Why would electoral challenge be a kiss of death to a senator's career?

[Pacifist Patriot]

I've seen this mentioned several times and I need someone to give me the objective viewpoint. I'm far from objective and find myself in the position of not wanting to support the career of any senator who does NOT challenge the election. Why would performing your job as outlined by law automatically end a political career? Depending upon the outcome, a challenging senator could end up a hero. Sounds more like a gamble than a foregone conclusion to me. Humor me and chalk it up to naivity.

Note: I'm putting my question here because this is the forum I frequent most and where I've seen the assertion made. Thanks.

[shraby]

1. I wondered that myself

seems it would be harder on their careers to NOT challenge. I know I'll be watching to see who's naughty or nice, and the ones who don't stand up for Democracy and the vote just might see themselves without votes next election.

[liberal N proud]

2. IMO: Since we have the shrub for president, nothing should kill any ones

political career.
The bar has been lowered so low, a monkey could be president. Oh wait, one is president.

I would think that if it is valid, and it is, then standing up should bolster ones career.

[BigBearJohn]

39. I WISH I HAD SAID THAT

OH MY GOD, I AM SITTING HERE LAUGHING MY ASS OFF! I WISH I HAD SAID THAT
:bounce: :bounce:

[fearnobush]

61. I am laughing too. A Chimp for president the world dislikes.

And our Dems fear him, well I don't think it's him they fear, it's the corporate MSM and the overall Olagarch that they fear. Whats even funnier, sadder, is that they, the DNC, don't even realize that they are already OVER and that they already have absolutely nothing to lose.

[bumblebee1]

47. Monkey for President

LOL!! I loved that wisecrack. A monkey is President? I was under the impression that monkeys are smarter than Bush? You mean that I could be wrong?

[Barney Rocks]

3. yeah--I don't get it

either.

Someone please explain this!

I can see MAYBE worrying if a Senator comes from a tough red state--but senators like Kennedy and Clinton? Come on--if THEY don't support us it SUCKS because they should be safe no matter what they do.

Besides--no one is going to face reelection for a couple of years--so why be paralyzed with fear over that right now?

[kitkat65]

4. Would the fact that Gore actually did win in Florida mean anything

to the current challenge faced by Democratic senators about contesting? As in, "Look, history proved that we didn't press the matter far enough with Florida 2000 and America did not get the president they elected. Too late now but in light of the mounting evidence of fraud in at least three states this matter needs to be investigated."

Am I totally naive?

[Pacifist Patriot]

68. Let's be naive together.

If I were in congress I wouldn't hesitate to use that argument.

[babylonsister]

5. I think the repug/Rove machine might scare

anyone with political asperations because this admin could destroy them in any number of ways. This is all according to what I've read, but at the moment they seem to be all-powerful. Look at the MSM...

[cosmicdot]

6. "a challenging senator could end up a hero" - absolutely

a leader might be born - hallelujah!

the tactic is one of intimidation and suppression ... of course, if the shoe was on the other foot ... the corporate media and the rethuglicans would be spinning it the other direction ... that's why we need some history-making moves ... I fear it's now or never ...

[liam97]

7. There is no real reason that a challenge

especially one initiated by someone like Conyers should end a senator's career. But since democrats make their career by working with the Republicans, rather than as real opposition, this might sever relations within the senate. Hence the notion of this being suicidal. It goes to show how we have accepted the idea that public officials don't have to represent the public, even though the latter elects and pays for them. That is why our dem. senators vote to send our kids to war.

[Dr.Phool]

8. I'm organizing a lot of people to get in touch with

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. He's already got a huge Bullseye on his back for 2006. They're coming after him with both barrels anyway.

The way I see it, he has nothing to lose, and everything to win.

[Skink]

9. All the same...

Someone like Byrd who is close to retirement should take up this cause.

[Krocksice]

11. I think it has something to do

with angering the other senators. The senate Democrats are not fighters... they are just trying to stay afloat now instead of fighting hardcore and turning it around for their party and country. As far as I can see, not one of them is willing to put their own career on the line for the sake of justice. They know that the same thing that happened to Daschle will happen to them. It's horseshit, but I think that's the mentality.

[kcass1954]

46. I'm in Florida...

What can I do? I can't pm you yet (not enough posts). Get back in touch with me.

