Kerry reports for duty in Ohio-we only need 1 senator and 1 Representative

[Vote4Kerry]

Kerry finally is calling for investigations into the election scam in Ohio. Now we only need 1 Senator and 1 Representative to officially contest this election and stop pResident Evil from being inaugurated. So, everybody please keep signing those petitions and email your senators to contest this election!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122404Y.shtml

Senator Byrd contact page

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_issues/byrd_contact/byrd_contact.html

Petition to Senators

http://www.contestthevote.org/

[lovuian]

1. Isn't Kerry a Senator???

and Conyers a Representative there ya go

[New Earth]

2. ethically i don't think it is right for Kerry to be the senator

[Fescue4u]

3. What can be more right than a fair election?

It would be unethical for him not to.

[KaliTracy]

7. Kerry couldn't do it

as much as we'd like him to. I don't have a legal background, but I'm sure something can be found surrounding this issue...

[Patsy Stone]

14. I think he could, but it would be the ultimate Coup D'Etat.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But, if memory serves, that's why Gore asked them not to do it. If it were me in Gore's place, I wouldn't have stopped them. JK, however, needs to show real proof -- since it isn't as f'd up in the public's mind (yet) as 2000 when the SCOTUS took that fateful step for the one-time only stunning supression of States' Rights and told Florida they couldn't count the votes. That's what the lawsuit is all about.

Lawsuits rule! And they are much, much more powerful when trying to dismantle the BFEE.

[skids]

19. It would be the ultimate slap in the face to the repub noise factory...

If after conceding, Kerry "flip-flopped" his way right into the oval office chair. :evilgrin:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. That concession speech was the smartest thing he could have done

He removed himself immediately from the fray everyone hoped would ensue, and, in fact, that's what's going to take place in Ohio now. So, Kerry didn't flip-flop - he just made a brilliant strategic choice and preempted any possibility of the Republicans taking anything to the Federal court system.

That was what happened in Florida in 2004, and we all know how well THAT turned out, right? Gore let the Republicans take control of the legal process, and he never got it back.

In this case, Kerry's been staying quiet, letting the appropriate people - the Greens and Libertarians - build the proper foundation for an entry into Federal court, where his standing is --- ahem ---- unimpeachable.

It's what I've been saying would happen since November 3, and you cannot imagine how excited I am to see this happening.

[pacalo]

23. I totally agree, OldLeftieLawyer.

[skids]

26. I'm not saying Kerry "flip-flopped".

What I'm saying is that that is how LimBots will view it, and they will view it as the biggest "flip-flop" ever. And if it pans out for Kerry, they will have the distinct feeling that their faces have just been rubbed in a pile of gritty animal turd.

Which, to me at least, will be pretty funny.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

55. Somewhere in a distant galaxy, far, far away,

there is a speck of light.

The time it will take that speck of light to travel to our planet is approximately .000000001% of the amount of time it will take for me to give a flying fuck about what any of those Fuckface Fans think, do, or say, unless it involves their screaming loudly as they voluntarily plunge to their just rewards over the edge of the Grand Canyon.

Merry Christmas, skids. :hi:

[scottxyz]

102. And Bush flop-flipping out of the Oval Office...

...that wouldn't be a flipflop, would it.

[cilla4progress]

41. Conceding good

Gawd I hope you're right OLL! Esp. the part about it all being strategized by him. I find myself musing about what his "campaign hdqtrs." is like nowadays - is his team constantly looped in, ducking & swinging on cue with every new break? Or are they on their way back to Senatorhood, and, effectively, out of the Presidential race, except for an occasional PR break?

Also - what effect do you think this 4-day snow caused delay will have on his filing? Is there any chance it will blow it for him/us?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

56. Don't sweat the snow

The story is still not even newsworthy, since all we've gotten so far is Pitt's advance notice of the filing (I'd have been very happy if he'd not done that, but the toothpaste is out of the tube, I guess), and you have to be prepared, realistically, for the filing never to take place.

No, I don't think that, either, but it's the only posture to assume in this complicated time - that anything can or cannot happen.

Fuck snow. It means nothing in terms of the filing. Yesterday, today, or Monday, the Other Side is already prepared to file an appeal right behind Kerry's filing, believe me.

Until then, have a Merry Christmas, and keep the faith.

[dandrhesse]

47. I can imagine

I agree with you and I am happy to see it also. I have up and down days trying to figure out their game plan. In the meantime I have done what I felt was most helpful to advance the cause, build a base of popular support.

