Why can't Edwards be the one senator?

[Carolab]

He's vacating his seat anyway.

[KyndCulture]

1. because the new senators are sworn in 1/3 the vote is certed 1/6

[berniew1]

23. I don't think there will be any problem finding one or several senators

Lots unfolding; most probably aren't aware of it yet.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Excellent - putting him on my daily email / phone list.

NGU.

[NY lib NY]

3. It's the new congress...

Edwards won't be in the congress that votes on the electoral votes. The question is why can't Kerry?

[Red State Blues]

19. Really "bad form". n/t

[Mirwib]

21. Its because he does not believe in the cause enough

to make a sacrifice.

[AndrewClarke]

4. Because he won't be a Senator . . .

. . . on January 6th, when the votes are announced and can be challenged. His term ends on January 3rd.

I've said before that there's no point in worrying about this. If it becomes obvious--and I mean no-doubt-about-it, even-Republicans-have-to-admit-it, undeniably, incontrovertably OBVIOUS--that there was fraud sufficient to change the outcome of this election, there will be willing Senators coming out of our ears.

Otherwise, there will be none--and all of the emails, phone calls, letters, and protests in the world won't change that.

It's a problem that will take care of itself.

[IndyOp]

11. I really hope you are right Andrew, but in the meantime...

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"

:kick:

[bemis12]

15. Well said

I agree completely.

[nmoliver]

17. I disagree ...

The Republicans will conceal all evidence of fraud and they will not admit to it, no matter how blatant it is. Should it become incontrovertible, they will start screaming about Democratic fraud, as they have started to do in Texas. To this day you hear them screaming about how Kennedy won through fraud in 1960.

There is a basic misconception here: to wit, that when THE scandal finally erupts around the Bush cabal, he will at last be exposed, shamed and defeated.

THE scandal has erupted again, again and again since 2000, and before that. 9/11, Valerie Plame, WMD's, military desertion, corporate fraud ... there is no end to it. Each one of them is much larger than Watergate.

If the media, the Republicans and - yes - the Democrats keep on ignorning these scandals, then they are not really scandals. The Bush cabal has no shame. No scandal of any magnitude will get them to admit wrongdoing, accept blame or resign from office. Nor will any scandal of any magnitude get Republicans to agree to impeach Bush - unless they decide that Bush is in the way of their power and their agenda. And it's not clear that such an event would help us in any case.

- Nina

[hopein08]

5. Maybe it's a "duh" moment but...

why can't Edwards be the one senator that does what?

Sorry if it's a stupid question!

[AndrewClarke]

6. Challenges the electoral votes from Ohio n/t

[hopein08]

8. Thanks!!! n/t

[IAMREALITY]

7. That Challenges The Electoral College Votes

There needs to be one member from the house that challenges and one member from the Senate.

[IndyOp]

9. Let's think BIG -- we need to get organized to reach 4 or 5 Senators

over the holiday break. A Senator might be more willing to stand if they know that another Senator will be with them.

Good news: Members of the electoral college in FIVE states turned pomp and circumstance into a chance to deliver a message -- Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, California and North Carolina electors all made statements about the need for national voting reforms, insisted that every vote be counted, or came right out and declared "investigate the vote"!
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=176208&mesg_id=176208>

I think we should definitely go after Senators from those states (except Maine, which has Rethug Senators).

Massachusetts - Kennedy
Vermont - Patrick Leahy, Jim Jeffords
California - Boxer

Also Robert Byrd -- he spoke out passionately against the Iraq War -- elderly, scrappy, might just do it.

Edit: Read the post above - John Edwards won't be in office.

:kick:

[bullimiami]

10. well obama should join the CBC and stand up for them

i dont care what the rest of the establishment senators think about it.

[autorank]

12. Right after he quits the DLC

[w13rd0]

13. Obama is not in the DLC...

...and actually wrote them at one point asking that they remove his name from the "hundred to watch" because he disagreed with their approach and positions.

[autorank]

16. We'll see. He's dismissing the vote fraud issue as of now.

[nmoliver]

14. because he won't circumvent Kerry, that's why!

and that's why the Senators are quiet this time: for the same reason they were quiet in 2000. They failed to challenge the election because Gore asked them not to. How do I know? Because John Kerry told me so personally, two years ago.

- Nina

[bemis12]

18. Same reason I can't be the one Senator n/t

[Quakerfriend]

20. I'm betting on Byrd! (n/t)

[k8conant]

22. I wrote to Byrd and Rockefeller both (my senators) ...

maybe it's time to telephone.

[wiggs]

24. How sweet if ALL the democratic senators stood up.

How nice of a moment would that be?

There's no reason why every one shouldn't oppose certification. That have nothing to lose! They are frozen out of committee discussions. They are out numbered. What power do they have except filibusters and these sorts of things?

[mopinko]

25. they got nothin to lose

this will be the last thing they get to say jack about anything if they don't.

[weeve]

26. Byrd would be a natural...

... but then wouldn't it be nice if all the other Dem. Senators suddenly grew spines too, instead of rolling over when they know damned well what went down in Ohio ( and elsewhere! ).

Anyone know if any Dem. Senators have stated that they will step down , not run for re-election , in 2006 ? They'd be the ones to target.