I met Bill Nelson in 72 when he first ran for state office, and have respected him for many years. I agree that they're going to hit him hard in 06, and they'll lie, cheat, steal or do whatever else it takes to run him out of office then.

[Pacifist Patriot]

69. I'm one of his constituents too. I've had a very nice

correspondence relationship with him, but some of his voting record is entirely too conservative for me. I'd like to see him as governor of Florida rather than POTUS though. I'm not sure, but I think a democratic governor from middle America would have the best shot. Can't imagine why. ;)

[cureautismnow]

77. I Wrote to Senator Nelson Urging Him to Stand Up On 1/6/05

I also added that he'd better fight for fair elections with paper trails or else Diebold would sent him to the unemployment line in '06.

[kitkat65]

10. I'm hoping that some fresh young senator like, oh, say...Barack Obama

who is currently Illinois' darling will do it. Even if it ended his career, it would be worth going down in flames for, in my opinion.

[The Doctor.]

54. ummm... I think He's 'Senator Elect' right now...

Or do they get sworn in early?

[Turn CO Blue]

64. The new class is sworn in on Jan 4th, I believe. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

76. True, but he would be a senator on the date in question.

[SnoopDog]

12. It's like having a captain of a submarine say...

(while under water) "ok- lets open all of our hatches"...

And then officers (Dem/Repub senators) say nothing and well, shit, their sub starts to take in water and they all die.

We better have all our senators stand up or we'll all drown.

[autorank]

15. Welcome to DU! Excellent analogy.

[SnoopDog]

26. Thanks.... No matter what, it is about time we...

as Americans stand up and fight for *us* and our needs as a civilization.


In the 48 years of my life, just exactly what has been accomplished. Well, not much. We have good roads - of course so we buy more cars and more gasoline, computers (not sure of that connection except some people are getting rich and we can communicate!), and what else?

We spend 5 Billion dollars a month for an occupation of Iraq - for what?

Where is our clean water, our breathable air, our safe food, health care, and education.

These idiots are killing us on purpose.

The is *always* a better way. We *all* can live on this earth if, hold on now, we do things smart! These idiots want to kill off most of us earthlings so that they can abide by their 'bible' and their 'god'.

Sorry to rant - it just seems that the evidence points in that direction.

[whalerider55]

37. yuh huh

have all 45 stand up. then give the mike in the senate to Byrd, and the one in the house to conyers. then let them steal the election on the floor of congress, with the MSM forced to cover it (b/c it is a "constitutional crisis"). Beats Scalia's office, or some sneaking in some back door of the county board of elections in ohio, florida when no one can see them.

it will be a great civics lesson for the kids, a rallying point for progressives,

welcome.

ship ahoy, matey. this boats leavin' the dock. damn the torpedoes.

whalerider55

[SnoopDog]

38. Of the many posters...I do not

understand the subtle meanings of your posts...

It maybe a cultural thing, a intellect thing or ...

What is your goal with DU?

And thanks for the Welcome... Not many posts I have - just one more American out for true Democracy.

[whalerider55]

40. snoop-

thanks for the feedback. there isn't anything subtle about my posts, usually. at least not this one. not cultural (i hope), certainly not intellect...

my goal? to engage in a constructive, solutions-oriented dialogue with progressive people about how we got here, and how we get "there" from here. sometimes that means pushing the envelope a little in trying to get a point across. there have been times when what i've had to say hasn't been well-recieved; i just say it because i think it contributes to the dialogue and it happens to be where i've arrived.

SNIP: "have all 45 stand up. then give the mike in the senate to Byrd, and the one in the house to conyers. then let them steal the election on the floor of congress, with the MSM forced to cover it (b/c it is a "constitutional crisis"). Beats Scalia's office, or some sneaking in some back door of the county board of elections in ohio, florida when no one can see them."

just outlining the process i propose- and coming down on the side of active resistance.

"it will be a great civics lesson for the kids, a rallying point for progressives"

why i think it would be a good idea

"welcome."

glad to have you aboard.

"ship ahoy, matey. this boats leavin' the dock. damn the torpedoes."

supercilious fluff, pushing an analogy way beyond it's natural lifespan. ignore it.