The whole Dem side has been entirely too quiet for it to be real. No one is talking and that is totally out of character. It put the focus on the offensive in Fallujah and the Ukraine elections as well as the Yukos oil deal.

All three of those events are major happenings of significant importance and they would have gone unnoticed had Kerry been in the headlines everyday depicted as a whiner.

thanks for affirming my point of view!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

57. The invasion and occupation of Iraq

I think that's gotten a lot more air time than it would have with a Presidential battle going on.

Kerry was noted, when he was in Vietnam, for turning off the running lights on his swift boat at night, and just drifting in the river (a very dangerous gambit) until someone fired at them from the shore. Then, they'd know exactly where to strike.

He's got big brass ones, I honestly believe that, and he was never going to go away without the fight of his life.

I still believe he's going to be our next President. I really do.

[txindy]

80. I'm with you

There is going to be a tremendous fight and history will be made next month. I'm looking forward to it.

[newyawker99]

94. Hi dandrhesse!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Firespirit]

52. Definitely a plan.

I am not sure whether this was Kerry's plan since 11/3, but I'm fairly sure that it has been the plan for close to a month now:

“John Kerry supports a full investigation,” Jackson said. He recently spoke with the Democratic presidential nominee and reported that Kerry said he conceded the race on the morning after Election Day because “originally, he was inclined to believe what he was told” about the results. (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/944, dated November 28)

The implication is that he'd changed his mind about that by this time but wanted to wait until the investigation turned up the smoking guns.

On Sunday, John Kerry spoke with Rev. Jesse Jackson and urged him to take an more active role in investigating the irregularities and ensuring a fair and impartial recount. Kerry said there were three areas of inquiry that should be addressed: 92,000 ballots that recorded no vote for president; qualifying and counting provisional ballots; and supported an independent analysis of the software and set-up of the optical scan voting machines. (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/985, dated December 13)

The Sunday referenced is December 12. The very next day, Jackson filed the election contest for the *first* time. The mention of the computer verification suggests that he'd figured out (or been told) where the biggest fraud was likely to have taken place.

One thing that both endears and frustrates me about Kerry is this thoroughness. Unlike *, Kerry does not want to make any assertions or accusations until he has the facts. I'm thinkin' he has some hard facts now, or he wouldn't have acted. :)

[cilla4progress]

53. Just the facts - all the facts

That's what I'm banking on too - that he's convinced there's evidence sufficient to take a step forward into the fray.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

58. Kerry told us during his "concession" speech,

if you listened closely.

At one point during that brief speech, a guy in the audience (and I'm convinced he was a plant) called out, "We've got your back, John." Kerry responded something like, "Thank you, and I've got yours. Just you watch."

That's hardly a response from someone who didn't have a plan, don't you think?

He knew going into the race that Fuckface and his thugs would try to steal it again, and he knew as he delivered that speech what was going to be the plan.

Look, if I knew what the best legal strategy would be - and I've been preaching this exact same scenario since November 3 - don't you think Kerry (who's also a Jesuit-trained lawyer, something I'm proud that we share) knew it, as well?

Of course he did. He simply did the proper thing of keeping his distance - precisely what I'd have insisted my client do, if I were his counsel - while his people, with the massive and necessary leadership of the Greens and Libertarians, waited for the proper moment to make his appearance. That's what will happen in Federal Court next week, if all goes as I think it will.

Kerry's anything but passive, and he's truly nobody's fool.

Unlike Fuckface.

[Patsy Stone]

64. Also, never forget..

That message-laden video; so overloaded with innuendo, IMO.

[googly]

87. I am not a lawyer, so do you see if there is enough time for

the courts to overturn Ohio? From now until Jan 20th, there are
17 working days when shrub is sworn in as president. As you well
know, after that he can not be removed by any court. Only the
house has impeachment powers and senate the removal from office
power.

However it is critically important to go ahead and prove in
courts that fraud made his win possible, and that will destroy
all his legitimacy as president. And evern the repugs in congress
will call for his removal.

[Samantha]

78. I would call it poetic political justice if Lieberman did it

but I won't hold my breath. In all honesty, LIEBERMAN SHOULD DO IT.

[Higans]

62. It would be un-ethical for any senator not to.

[imenja]

6. why not?

It seems to me he is the most appropriate one to do it. The objection simply allows the matter to be heard on the floor of the congress.

