!

[ClintCooper2003]

38. Jeffords is perfect! An independent, why didn't we think of it before?

[tommcintyre]

39. Very nice! n/t

[skids]

40. I must be psychic.

I was just suggesting that VT was the best place to get traction with a senator on a couple of other threads. Then this. Awesome.

[txindy]

42. Works for me

He took heat before. He's up to it, if he's interested. Whoever does this will go down in history as a true patriot.