"whalerider55"

my handle.

whalerider55

[MsConduct]

41. LOL Don't worry whalerider55, I 'get' what you're saying....

It sure doesn't hurt to add a little humor when things are so stressful. I for one, appreciate it very much. So, thank-you and Happy New Year.

PS-race you too 1000 posts.

[SnoopDog]

42. Thanks. Thanks for responding...

What is your 'and how we get "there" from here".

I want our country and our earth to live on and live on for all human kind.

(ok, sorry, that is alittle Utopian - but true).

Interesting screen name... whalerider55 ... Born in 1955? Like the novel Moby Dick?

(I am not getting personal - just thinking with my typing...)

[whalerider55]

43. there

is that place where democracy means something, where empowerment of people, accountability, and compassion all stroll hand-in-hand, where the US of A represents a clear alternative to fascism, and not fascism-lite. i'm tired of moving retrograde. i want progress.

there you go. just as utopian as you are.

born in 1955. and have actually ridden on a whale. truth in advertising.

whalerider55

[SnoopDog]

45. Peace. And continue your quest...

[kitkat65]

13. At this point I'd rather have anarchy than impending fascism.

[Clark2008]

22. Amen!

And pass the ammunition.

[nyy26wc]

14. Devil's advocate

I don't believe it would be a kiss of death. But, I can play devil's advocate for a moment.

Each Democrat is really only there because Diebold (and the other voting machines) haven't targeted him/her yet. You don't want to remind them of your existence, or you could be the next to be Clelanded out of the Senate.

[Clark2008]

24. What better reason to challenge the vote?

A full-fledged investigation would reveal the fraud; ergo, there would be no fraudulent election next time.

[Pacifist Patriot]

70. Now that's an argument I can understand.

I can't stomach it, but I can understand the fear.

[fooj]

16. Happy New Year!!!

I wrote this on another thread earlier and I thought I'd share it...


Well, Walt...I guess I'll take my chances!

I don't happen to agree...however, it's a free country!(or is it?) Just checking! A couple of questions...

1)You certainly seem to be right on the pulse of this and know EXACTLY what's going to happen. Is there a right-wing playbook that the rest of us are unfamiliar with? Oh c'mon-you can tell us...

2)Why would a senators career be "ruined" by embracing and honoring truth and justice? I thought this was an election based on MORAL VALUES! (or was it?)

3)When a citizen of this country breaks the law, if convicted, don't they go to jail? Has ole Tom Dingledork changed that law, too? Hypothetically speaking, if laws were broken it seems as though your whole point WILL BE MOOT. At least that is the America that I know and love.

4)There is no daily agenda in Bush's administration, is there? It is just all one big preplanned business deal, right? Now come on...EVERYONE who bothers to inform themselves knows that! Besides, keeping up is rather difficult (even if there was a daily agenda) because everything in the WH is kept "Off Limits"! Those pesky little National Security issues sure keep us in the dark, don't they?
5)And finally...where IS the Dickster? I sure hope they can find him when it comes time to steal election #2!!!

So, Walt- I know that "realistically" it may not be in the cards for us...however...I choose to believe that this country is full of people who hope for a better tomorrow. I choose to believe that Americans, generally, are an innately good group of people and our passion in preserving the integrity of our democracy will ignite a flame of promise within the borders of our country and beyond. This is my fervent prayer! Amen!

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING????

[Patsy Stone]

17. My take

It wouldn't be.

I don't know why and I don't know how, but I think this is reverse spin.

Don't go yelling, "TFH!" or anything, but I don't know where this rumor started (Ed Shultz?) and I think this is a whisper campaign started in the public (us) to argue this and then it gets real somehow.

If it's just us pontificating amongst ourselves, so be it. But there was a post yesterday that said it was on Ed Shultz.

I, for one, am still not convinced that Ed is not really a Repug.

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. It's both reverse spin AND a Catch-22 setup

The danger is portrayed as "the senator looks like a fool for joining fringe conspiracy theorists."

Of course, the more senators that join and the more attention that is paid to the solid evidience (certainly more than theory!), the less this will be true and the more the senator is going to be seen not as a fool but as a courageous upholder of the Constitution.

It's a Catch-22, a self-perpetuating losing circle: senators might fear to join because there are so few who stand, and if they don't join, there are so few to stand.