[SnoopDog]

10. Actually, Faye...

Senator Kerry will be the last Senator to stand up (of the many who do before him) and rightfully take control of the obligation to remove the illegal pResident. In this case it is the most ethical thing to do!

[valis]

29. Why not?

[The Doctor.]

69. ETHICS !?!??!!?!?!!

You have GOT to be kidding!

After the Secretary of state PERSONALLY ordered the illegal denial of access to county records!

After REPUBLICAN BOE officials messed with precincts last-minute, undersupplied voting machines to heavily populated counties, and BARRED observers during THEIR vote count!

You want ETHICS ????!!!!!

[New Earth]

70. maybe i should explain what i meant?

i (in my personal opinion) think it would be stronger for senators OTHER than Kerry to join in contesting the election. i mean i think it would be good if Kerry joined as well, but for him to be the only one i think it is weak. i honestly just think other senators should do it, rather than have it look like 'hey Kerry is contesting his own election, of course b/c 'he lost'.....

maybe i shouldn't have said the word ethics? maybe i misused the word?
sorry for my opinion, didn't mean to shit on everyone's parade :shrug:

btw, happy holidays :hi:

[ginnyinWI]

99. I know what you mean

You mean that if Kerry were to stand up alone, it would seem as though he was doing it as a last ditch chance to get to be president, rather than as someone who was armed to the teeth with proofs of fraudulent activity.
Others sentators standing up who are not personally involved would look more credible. Better if Kerry is not seen to be leading the charge. Also better for his '08 chances, if this attempt fails.

[seito]

5. lol!!!

It would probably be better if we had lots of Senators and lots of Representatives. We have been given confirmation that our efforts ARE having an impact. I think I'll keep the pressure on.

No Retreat No Surrender

[read the law first]

81. Y'all do know that a Jan 6th contest will not lead to a Kerry victory

The only way that Kerry will win is if there is a revote in ohio.

Every other way is blocked by pukes with majorities.

Just because we get one House and one Senator to object, that will not block the Chimp's inauguration. Y'all do know that, don't you?

One House and One Senator will be a symbolic and important gesture of protest but it will not be successful in the House and Senate controlled by pukes.

[bunny planet]

97. y'all do know that if fraud is proven before the 6th,

a giant monkey wrench is thrown into the electoral process and the whole
machine comes to a lovely screeching halt. January 6th protest might just be the default setting in case that doesn't happen.

This is what I understand from reading OldLeftie's posts, which btw are a real shot in the arm.

[read the law first]

101. if we show 100,000 votes worth of fraud, you are correct....

You are absolutely correct as long as our showing is of > 116,000 fraud-affected votes.

[Amy6627]

92. If Kerry doesn't stand up

I will lose what respect I have for him. I think ALL Dems, every single one, should stand up in solidarity, but if none do, I will no longer be a Dem and I don't think any Black American should be one either. If Dems don't stand up for all of US and especially for the all the Blacks that were dis-enfranchised, Dems are no better than Repugs.

[KaliTracy]

4. having representative/s and senator/s stand up for us

will be an *awesome* thing.... and it will bring to the public eye excactly what the problems here in Ohio and elsewhere have brought....(if MSM doesn't suddenly lose its "satelite" feed or have other technical difficulties that day...)

But.... this doesn't guarentee that * won't still carry on as nothing is wrong/business as usual -- I think the inital standing up just means that the they have to bring a vote to the floor....what it does do is get the issue out there -- but it doesn't guarentee Kerry's electoral votes being certified instead (at least that's my understanding at this point)

[Vote4Kerry]

9. I was under impression that if 1 senator/1 rep contest the election,

the inauguration would be postponed. That would give time for Kerry and co. to investigate the vote fraud more and collect the evidence to overturn the election results. Is this incorrect?

[bemis12]

18. Yes, that's incorrect

If that happens, they debate for two hours and then vote.

Both the house and the senate would have to agree, by majority vote, to reject the electors.

It only gives two hours more time.

[forgethell]

51. Who gets to

be President while the investigation goes on???

[read the law first]

88. The Chimp. n/t

[Patsy Stone]

15. Noooo. It's a new OBL tape day, silly. Look for it. n/t :)

[read the law first]

89. Your understanding is correct. 1 House and 1 Senator will not stop....

the Chimp.

Rather, it is an important albeit symbolic gesture.