I think the thing to do is to try to set aside the fear and do what is right. John Dean was right about that.

[Patsy Stone]

21. Correct. I wrote this on another thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=217452&mesg_id=217576

Have I wished you a Happy New Year?

:party: :toast:

[Nothing Without Hope]

30. Guess that's why "spin" is such an appropriate term for it

It's a situation that goes in self-created circles and doesn't go anywhere.

Definitely a losing argument and one that the Rethugs are hoping will scare all those lily-livered Democratic senators into shivering in silence on Jan 6.

And yeah, we've wished each other HNY earlier today, but it's nice to share again - it'll be another year til the next time.
:hi: :toast: :party: :hippie: :D B-)

[Nothing Without Hope]

20. It's both reverse spin AND a Catch-22 setup

The danger is portrayed as "the senator looks like a fool for joining fringe conspiracy theorists."

Of course, the more senators that join and the more attention that is paid to the solid evidience (certainly more than theory!), the less this will be true and the more the senator is going to be seen not as a fool but as a courageous upholder of the Constitution and not on the lunatic fringe.

It's a Catch-22, a self-perpetuating losing circle: senators might fear to join because there are so few who stand, and if they don't join, there are so few to stand.

I think the thing to do is to try to set aside the fear and do what is right. Howard Dean was right about that, IMO.

[RevCheesehead]

58. That's exactly the plea I made to Russ Feingold.

We're actually proud of his "Maverick" tendencies here in WI - so when I wrote him, I asked him to please consider doing what was right, rather than what was popular.

I am still waiting for a response.

[Patsy Stone]

62. You were looking for that * video?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/110204-15v.htm

Posted at 10:03 p.m. 11/2/04 -- WaPo

[kitkat65]

28. Every time my bosses hear Ed talking they ask if it's Rush Limbaugh

And they do sound alike.

I've wondered about him too. I've never heard of him talking about election fraud and he literally ended a call and cut someone off as they were asking "Well, what about the voter fraud?"

Yeah, I've had my doubts about him too.

[saracat]

66. Me too Patsy. There is something not right about him.

And I don't like this whisper campaign.

[mzmolly]

73. Well I'm not a repug and I agreed with what Mr. Schultz was saying.

The echo chamber in here never ceases to amaze.

I've exbounded on my rationale below.

Also, see Will Pitt's post in this tread. He understands the point being made by Mr. Schultz. :hi:

[Patsy Stone]

78. On another thread from Friday, I explained my position

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=217452&mesg_id=217576

Since there are three threads concerning this topic, we are certainly discussing it. This is not about 1/20 or even 1/6. This is about a desire on the part of some House Dems to stand up and contest the * Presidency in general and highlight voting issues. As I wrote, if real fraud is proven, whenever and wherever, it's gonna be big. I am not of the opinion that both Houses will suddenly vote to install JK.

I am just saying that with friends like us, who needs enemies. We do it to ourselves.

:)

[mzmolly]

79. I agree "with friends like us who needs enemy's." Especially when it

comes to threatening our good Senators with job loss if they don't do X.

For example: "Also, if your Senator does not stand, and is a Dem, then you get the pleasure of finding other, more Liberal Senatorial candidates to support in 2006, and letting the sitting Senators know why you no longer support them."

We've got to understand that the members of the Senate likely have a different viewpoint on the election (namely that 3.5 million MORE people voted for * than Kerry.) It's pretty rare that people feel that "irregularities" (which occur in every election) had even close to enough of an impact on the 3.5 voting difference to put * in office.

*I'm not saying I don't think they cheated and cheated big, nor am I saying that no one should come forward. And, I especially like the way John Conyers is framing the issue but personally, I shall consider my Senator Mark Dayton and his ENTIRE record before casting him aside for not contesting the election on January 6th. In fact, James Dobson is targeting him for not towing Bush's line, and now we have some suggesting the "liberals" target him for not contesting the election. Ridiculous.

Sorry, this "do as I say or else" is (eating our own.) I will continue to consider the WHOLE person and their ENTIRE record of service to our country before casting X aside for not thinking just like me on single issues.

[shiina]

18. Because the MSM...

says so. Most people believe whatever the MSM says the general consensus is...and right now the general consensus in the media is that the election ran smoothly and anyone who doesn't agree is a nutcase.

So basically, they're afraid of being attacked by the MSM and by other politicians. The last thing in the world a Senator wants is a bunch of bad publicity.

[garybeck]

49. there's no doubt

the media is to blame as much as anyone

[pacalo]

65. I blame them the most.

If they told it like it is where WhatsHisName's corruption is concerned, the people would be in the streets, eminem-style.

He's hated so much that he's afraid of the public. He wears a bulletproof vest, he's given the least number of press conferences of any president in U.S. history, he's chided whenever he visits foreign countries who have unbiased mainstream news (they're more educated than less than half this country), & he would speak to only those who signed loyalty oaths at his campaign rallies.

It's now or never for the senators to speak up for the people.

[noamnety]

23. The theory is ...

Republicans will fight like hell in the next election against any senator that takes a stand.

But that sort of implies two things - one, that the republicans will magically support any dems that shut up about fraud, and two, that the only way a dem can win is if a republican "allows" them to win.

Now the first, we know that ain't gonna happen. The second, well, if they've got total control of all the machines in all the states, we're screwed anyway, so there's not much to lose.

[SicTransit]

29. No, I think the theory is that

1. Republicans will fight like hell in the next election against any senator that takes a stand - but that by itself doesn't matter since they will fight like hell against any D senator anyway.

2. (1) above will be greatly helped by tainting the senator in question as a "tin foil hatter", thus peeling off at least some who would otherwise vote for him.

3. None of the people who would otherwise not have voted for the D senator in question would change their mind as a result of his standing up.

[Machiavelli05]

25. Because...

No one except for party loyalists will buy all the theories. There needs to be a true smoking gun that 70% of the country will find to be damning. Internet theories and stuff really dont carry much weight.

I talked to a family friend today who played a role for the RNC in the election and he was bitching about Dem voter fraud!!! Its all about your perspective. A majority of Americans have an apathy at best, more commonly a distaste towards partisan politics - and whether it is or not, that is what they will view these allegations as.

[Left coast liberal]

31. Yah, I bet they are bitching about Dem Voter Fraud.

Anything to fog the issue and turn eyes away from the real, obvious fraud and suppression.

That's the oldest trick in the book.

I'm not buying that.

[Machiavelli05]

36. Dems arent innocent...

I witnessed some dirty tricks myself this election. I just bitch about the ones that are made by people I dont agree with.

Edit: this is not to say that b/c they arent innocent that in this particular case they are more guilty than the GOP. I dont believe that - nor do I believe the Dem tricks were anywhere close to as reprehensible.

However, I do think there is an underlying and unsaid agreement with the higher ups in the parties... "you dont bitch about our tricks, we wont bitch about yours"

[Clark2008]

32. How is it partisan?

It's not just the Dems. In fact, it's not even the Dems who are leading this charge.
It's the GLIBS.

[Machiavelli05]

34. Unfortunately..

People are stupid, and wont understand this.

I was answering the question of why Senators wont stand up, not saying why they wouldnt stand up in a perfect world.

Senators have a lot tougher time at re-election than House members do.

[noamnety]

33. That 70% depends

If you mean it would have to be 70% to make a difference in the election outcome, I'd agree with you.

If you mean to keep the senator's seat safe, I'd disagree. We're already at 20% of the population thinking there was serious fraud, and that's with virtually no MSM coverage. We only need 35% of a state's voters to win, given voter turnout in a nonpresidential election year.

That extra 15% doesn't even need to believe there was massive fraud, they just have to believe that making a stand against it doesn't make you ineligible for reelection.

[Machiavelli05]

35. to a point I agree

but my arguement is that no senator is going to sit there and say "we only need 35% of a states voters to win".

Given the GOP spin machine - we may just have to give them this one and allow correctly minded lawyers and activists to work behind the scenes to make sure it doesnt happen again. Its the unfortunate and unfair truth.

[saracat]

67. That is utter BS!

[Machiavelli05]

80. No, its really not. Sorry if the reality hurts.

[Left coast liberal]

27. I don't think it would be either...

Ed Shultz coughed that one up the other day while I was listening. I felt sorry for the lady who called in. I surely wouldn't call Ed a liberal beacon. Honestly, I'm wondering why we think he knows what he's talking about.