[tinrobot]

8. Ted Kennedy

eom

[Patsy Stone]

11. It would mean that

Both houses split for 2 hours of debate and decide whether to accept the contested state's electors. If they both agree to not accept them, then they are thrown out and, haven't done the math, but the one with the most EC votes (even if it's not 270, wins). That's part of the reason that recounting NV and NM is important -- the more the better.

If one house votes to accept and one doesn't, I think they are still accepted, and * wins.

Since the House votes whether to accept Ohio's electors and the House decides the Presidency, * will be "elected" by only by the Repugs, thus, illegitimate in the eyes of at least half the country -- AGAIN.

The Senate only gets to decide the VP (sadly the Repugs are in control here also).

This will not stop * from being coronated on 1/20. It will, however say that once again, he was chosen by a body other than the electors as representatives of the people. That's what the deal is. Not whether he will be inaugurated, but what his legacy and (cough) mandate will really mean: A BIG FAT GOOSE EGG!

Or, it'll be f'n history making when enough normal, human Repugs admit they can't stand him and side with the Dems in the House to not accept and the Repugs in the Senate side with the Dems and also decide not to accept.

p.s. If there is criminal activity found that indicates that Kerry really did win the popular vote in OH, however, that trumps everything. If it's before 1/6 (or even 1/20 as Turley said on KO) all the better. If not, that means we get a good impeachment scandal. That would be sweet -- except then we get stuck with President Dick.

edited because it's late and my thoughts were incomplete the first time around.

Any Constitutional lawyers out there? Please chime in.

[Vote4Kerry]

12. Thanks for info n/t

[DemoVet]

13. Cheney as Prez (like he isn't already). Kool!

I'd give him a week before he'd code and keel over. Good riddance to bad rubbish. It would be even better if he was telling someone to "go f**k yourself" at the time too, would insure a nice reception at the pearly gates.

[Patsy Stone]

16. LOL!

President Cheney's first press conference: Go Fuck Yourself!
Classic. I'd pay to see that.

I think you're right. Code Blue -- STAT!

[Agnomen]

30. But what great last words to put on his thombstone!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. This Constitutional lawyer says, "Forget it."

The notion of the Republican-controlled Congress doing anything to impede Fuckface's inauguration is ludicrous.

The only way to approach this fraud issue is the way it's being approached: through the Federal court system. Once Kerry gets himself properly inside the courthouse, via his application for an order of protection for all the votes in Ohio, the Republicans are going to appeal - immediately. That, though, might not preclude the order of protection being enforced, even temporarily, while the appeals process is played out. If it makes it to the Supreme Court, I hold my breath, because it's a crapshoot there; yet, I remember the Nixon executive privilege matter, and the Court surprised everyone with their ruling, so stranger things have happened.

If the Ohio count gets frozen and Kerry's application prevails, I would posit that the Ohio Electors, who met and cast their votes with the rest of the Electoral College this past December 13, would be notified that their votes were, for the time being, invalid - at least until a righteous recount could take place.

If that happened, it would, essentially, freeze every and anything the Electoral College wanted to do, and now I'm talking mostly about the January 6 reading of the votes by the President of the Senate. I do no see how that legitimately could take place without the Ohio votes included.

So, my theory is that the whole system would be temporarily shut down while the Ohio recount (I envision armed Federal Marshals and Deputies overseeing the whole process, don't you?) took place, and that would mean that John Kerry would be making history.

Keep the faith, kids. The Presidential election is NOT over.

[Patsy Stone]

25. How good...

"I envision armed Federal Marshals and Deputies overseeing the whole process, don't you?"

would this be? How much would I love to see it? Oh, don't get me started. Will it happen? Never in a bazillion years. Is it a really sweet dream. Yup.

"The notion of the Republican-controlled Congress doing anything to impede Fuckface's inauguration is ludicrous."

Absolutely true. If it did happen (and, monkeys MIGHT fly out of my butt) it would make world headlines -- and Hell really will freeze over.

Thank you for the clarification on the freezing of the votes. I, too, know that this needs to go through the courts. I am certainly waiting (hopeful but not expectant) to see if something comes of this suit when it's filed.

[hootinholler]

61. You've got a star....

Look it up, I don't have the link to where I suggested that Conyers bring Marshals to Ohio for his hearings.

That's been my vision for a while now.