He had Conyers on and when asked he said there would be others standing up with him. And, when asked he said a Senator would be standing up. Perhaps several.

So, No, Ed doesn't know anything that we don't know, in fact, he probably knows less.

Don't get discouraged. Keep faxing, calling, e-mailing. Don't let the nay-sayers steer this!

Cheers!

[WilliamPitt]

44. Bluntly

Few people expect a challenge to remove Bush from office. Even if a Senator stands, the resulting votes in the House and Congress will break on partisan lines and the challenge will be defeated. Any Senator who stands risks losing the ability to gather the moderate and conservative Dem Senators for the looming fights over Judicial nominations and the very right to filibuster.

Further, any Senator who stands risks making the Democrats look like sore losers, and will make it easy for the GOP to dun Democrats on the local level, thus making the aforementioned Judiciary fight even harder.

I am one who thinks a Senator should stand under the words used by Conyers in his letter - "I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort," wrote Conyers, "to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters."

Debate and highlight, not overthrow. Gooid, safe, political words that makes the discussion far more important than the outcome. If you see this as a fight to reform elections, as I do, that is the whole point. Conyers gave any Senator cover with those words to do just that.

[fearnobush]

63. Exactly. Debate and highlight. That is the realistic approach.

The Repukes want so much to keep there Fraud, checks and balances in place. That is why they so eager to dupe the public and MSM in to believing we are losers and conspiracy nuts. If we can say Hay, lets debate and highlight why a republican state cannot provide equal voting rights and protection of that states own laws. How can we be assured that Ohio's GOP, SOS and RNC is indeed acting on the behalf of the people if they cannot even accurately determine whether their voting system is rigged, or just simply flawed? If they, the GOP want to be embraced as a legitamete leaders, it would be in their best interests to provide fair and accurate elections.
IF the GOP has a smear campaign against equal voting rights etc. I'd be the first to frame that party as the anti-voting party.

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. Thank you. Excellent point.

[mzmolly]

75. Very well said.

I too love the "debate and highlite" wordage.

[OneBlueSky]

48. $$$$$$$$$$$ . . .

any senator or member who helps democracy rear its ugly head threatens the near total control of things currently enjoyed by the corporatocracy . . . all of them rely heavily on corporate contributions, and these contributions will be in jeopardy if they don't toe the company line . . . and if there's one thing that trumps democracy and ethics and doing the right thing in DC, it's $$$$$$$ . . .

[sepia_steel]

50. I've womdered this, too.

IF they DON'T stand, they aren't gettin' my vote anymore. AT ALL.

[marcologico]

51. "Senator Kerry claims voting machines rigged, declares self president"

Details at 11:00. Or: "Senator Boxer claims Ohio voting machines controlled by alien cell phones, removed from Senate chamber by medics"

[Zan_of_Texas]

52. not just kiss of death to a senator's career......

In the past four years, there have been roughly 50 Dem Senators at any one time.

In the past four years, there have been 2 Dem Senators or Dem Senate Candidates-in-the-lead who have died in plane crashes (Gov. Mel Carnahan leading in the Senate race against John Ashcroft, then 2 years later Sen. Paul Wellstone leading in the Senate race).

And two Dem Senate leaders (Top Senate Dem leader Daschle, and Judiciary Committee chairman-at-that-time Leahy) got anthrax letters (shortly after 9-11 -- no one ever was tried or convicted for this).

So, four out of 50 Dem Senate or almost-Senate members have died sudden deaths or had a death attempt.

Okay, 4 out of 50 -- a coincidence, right?


How about 2 out of 9 swing-vote Supreme Court justices having close calls? How about right after major cases that were close?

MAY 2004
On April 28, 2004, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the cases of two American citizens being held as enemy combatants, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. According to a report at Indymedia, David Souter was critical of the government's position.

Two days later, Justice David Souter was attacked by unknown assailants, while out jogging. It was a Friday night at 9 p.m.. He suffered minor injuries, was taken to a hospital, and released about 4 hours later, in the wee hours of the morning. Kathleen Arberg, the Supreme Court's public information officer, said the justice was attacked by "several young men."

The attack took place around 9 p.m. Robbery was not involved, Ms. Arberg said.

Justice Souter, 64, is an avid jogger and hiker who runs regularly around the track at Fort McNair, an Army base near his apartment in the Southwest section of Washington. For "security reasons," the court did not identify the precise location of the attack. Nor was the number of attackers or a description of them immediately released. (Excuse me, but why would a description not be released - for security reasons? WTF?????)

The attackers, who escaped, did not appear to be armed, Ms. Arberg said. A spokesperson for Washington Metropolitan Police said last week that no suspects had been arrested and that an investigation continues. He said police do not know the motivation for the attack.

Souter is very private, is among the youngest justices and is a regular jogger. He is a lifelong bachelor who lives alone and is the justice least likely to be seen on the speaking circuit or at Washington parties.

When justices of the Supreme Court make speeches or attend functions in their official capacity, they are accompanied by court police officers or U.S. marshals. But in their daily lives, they go about their business mostly on their own.

The incident recalled a mishap last summer involving another justice. It was just a week after the Michigan affirmative action decision and the Texas sodomy decision of the Supreme Court last summer (both of which were mixed or against Bush administration positions) that a heavy frame nearly collapsed on Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The decisions came down the last week of June, 2003.

During July 4th, 2003 festivities in Philadelphia, a large piece of a wood and steel stage frame came crashing down, narrowly missing Justice O'Connor. She was not hit but was heard through an open microphone saying "we could all have been killed." Several other people, including Phily's mayor, were hit. Three were hospitalized and released. At the time of the incident last summer, a spokesperson for the Constitution Center said officials were trying to determine what went wrong.

Sources for Supreme Court stories:

Close Call For Justice O'Connor
PHILADELPHIA, July 4, 2003
CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/04/national/printable561779.shtml

(reposted at a non-NYT website; not verified:
New York Times July 5, 2003
Mishap Mars Opening of Constitution Museum
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Justice Souter Is Attacked While Jogging
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: May 2, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/politics/02SOUT.html

Attack on Souter shows justices' minimal security
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
May 2, 2004
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=0&num=1&q=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-05-02-souter-usat_x.htm

Supreme Court Justice Souter Assaulted
Was Jogging On City Street In Washington
KDKA Channel TWO http://kdka.com/topstories/topstoriestv_story_122171152.html
May 1, 2004 5:09 pm US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (CBS)

Justice Souter assaulted during jog
Police sources: Attack appears to have been random
Saturday, May 1, 2004 Posted: 4:48 PM EDT (2048 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/01/souter.assaulted/index.html

[marcologico]

53. man that is scary stuff

Another reason why Kerry might nix the whole thing, like somebody said Gore did

[Zan_of_Texas]

55. one more

Hardly anybody noticed this.

It was a year after 9-11 and the anthrax attacks, and the President wanted Congress to give him a blanket approval to make war against Iraq. An unknown sniper was running loose in the metro DC area, school children were being kept inside at recess, and the place was going crazy. In that atmosphere, THIS came out.

U.S. senators warned of al Qaeda snipers on golf courses

Friday, October 18, 2002 Posted: 9:19 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. senators were warned earlier this week that those who play golf may be targets of al Qaeda snipers on golf courses and were given tips on how to protect themselves, a U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman said.

Police were notified about the potential threat to senators, said Marcia Krug, a Capitol Police spokeswoman. She would not say which agency notified the Capitol Police or when exactly they were told. But she said her department, in turn, notified the sergeant-at-arms, who then notified the senators that al Qaeda snipers might be looming near golf courses, ready to pick them off. The sergeant-at-arms, who is in charge of lawmakers' security, did suggest precautions the senators should take, Krug said. She would not elaborate.

The threat information was passed as a sniper, who has killed nine people and wounded two others in the Washington area, remains at large. Authorities investigating that case have said there is no evidence suggesting that a sniper working for a terrorist group is behind the shootings. Meanwhile, FBI agents have been questioning an al Qaeda suspect being held in Belgium who bragged to his interrogators that he had witnessed al Qaeda training for snipers, European intelligence sources said Friday. The FBI, one of many agencies involved in the Washington-area sniper shooting investigation, refused to confirm or deny it had sent agents to Brussels.