-Hoot

[Patsy Stone]

65. I saw your post and you're right

I would love to see it. Really. I am cautiously optimistic. I have lighted many a candle. :)

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ccarter84]

45. well...actually

j/k, but i'm glad to see we're letting both sides speak their minds...yea thats what I wanted to say

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Straight Shooter]

37. DU rules forbid direct vituperative namecalling against other DU'ers

"You are a fool."

I won't hit alert, though. Feel freeper to stay on awhile. Convoluted self-serving logic is a funny way to rebut,and you are providing some amusement to those more well-versed in the law.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buddysmellgood]

46. HA! Kerry won by more than 100,000 votes. The recount was rigged

by Triad. We have proof and Conyers has it. Go back to sleep. We'll wake you in time to hand you your ass.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

59. I just got home

Did I miss getting called a lot of names by some freeper or freepers?

Damn.

Santa hates me............

Merry Christmas, all you grand DU folks :yourock:

[Patsy Stone]

63. Yes

And I was deleted for saying they were not on the up and up, in not so many words. Oops. My very bad. I believe the word they used was "fool."

BTW, I don't know if you saw my post about the Grand Plan theory I had, but we seem to be kindred spirits on our JK conclusions. Concession and disappearing act = good! Prosecutor, investigator, caution = brilliant. Loads of Sun Tzu at work here.

I don't want to revive the thread, but I think you'd get a kick out of it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=203&topic_id=187990&mesg_id=188104

A Kerry, Kerry Christmas to you OLL. And thank you for all of your info.

:)

edited to include the link

[OldLeftieLawyer]

68. What a bunch of pottymouths!!!

"Fool"????????

"Fool"?????????

They deserve to have their keyboards washed out with soap.

Good discourse, Patsy. Of course, I agree with you on all of it. People think that the practice of law is something like they see on "Law and Order," but, in fact, it's a lot of detail work, boring as hell, checking, double-checking, triple-checking, and then going back and checking again. Making sure everything is just right. Journalists are required to triangulate a story; lawyers must triangulate to the ninth power.

The solid practice of law is preparation. That's all, and preparation is nothing but hard, often dreary work. It is dry and tedious and difficult and complicated and, above all, it is precise. If, that is, you are to prevail.

Of course Kerry's got it together and of course they'd have been mad to make themselves targets. This is simply taking control, and letting the Republicans play catch-up.

The media silence has been simple, because the media is a bunch of simpletons. They simply moved on to the Next Big Thing - what was it, the Scott Peterson trial? They're idiots, worthy not even of our notice.

There was a moment where I thought I'd die laughing, and it was the most totally "out there" appearance of Michael Moore on Leno several weeks ago. Hair shorn and combed, beard trimmed, squeezed into a cheap suit, speaking like he'd found a new kind of Christ, accepted that Fuckface was our President, and that we all had to "move on."

It was done so well, so tongue-in-cheek, that the audience ended up booing him, as I recall. He never flinched, and went through with what I think will ultimately prove to be Moore's finest performance.

If they can't find you, the Other Side can't hurt you.

;)

[Patsy Stone]

71. Right!

There were some around here who also thought MM had "turned." Are you kidding me with that? It was such a good moment. It was so eerily Ralph Reed-ish of him and spooky. But damned funny.

I'm with you -- Let's Roll, baby!

[bleever]

74. Why are you confident that the electoral college would not proceed

without Ohio's electors? This seems like a key point, but I haven't seen any law on it yet.

I'm suspicous because there are scenarios in which the electoral college would meet with less than a full house, e.g., if states lost electors as a sanction for violating the equal protection clause with regard to vote suppression. In that case, a simple majority would prevail.

I think you must be right, but I wonder if you can be more specific.

Merry Christmas

:hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

86. You're right

There is no law on it because it's never happened.

I'm confident that the Electoral College's votes would be put on ice because there is no precedent for a President to be elected without every state participating.

Can you imagine the consequences of the disenfranchisement of Ohio? Can you see the kinds of doors that might open to everything the Constitution meant to prevent?

The job title is, after all, President of the "United" States.

I don't think we're ready or eager for that kind of Balkanization, which is precisely what it would be. A prelude to anarchy.

Merry Christmas to you, too.

[IndyPriest]

27. Actually, Patsy, I think B or K DOES need 270

You can't pitch one state and then start counting for a majority from the remainder. If you could pitch one state, you could (theoretically) pitch 20 of them, and then the prez would be elected by only 31 jurisdictions. Not.

THAT'S why OH is so important: the Repubs are going to have to FACE OH, not dodge it.

[Patsy Stone]

35. Nope, just an absolute majority

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.

[IndyPriest]

39. Yes, but "absolute majority" of WHAT? Only those accepted?

Again, in theory, if both houses pitch OH, your reading of the law is that Bush could be elected with 266. So, pitch a few more -- in theory. Your reading is that he could be elected with, say, 180? I'm going to have to go read.

[bemis12]

66. A majority of those "appointed"

If it happened, there would be a legal test of the meaning of "appointed".

Were the full 538 appointed? Then it would require a strict 270 electral votes to win. It's my belief that 538 of them have already been appointed.

But anyone who tells you they know the answer FOR SURE is full of crap, because it hasn't been decided yet.

[IndyPriest]

72. Got it, bemist. Thanks!

THis is going to be one interesting show!

[hootinholler]

60. Hmmm...

I thought the 2 hour thing was to decide what they will do?

I also thought that delaying the acceptance is acceptable?

Ohterwise why would the Constitution provide for the Vice-President-Elect to act as President?

BTW, we need far more than 1 Senator and 1 Rep to swing this thing to Kerry. We need enough evidence from discovery to enable Republicans (who may have been lifted by fraudulent coat-tails) to call a time out for certification of the EC Vote during the investigation.

See you in DC on the 6th.

-Hoot

[Patsy Stone]

67. See Senator's post below.

I think it answers your question. I did a cursory search of the rules for the EC, and it certainly may not be correct. No lawyer, me. :)

[read the law first]

90. That's pretty much it. n/t

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bush_is_wacko]

21. Thanks for the Byrd connection!

I have already done the other two, as well as SEVERAL others. The momentum seems to be in our favor now! I'm holding my breath for Jan. 6th!

[Lostnote03]

54. Byrd is our best hope to preserve the Grand Experiment...n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

24. Byrd emailed here is my letter

Dear Sen Byrd;

As you know, there were disprepancies between exit polls and vote tallies in the Ukraine and the US this year. In the Ukraine, citizens mobilized in response to the perceived threat to their democracy. Our own administration even got involved, and so did our press.

At home, a mere 20-30 million Americans seem to care. That doesn't sound so bad until you consider that they are not the ones with political power, media power or---unless something is done before 2006--electoral power.

I am writing to ask you to stand up on January 6 to object to the slate of electors from Ohio. Thanks to Bush's Ohio Campaign manager, Blackwell the legally mandated recount will not have been completed as required by law, the requisite 3% of precincts having been cherry picked rather than picked at random. This means that the Ohio electoral vote is not valid. In addition, there are many questions which are still unanswered about irregularities with the voting process in that state.

I realize that it is likely that the Republican controlled Congress will select Bush as president. Fine. If we are to become a nation that selects presidents then let's be honest about it and not participate in ridiculous charades of democracy reminiscent of the Soviet Union at its worst.

[roseBudd]

32. I am reading Byrd's new book now, I think he is our best bet

Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency

He is very concerned about the separation of powers being usurped by this administration.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393059421/qid=1103906745/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/002-0036835-3136843?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[drpdx]

33. he and his book are amazing

I LOVE SENATOR BYRD!

[newyawker99]

95. Hi drpdx!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[dobegrrrl]

49. great book, wonderful man

I teach gov't and my kids all know that he is my favorite senator. ( I grew up in WV)

[Senator]

42. HEY Folks! -- No, there is no "must"...

...about any of this. Not about courts, dates, safe harbors, certifications, states rights, recounts, etc...etc...

On Jan 6, and thereafter, Congress can take any action it deems fit, with any information it has at hand. That includes appointing "by law" an acting, interim president (yes, really).

The Ohio Dems can and should send their slate of electors to the archivist. If Congress deems them valid, with a big push from public opinon, they are counted as valid. End of story.

And any recount outcome is irrelevant if the electors are objected to based on the suppression. There is no question that poor minority voters were forced to wait in hours-long poll-tax-lines, while affluent, white voters were not.

That is the simple question we are putting to Senators and Reps (www.thedeanpeople.org):

Is this something you are willing to become complicit with?

This is not theory. It is the law, as written.

Congress is the safety valve for bogus, racist vote tallies. In any and every state (Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, et. al.)

We're just demanding that they do their sworn duty to defend the Constitution.

Stop thinking about process and outcome, just take one step at a time.

Step One: "It's the suppression, stupid!"

__
www.thedeanpeople.org

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndyPriest]

44. Chitown: we're on to you. Let's move along now.

[dobegrrrl]

48. I wrote Byrd

I grew up in WV, when it was ALWAYS blue! I don't know what happened! Sad. I live in VA now and my views go "unrepresented" in the Senate. Fortunately I do have Bobby Scott as my Rep.

:dem:

[Left Brain]

50. So the bottom line is, contact your SENATOR

and Reps, flood them with letters urging them to sign off and stand up and on the 6th.

(Edited for clarification and a typeo)

[GetTheRightVote]

73. I am already in the process of doing just that since forever

I am glad to see Sentator Kerry rejoin the battle for Democracy, yet I am also in awe of how many ordinary citizens are fighting this battle as well, I am happy to join your ranks, I know we will win in the end.

[AmerDem]

75. "reports for duty"?

He should be penalized for tardiness!

[Silverhair]

76. That is NOT how it works.

There is this fantasy around here that if only 1 representative and 1 senator object, then the whole process grinds to a halt while an investigation takes place.

THAT IS A TOTAL FANTASY. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

If there is a challenge, then the two houses separate, debate for two hours, vote on the challenge, and get one with the process. The two hour period is part of the law. No delaying tactics. No filibusters. In two hours they vote.

Republican control both houses. Bush wins.

[bemis12]

77. And if by chance

One of the two houses turns for Kerry, it still does not matter. If they do not agree, the electors sent by the governor must be accepted.

[Silverhair]

79. True. NT

[PlayOn]

85. Your perspective doesn't take into account

the incredible significance an objection would have. It would be historic, and it would bring to light the irregularities, and hopefully the rights violations, that occurred in the election. The debate would be out in the open because the MSM couldn't help but cover such an event. Would Bush still be sworn in? That's probable; but the election would face a new scrutiny and that could have far-reaching and possibly altering effects. In spite of how the Rethugicans would attempt to spin such an event to their favor, Bush would not want his election to be challenged. That would be a moral defeat for him.

[read the law first]

91. Horrors if Democrats bail on us.

Actually, the worse case scenario for us is if we lose by MORE than 55-45 in the Senate and 30-16 in the House. If Democrats bail on us, then IMHO that would be very bad.

So, again IMO, we need 1H + 1S and then party loyalty in the impending vote. So even if your H or S won't object, they still need to follow the party line in the following vote. If one of ours goes off and votes against the challenge, they need to be made to pay and pay dearly.

[Silverhair]

103. That would be an easy spin for the Republicans.

They would do with that senator, especially if it was Kerry, what they did to Gore. Sore loser would be the label that they would hang around his neck, just like they did Gore. If a different senator objected, then they would love to hang the label on the whole party. Notice that the MSM still isn't doing anything with the story.

BTW, in Ohio, after the Triad incident, a recount was done in some different precincts that were not involved, and no problems were found. That comes from TruthOut.org.

[bunny planet]

98. Many people on this board have acknowledged that already Silverhair,

and they have said that the January 6th protest will be a symbolic gesture only, to 'delegitamize' His Fraudulency's mandate. Most people don't expect that the RepubliCON controlled House and Senate will overturn * at that point, but some people have suggested that legal machinations that prove fraud might stop the process before January 6th
and throw the whole election into question, starting with Ohio.

[weeve]

82. From one Washington to another !

Hey, we just proved here that actually hand counting, looking at EVERY ballot, CAN make a huge difference ( substitute Gregoire's Governorship for Kerry's Presidency ). This will be the PR reasoning/justification behind the same thing happenning soon in Ohio. And the results in that "other" Washington will be the same.

That's my sincere Christmas wish for all my brothers and sisters here at DU , and for the future of our World. Peace... from Seattle

[bemis12]

83. Exactly how many votes difference

was this huge difference that you made?

[PlayOn]

84. Enough votes difference

to change the election outcome. And that's as many votes difference as is needed. With respect to Ohio, there are enough discrepancies that a legitimate (repeat, legitimate) hand recount could swing the vote. I don't believe anyone can absolutely that's an impossibility. Of course, with the alleged tampering that's gone on, a legitimate hand recount seems highly unlikely.

[read the law first]

93. There's a big difference between one hundred and 100,000. n/t

[PlayOn]

96. There's a big difference between Washington and Ohio

and the outcome of one will not necessarily mirror the outcome of the other, particularly if there's an unobstructed recount.

[read the law first]

100. playon is correct n/t