Nizar Trabelsi has been in custody since two days after the September 11 terror attacks in the United States, accused of plotting a suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Paris. Trabelsi, who confessed to the plot in December, is interrogated regularly. FBI investigators have interviewed Trabelsi within the last two or three days, the European intelligence sources told CNN. The sources said Trabelsi told investigators of a plan in which snipers would attack American senators on a golf course, and described how fighters were trained to shoot targets from up to 250 meters (820 feet) and shoot from the back of pickup trucks. Belgian investigators reacted skeptically to any suggestion of a link with the D.C.-area shootings that began October 2, noting the suspect has had access to newspaper and TV accounts of the spree. In addition, they said, disinformation is a key al Qaeda tactic. As a member of the north African Salafist terrorist group, affiliated with al Qaeda, Trabelsi embraces the doctrine of continuing the jihad struggle by deception of the enemy. Belgian investigators say his interrogations have been consistent with this doctrine. Investigators have recently been questioning Guantanamo Bay detainees about snipers, but Trabelsi was not subject to this. Belgian sources tell CNN he volunteered the topic of his own accord.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/alqaeda.snipers.senators/

[marcologico]

57. Zan are you suggesting

that they were ready to take out a troublesome senator or two under the cover of an "Al Qaeda" sniper?

At this point nothing is unbelievable.

[Zan_of_Texas]

59. I am not suggesting anything. I am telling you a sequence of events.

And, I think those who have been paying attention have noticed that the Terror Alerts breathlessly released to the public have been timed perfectly at times of bad news for Bush, and the effect has been to refocus the public on the need to be afraid.

That warning to Senators struck me as really, really odd. The people who issued the warning were quite tight-lipped when reporters attempted to get more information.

Let's put it another way. An administration that would allow and/or direct torture of unarmed prisoners up to and including death at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib -- an administration that got "the Geneva convention is quaint" out of legal counsel Alberto Gonzalez and has nominated him for a promotion to US Attorney General -- exactly where do they draw the moral line?

[Vektor]

56. As much as this sucks -

I think you're right. These corrupt individuals maintain power by threatening people's lives.

[mzmolly]

74. Yikes!

:scared:

[Peggy Day]

60. aren't they afraid not to stand up?

They are targeted as Democrats anyway. Maybe they will be next anyway even if they don't say anything. So why not stand up?

I'm not voting until this election fraud is straightened out. The election needs to has a feeling (at least) of fairness.

I swear if I thought Bush won, I would concentrate my energies on something else worthwhile-like fighting ocean sonar testing, or fighting the disruption of the migration of animals, etc.
BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO EVERYONE

[mzmolly]

72. Here's why some feel that way, including myself in certain circumstances:

According to the NYT (I pulled this from a thread in this forum today)

"WITH the exception of a few Democratic outliers in Ohio, few people dispute that the election for president is done and decided: President Bush won and John Kerry lost."

This is the point. As things are TODAY (and hopefully this will change) absolute proof of fraud is still being sought. Like it or not, in TODAY'S climate, challenging the election would be seen as lunacy amongst the sheeple.

Bummer but that's the reality IMHO.

However, and a BIG however this is ... IF a Democratic Senator BELIEVES there was fraud there is NO DOUBT IN MY MIND, he/she will contest the election. What we have to wrap our brains around is the fact that this belief is very much in the minority RIGHT NOW.

I will say though, that the investigation of fraud doesn't stop on January 6th REGARDLESS. The GAO is still investigating to my knowlege, and Conyers will not give up. But, remember before passing judgement we are living in a big echo chamber here on DU, and so is Washington.

For example: how many Senators believe that 911 was planned/allowed by Bush? (Many here will say evidence to this effect is clear, right?) Now, contrast that number to the percentage of DU-ers who feel that way and you'll get where I'm coming from.

Updated to say: See Will Pitts better explaination here as he demonstrates Conyers BRILLIANT strategy and makes the point more clearly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=221213&mesg_id=221616&page=

[berniew1]

81. When huge vote machine fraud and voter suppression doc., look bad to do no

nothing. I would think most Dem Senators could never recover from aiding in huge coverup, when they obviously knew about it.

Vote machine fraud in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

and voter suppression and fraud in Ohio at
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19
and
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm