Why A Senator (or two) Refusing To Certify Is Pointless

[cali]

A lot of folks around here seem to believe that a Senator refusing to certify would focus public attention on election fraud. I don't. Do you really think that the MSM would cover the story that way? It's far more likely that that Senator would be marginalized as a nut or sore loser. Without compelling and easily understood evidence of massive fraud and conspiracy, it's an exercise in futility. We need witnesses with sworn affadavits from Diebold, Triad (not the guy who's been discredited), and Sequoia. We have better documentation of voter suppression, but I don't think it's enough to impress the general public.

And what would repubs in Congress do? They'd surely pull out evidence of dem fraud. They'd relentlessly mock and bellow, and drown out the opposition. Then they'd vote for bushco overwhelmingly, leaving voting reform further tainted and in the gutter. We can't achieve anything significant re reform without a bi-partisan effort.

Their opposition to reform will, if anything, harden and they'll simply make things even harder on dems then before. You think the public will rally to the side of dems in such a situation? I don't.

I realize some people will say that Senators should stand up because it's the right thing to do, regardless of outcome. I understand that sentiment, but respectfully disagree.

[righteous1]

1. Could not have said it better myself n/t

[berniew1]

116. If they choose to investigate, the truth will come out; and there's proof

this time; Both the vote machine fraud and suppression of minorities were documented by the big election incident hotline system
EIRS, thousands of reports in each of the big swing states. Documented down to the precinct and even machine level.

Documentation for Ohio is at: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19

and http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm

Documentation of the widespread Florida vote machine fraud is at: http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

[rpannier]

2. So are you suggesting we sit idly by and do nothing?

Because if you are...I respectfully disagree. Having voted in the last 7 Presidential elections I've listened to this argument from many people. "We shouldn't make an issue out of ___________ because it could backfire against us."
Well, the Republican Party has never acted in that fashion and it has served them quite well. They have made themselves appear to stand for something, to be willing to be on the wrong side of public opinion, etc -- In other words they have made themselves appear to be a party of principle.
Now whether we agree with their tactics or that they really do stand for something or not is irrelevant. Look at how far they've come in less than 20 years: They control the house, the Senate, most of the governorships, many state houses, etc.
I think it is time to stop worrying about possible negative public reaction and get moving, be aggressive.

[cali]

5. No. I'm not suggesting doing nothing.

I think we need to pressure our reps relentlessly about election reform- both dems and repubs. We need to invest money in the effort to educate the public. We need, in other words, to launch a movement and garner public support. This isn't the way to launch that movement.

And sorry, this isn't about possible negative public reaction, it's about almost certain negative public reaction. Before one takes a stance, one has to measure, based on all factors, what the response will be. Predicated on what we know, the response is pretty predictable.

As I said, in order to do this successfully, we need clear, easily understood evidence of fraud and conspiracy. We don't have it.

[farmbo]

9. Think about what you're saying:

Quote:

"I think we need to pressure our reps relentlessly about election reform- both dems and repubs. We need to invest money in the effort to educate the public."

Don't you get it? Your "reps" are now a firm majority Republican--they control the money and they firmly control the agenda. Unless we go with the constitutional road map of having a Senator object, election reform will die as an issue. If this is your alternative to making a principled stance on January 6th, you have already thrown in the towel.

[cali]

15. How will your plan of having a Senator

object result in election reform? Why won't it result in precisely what I laid out in my original post? Do you really believe that all repub Senators are corrupt? What about folks like Chafee and Snowe? Aside from principle, do you believe that an objection to certification will advance the cause of election reform?

[goclark]

40. The BULLYCONS win again!

For us to roll over and wait until we have "clear proof" would be the day that hell freezes over.

We already have "clear proof" it is just not good enough to convince the Nazi controlled media to speak out for us.

Any six year old could read all the articles and threads on the internet, see the videos of the voter suppression and know where the TRUTH is.


We are dealing with a school yard full of BULLIES and using your theory they have us believing exactly what they want us to believe.

This is not Nazi Germany "yet" and we must never be too afraid of them to speak out against them.

Do you really think that we could ever satisfy them with the "proof" that would make them see that we should have them give up their power? NO! NO! A thousand times NO!

They will never give up their power unless we take to the streets in huge numbers all over this world. Hit the streets again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

The rest of the world is laughing at the Democrats because we have no spine. The rest of the world knows the election was fixed because they are able to read the TRUTH in their newspapers. WE can't because we are controlled by a bunch of BULLYCONS.

We must use the POWER OF TRUTH and stop wimping out!

Never Never Never QUIT!

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[goclark]

46. I would not dare to say you are delusional

I am saying that we should not be bullied into believing that they will accept whatever we say.

They will NOT!

Their version of the TRUTH always wins. Recall the bulge on the back of GWB during the debates. They had the nerve to tell us that it was a pucker. They will tell us anything and we let it stand. If Kerry had a "pucker" they would have thrown him on the floor in the middle of the debate and strip searched him.

We could have a picture of ROVE with a DIEBOLD machine and a computer changing the numbers and a bunch of Bullycons standing around cheering and that would not be "proof."

Put the shoe on the BUSH foot and we could use one tiny idea from a thread from Nov. 3rd and it would be proof positive that the election was stolen and KERRY did not win.

Let's talk again in '06 when their fraud machines, which have not been challenged by any congressman,not debated in the least and we can welcome in more Republicans to office.

We must have a debate on Jan. 6th, even if it is for two hours, so that we can express to the world that there are heroes that will stand up for justice.

[Eye_on_prize]

93. Beautifully said goclark. It's just amazing to me how some people can

believe there will be some golden 'we'll-get-em-next-time' moment awaiting us after Jan 6th, when Jan 6th represents precisely the moment for real Democrats to register their dismay and present the damning mountains of evidence for all to see. This is a fight that can no longer be postponed until 'next time'

Rolling over on Jan 6th = more of the same ad nauseum Democrats as all-too-loyal 'opposition' genuflecting and pretending not to notice criminal fraud when it is obvious to watching world there was fraud and when it is their sacred sworn constitutional duty to stand up for fair and transparent elections Jan 6th, regardless of party.

Yes, the NeoCons will come unglued, and yes there are risks (as there always is when speaking truth to power) and it may not be pretty, but -- like it or not -- the Jan 6th challenge is the Constitutionally prescribed means for registering concern about the validity of an election, hence it is precisely the bold strategic move needed to force this issue into the light of day, and let the chips fall where they will. To do otherwise is a dereliction of their duties. Conyers wouldn't be doing what he's doing if he didn't think it was in service to the country and his party. We need more like him, who will fight like mother bears for the preservation and restoration of truly fair and transparent elections.

[Wabbajack]

156. Wtf is a pucker?

nt

[Vektor]

159. Tee-hee

It's a wrinkle in the fabric of the suit.

[Wabbajack]

160. thanks

[Vektor]

158. What's that?!

"If Kerry had a "pucker" they would have thrown him on the floor in the middle of the debate and strip searched him."

Being the patriot that I am, I would have TOTALLY offered to help.
:-p

[Darknyte7]

50. A kind suggestion...

Perhaps we should wait and see what Mister Conyers has in his report. It should be made available in some form for public consumption sometime in the next 4-5 days. They've been working hard but quietly for 6 weeks now.

[stepnw1f]

149. WRONG... It's A Belief In Our Own People

Stop with the blaming the victim!!!! No wonder the otherside believes we are liers. The Ohio voters did not lie about their experiences, they voted. Ever hear of I "BELIEVE!" Yes... they high-jacked it too. How many more accounts do you need? I could care less what these folks think they see in our actions. Its the inaction that bothers me. Nor do I give a shit what the rest of America thinks about US. What us? I want my Democracy back and NOW for me!

Fuck the games.... politics is the under-pinning problem here. STOP playing thier game.

We have the truth on our side and the evidence is right there. The only REASON there is supposedly NO "proof", is because of the deliberate STONEWALLING of an investigation into ELECTION FRAUD, never mind the RIGHT TO VOTE!!!

WHERE THE FUCK IS THEIR PROOF ass-munch won? WE HAVE A LEGIT CASE.

[fasttense]

105. Oh come off it

There is so much evidence out there you just don't want to look at it. You don't want to make waves. It's easier to sit on the sidelines and say don't do that, don't do this. Go slow, less we piss someone off. Well I say too bad. Go fast, shot first (figuratively) and ask questions later. I guarantee that's what the Repugs do and look what they got out of it.

[bettyellen]

144. almost certain negative public reaction? without the MSM 20% of the public

think there were serious irregularities, imagine if this issue actually got some press that elected officials agree there were problems. bush has the worst approval rating ever, and it's getting worse. there really isn't a better time to highlight the issue and get the investigation in ohio moving forward. coupled with the upcoming inauguaral protest, media wise, it could be a one- two punch.
This action would help us uncover the "clear, easily understood evidence of fraud and conspiracy" that you supposedly seek. You are joing the ranks of those stalling the investigation. It seems you are actually working to bury it, somehow. How does not supporting Coyners help exactly?
The house of Reps is going to take this on at a time and in a fashion that makes it more palatable to the MSM? After seeing the Senate take no interest? How does that make any sense?

[saracat]

151. Negative from who?

Most Dems are convinced there was fraud but don't think we can prove it. They wouldn't react negatively. They KNOW. As for the Repukes? who cares? They hate them anyway!

[Vidar]

3. No one expects an instant victory. Heroes are far from meaningless.

This is a matter of continuing an ongoing, albeit uphill fight. For many of us, it's a matter of keeping hope alive. It will probably take a self-inflicted military and/or economic catastrophe to bring down the chimp in the end, but even that won't be enough if we let the resistance die.

[joevoter]

4. A Dem running for office in an election rigged buy the neocons is

Pointless and once Senators realize this standing up becomes the only option. I don't think that contesting the results and requesting an investigation are idealistic... It is survival.

[Child_Of_Isis]

6. God forbid a Dem look bad in public.

That's the difference between us and them. They don't give a damn how stupid they look, they'll fight to the last breath. That's why they control everything and the Dems are but peons. Why do anything when you can do nothing. Our new motto. We need to quit coddling this party.

[cali]

11. This isn't about a dem looking bad in public,

it's about whether or not contesting the election advances the cause, and I don't see that it does. I dislike these broad statements that are virtually content free like the one you made about the differences between us and them. It's overly simplistic. There are a myriad of reasons as to why they control everything. Here are some: They've run better, tougher campaigns, tapping more effectively into the prevailing zeitgueist., doing things like putting gay marriage ban referendums in 13 states. The repubs have dumbed things down to a pablum of patriotism and God in a way that much of the electorate has lapped up. They've got a clear message. We don't.

[Child_Of_Isis]

13. So, you believe they won the elction?

That's the difference between you and I. I believe that both shrub elections were stolen. And I don't agree with the mentality that we should just move on and get over it. That's why this election was pulled out from under us, because we moved on and got over the last one...for the common good. Unity and all.

[katinmn]

33. Our message is simple: We demand fair elections

Why is there so much resistance to that? There seems to be a fear of asking for clean elections.

Why is it a bad idea to say "let's take a look at the allegations?"

YOU might believe there was no fraud, but obviously many do (including a helluva lot of people in Ohio who believe they stood in line for nothing). Watch the video.

We must put fears and suspicions to rest.

[Garbo 2004]

89. Repubs have done more than just tapping into the "prevailing zeitgeist"

they've created it with their use of the media and the complicity of the media.

[Eye_on_prize]

99. Dems not having "clear message" is because they are spineless Bush-lite

playing the victim and blaming themselves for being raped.

Firstly, Bush didn't 'win', he stole the freakin election.

Secondly, it is EVERY Rep's and Senator's sworn Constitutional duty to contest this hi-jacking, in order to ever hope for fair and transparent elections, where the official 'results' are easily verifiable under public scrutiny.

Thirdly, Conyers is waking a lot of folks up to what real democracy looks like, what the good fight looks like when waged with truth and integrity in the face of overwhelming power. It is a beautiful sight, and it is every Democrats duty to stand with this brave soul on Jan 6th, not to shrink back into the cloak room in shame, again.

Thirdly, by what stretch of the imagination do you bring yourself to honestly believe there is some golden 'next time' when we'll really set things straight in this country? This appears to be an article of considerable faith on your part. What do you base this belief on? What is your 'evidence'.

[bettyellen]

143. So, it's not an issue for you, so it shouldn't be for anyone?

Obviously, you have read just enough to not believe there was election fraud and you think it's a waste of time on that basis alone.
Why didn't you just say that clearly in your first post?

[saracat]

152. Well, hot damn, then standing up should clarify our message!

You want a message? Election fraud is not acceptable!

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

7. Don't worry -- the secret plan does an end run around MSM...

I don't want to elaborate right now (I know, call me a tease!), but I'll tell you all the signs and portents are all out in the open.

There is more hope than you might think.

Years of being programmed to think in certain ways has lead to people not realizing what in retrospect is super obvious.

I AM BEING A TEASE only because it doesn't matter if "we know" or not ... if it happens it will...

Please be patient before flaming or questioning my hypo-thesis. I working on writing it up properly and I'm still waiting on some feedback.

I BELIEVE HOPE IS ON THE WAY!

All the best,

{B^)
FULL_METAL_HAT

p.s. I agree with all the statements in this thread and others on why the deck is totallllly stacked against justice -- but justice can prevail despite those odds...

[Last Lemming]

43. These are the times that try men's souls.

The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."


FULL_METAL_HAT is dead on entirely correct The main stream media has nothing to do with what is happening now--you must reframe your way of thinking of this--we are not dealing with a political issue here--we are dealing with a criminal one--the dynamics are much different but once you start to see the pattern it all makes perfect sense

(and is cool to watch)

FMH--did you catch the stuff about Kofi Annan?

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

49. Sweet quote... & I heard he was in the Jackson's Hole...

Awesome Paine quote ... I think I might use that for the title of my "big post" coming up laying out the "Stealthy Team Kerry" plans.

The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

AWESOME!

As to Kofi, I'm always looking for more bits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=216096#217675

Got any good bits?

{B^)
FMH

[Last Lemming]

83. I'm merely an amateur

This is not my field at all--and I only picked this up from a glancing DU thread but I think I'm catching on to the conspiracy thing--Kofi Annan in Jackson Hole--not just there but closeted there--"continued his vacation" for three more days after the Tsunami disaster--just like Bush

Who's permanent residence is listed officially as Jackson Hole, WY

I doubt Annan was skiing

[Last Lemming]

84. You know

what's going on is amazing but you must read between the lines

Bush's 30 minute weekly radio program was twelve minutes this week

[fasttense]

131. Does B*sh really have a 30 min radio show? n/t

[icehenge]

153. Kofi Annan connection

Could you explain in more detail what the Kofi Annan connection
is? I'm not following you too.

[davidwhite0570]

8. I totally disagree......that is what the repugs

expect the Dems to do just fade away.......so give up if you want there are many others to take your place.....

[cali]

12. I'm not suggesting we fade away.

I'm suggesting that this is the wrong tactic. I find it interesting that virtually no one is interested in debating the points I raised.

[elizm]

22. Why debate your points?

joevoter said it all...

A Dem running for office in an election rigged buy the neocons is
pointless.

You don't think it was rigged and we do.

[Pirate Smile]

59. Why don't we make a list of the PRO's v. CON's of a Senator objecting.

I think I agree with you that the Con's may overcome any pro's because the pro's are PR, not substance.

Both sides of Congress will debate for two hours and then vote to accept the Ohio electors.

A Senator objecting will not change the outcome.

Bush will be sworn in barring a miracle - a deep throat coming forward with clear evidence of fraud going all the way up to the highest reaches of the Bush campaign and Administration.

Can we make an actual list of pro v. con to see what would actually be more helpful to the cause of election reform.

[Eye_on_prize]

101. I find it interesting U R so obtuse about the extent of fraud and so ..

dismissive re: the veracity of the evidence that has been pilling up now for two months...and that you apparently think it's a great idea for Dems to become fully complicit by their silence again this year, before the watching world, like on Jan 6th, 2001.

[fasttense]

10. Oh yeah? Then explain how Hayes was elected in 1876?

[cali]

14. I know that Tilden "won" by a margin

of 250,000 votes, and a commission was set up to decide the election based on fraud and suppression of republicans in the south. Hayes prevailed. I don't know much more, so enlighten me. How is the situation similar today? Is the evidence for fraud in this election as conclusive? What was the make up of congress?

[thanatonautos]

157. I don't know how conclusive the evidence for fraud was in Hayes-Tilden

(Edited to subsititute Tilden as winner
of a fair election ... oops!)

at the time, but, I'm pretty sure the historical
consensus has been that the voting itself was
marked by fraud, voter intimidation, and violence
on both sides.

Control of Congress was split ... which is what
allowed a deadlock on counting the electoral votes
to happen. The Senate was Republican, the House
was Democratic.

Tilden was a very interesting man. He was
a New York governor and had investigated
and helped clean up Boss Tweed's corrupt
administration. He had been opposed to
the civil war.

Hayes was an Ohio Republican, also a very
interesting man.

Disputed electoral votes were in Florida (4),
South Carolina (7), and Louisiana(8), and
there was a controversial Oregon elector, a
Democrat who was appointed by the Democratic
governor in place of a Hayes elector who
was unqualified to hold the office.

Some historians have argued that South Carolina
and Louisiana probably went to Hayes and
Florida went to Tilden if the election boards
that had judged the returns had proceeded fairly,
as well as the elections. Florida alone would then
have been enough to give the Presidency to Tilden.
On election night, Hayes had a definite 165 votes,
Tilden had 184.

Republican controlled Federal troops were
occupying the South at the time, and the Republicans
controlled the elections boards. The margins were
pretty close and it appears that the boards were
able to throw out enough Tilden votes that all three
southern states went to Hayes. Together with the
Democratic Oregon elector that was enough to give
him a majority. The three southern states each
returned more than one slate of electors.

The election became deadlocked. Democrats took to
the streets crying things like `Tilden or Civil War.'

Eventually a deal was made, whereby Democrats got
a number of demands granted ... including the
withdrawal of Federal troops from the South, effectively
ending Reconstruction, and Republicans got the Presidency.
A board consisting of eight Republicans and seven Democrats,
five from the house, five from the senate, and five
supreme court justices was set up to adjudicate the votes.

It's a truly fascinating episode and it was a shameful
compromise ... it resembles the 2000 election in a number
of ways, except of course that there was no challenge in
2000, and very little doubt as to the outcome if there
had been one. Which, if you ask me, is even more reason
why there really should have been an objection
lodged, even after the legal battles were all lost.

Personally, I'm hoping that there will be, this time around.

[sportndandy]

16. One high-profile senator is all we need.

If there is any high-profile dems left. Someone whose presence will force the MSM to cover, and force the pukes to accede to further investigations.

[ooglymoogly]

17. there is a chance we can win if we don't give up the fight

and fight them at every corner. we will loose absolutely if we give up the fight. what is not clear here?

[BonnieJW]

24. I've written to all the Dem Senators

This is my first post, although I've been reading here for many months. This is what I wrote to the senators:

"The list of topics offered did not include voter fraud so I chose the closest topic: crime. For a crime of the greatest magnitude has been committed against the American people. An election was stolen and the beginning of a fascist dictatorship is in the White House.

I implore you, Senator, to rise with your colleagues on Jan. 6 and protest the Nov. 2 election. The main stream media will not report any of this since they are also controlled by this dictatorship. At least during Watergate, we had Woodward and Bernstein, but there is no one now. The silence is thundering.

We need our senators and congressmen to do what they were elected to do: fight for us and preserve our democracy. Is this how our great country will end??? Without a fight? No attack or foreign country was able to do what this administration has done without firing a shot.

If you think standing up for freedom means the end of your political career, you're wrong. These idiots have control of the voting machines, the tabulators, the courts, the senate and the congress. THAT means the end of your political career."


They have to know that unless they stand up now, their futures will be the same as Tom Daschle and Max Cleland.

[katinmn]

35. Great letter, Bonnie!

Welcome to DU!
:)

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. Splendid. That pretty much sums it up right there.

[cali]

27. for one thing your use of the word loose

when you mean lose. This common DU error drives me around the bend. Secondly, it's how you fight, and which battles promote your agenda.

[jbond56]

18. It does seem pointless but broaden your perspective.

Let me restate what you said.

Using the constitutional check and balance is pointless. It would make you look crazy. It would make things harder for the minority party.

I'm sorry but that is defeatism. You have to fight for it. You have to use every available avenue and it will be hard. In the end it is worth it.

I know the repubs would fight for it. Do you have any idea how many people that think the dems are weak? It has something to do with not taking a stand.

How many repubs want to be on the record voting to support *? Half of the country thinks he is doing a terrible job. Hell they are afraid to record how they voted on lowering the ethics standard.

Do what you know is right.

It helps to have ammunition when you are in battle. Sen X and Y voted to support this failed pres and should be held accountable......

There certainly will be negative aspects but Americans love the underdog that fights for what they believe in.

[righteous1]

19. It is an excercise in futility. If you remember house members

contested in 2000 and were shot down so fast it wasn't even a blip on anyones radar screen; And that was with a fair amount of the American people behind them as well as the MSM. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence of fraud anyone who contests will be just written off as a "sore loser" trying to diminish the victory of the legitimate winner. People in this country despise a poor loser and anyone who puts themselves in a position to be called one risks alienating a good % of his/her constituency. Why do you think JK is keeping this whole matter at arms length? I'll answer my own question, it's because he has future political ambitions. Do you seriously believe a lawmaker who has spent their life building a public image is going to put that in jeopardy by going WAY out on a limb concerning an issue that only 18% of the fringe of society is behind. Get proof, do that and you'll have more than enough congressional support. Without it, a few far left Don Quixote's are going to do nothing but further marginalize themselves from the mainstream and find themselves less effective than they ever were.

[KoKo]

20. 18 percent of a "Fringe Society" controls America now....why shouldn't

the "other fringe" fight for it's rights to be heard? :eyes:

Do you seriously believe a lawmaker who has spent their life building a public image is going to put that in jeopardy by going WAY out on a limb concerning an issue that only 18% of the fringe of society is behind.

[righteous1]

21. I am not making a value judgement here, just stating the undeniable

political reality as I see it.

[k8conant]

28. We need to stand AGAINST political "reality"...

as it currently exists.

"Some people see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not."
- George Bernard Shaw

[SicTransit]

65. When you stand against reality

- whether in quotes or not - prepare for severe disappointments. That is what the original poster of the thread is saying.

[FreepFryer]

67. No one is standing against reality

We're standing for truth. The truth is that this election was horribly manipulated by the GOP, in numerous ways - and standing up on Jan 6. is the only Constitutional remedy to what we currently know took place.

We're on to something folks, believe it - and keep up your confidence that truth will set us free.

[SicTransit]

87. You're standing for truth as you perceive it -

very well. If your perception matches the Senators' perception, they should stand for it as well. If it doesn't, though, why should they?

Since there is no hard proof presented of widespread fraud, such as physical evidence or someone confessing to the crime, the "truth" here is that there were irregularities in the election (as there are in *every election*). Whether these irregularities constitute "proof of fraud" is each Senator's decision to make. Not seeing it as "proof of fraud" is a legitimate opinion and I would not fault any Senator for having it.

[Eye_on_prize]

122. Not seeing "proof of fraud" is not a legitimate opinion, in my opinion..

it is chillingly boneheaded and tantamount to choosing to believe -- and become complicit in -- yet another 'big lie' being foisted on the public by *&Co.

Go Conyers!! Most DUers will not abandon you in this struggle by discouraging your colleagues from joining you. Thank you for standing up for democracy.

[elizm]

26. A fair amount of Am. people?

And MSM behind them???? Did you see the video of house members contesting in 2000 before Michael Moore had it in F9/11? The Supreme Court had already spoken and most of Amercia had gone on with their lives...Disapppointed, disallusioned maybe..but I DON'T think putting up a fight.

[righteous1]

30. More support then than now without a doubt

[Clark2008]

39. Kerry's future political ambitions will be stymied by this

Because, if he doesn't stand up, the Dems who think there was election fraud won't support him and, if he does stand up, the corporate media will margainilize him. Nearly half of all Dems think there was election fraud, and you can't win with that many against you - not in a several-person race.

And, as far as proof is concerned, have you read John Conyers' report? No - because it's not out, yet. Wait until it comes out to decide if there was proof.

While their may not be certifiable "proof" of electronic vote-shaving, there most certainly IS proof of voter suppression. He can contest it on that, alone.

[goclark]

47. It was on Michael Moore's screen

and so it was recorded for history that brave African American congresspeople stood up for justice and no one else joined them.

I want the record to show that screen for this '04 election so we can see again who represents justice in Amerika.

NOTE: There were millions of people all over the world that witnessed,even though years later, what happened on that "stand Up" day after the 2000 election.

[xchrom]

23. there's no such thing as bad pr

nobody stopped the insane yammering of newt gingerich, and look how he turned his extreme politics into a virtual joy ride.
karl rove, an extremist by any other name, has used his tactics of divide and conquer{along with direct mail access} brilliantly.
i think the repukes are building up a mountain of evidence that shows your notion of extreme behavior can garner loads of attention.
it's manipulating that attention that dems need help with.

by the way -- there's nothing extreme about publicly standing up against election fraud -- but moderates seem to think any thing but breathing quietly in a corner is extreme.

[cali]

38. I never said it was extreme. I said

it was futile and perhaps counter-productive. I am btw, not a moderate. By any measure, I'm a plain old liberal. Just because I don't agree with a certain tactic, hardly means I'm a "moderate."

[sickinohio]

76. I think they are already manipulating and again "brainwashing"

the public before the Jan 6th vote. I woke up around 1:00 or 2:00 am and caught the ending of a commercial on CNN (I sleep with my TV on). Anyway, the ending of the commercial that I caught went something like this "remember, your vote does (or did?) count". That is all that I caught. Has anyone else seen this commercial? I've been watching to no avail. What do you think? Are they (the Repukes)preparing to ensure the public doesn't believe any fraud occurred? I'm thinking this is just one of their brainwashing techniques.

[molly]

25. What a wonderful positive fighting attitude you have

:eyes:

[salin]

29. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the move hold up

seating (and thus the voting) of the electoral college electors? How could the mainstream media NOT cover such a thing?

[righteous1]

31. Yes, for all of about 2 hours

[salin]

32. the hold up or the media coverage?

if the holdup would be that short - definitely not going to be any media coverage

[bemis12]

34. The debate is two hours

"When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes from any State, or other question arising in the matter, each Senator and Representative may speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate."

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000017----000-.html

[liam97]

36. No never stand up for what is right

vote for a war without legitimate grounds
support the nomination of Kerik and Gonzalez
never ask anything about the botched 9/11 investigation
never ask where the Abu Ghraib story went

I hope you are happy with your tax $ spent on senators who do these things.

As to whether they would also expose democrats' fraud, well if there is any it should be exposed. But remember, when WGate broke, or more recently when ACLU fought for and released the torture memos, they did NOT expose ACLU. They quietly went and "broadened" the definition of torture. When the world called them stingy, they coughed up $350 million...

[liam97]

37. My response was to the original post

not to the others

[bush_is_wacko]

113. Don't you think the media knows the possibility exists and therefore

will have people on standby? I would think so. Hell, they have reporters hanging out at local courthouses waiting for trial verdicts all the damn time! Why wouldn't they have reporters there on the 6th? If it happens, there will be reporters there. They may not WANT to report it, but the reality is they know, if someone beats them to it they LOSE OUT! I can no longer fathom with any certainty what these dimwits will do to hold on to their power, but I think BREAKING NEWS has become addictive enough for them, that they will run the story if a Senator stands up. Someones gonna have a camera there, you know that much!

[Raksha]

155. At the very least...

...it will be two hours more than we had last time!

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. Doing the right thing is never pointless.

It may be ineffective in the short term, but it is never pointless.

[jazzjunkysue]

45. Amen. Also, we'll be making history and the media will have to report it.

It will air on Cspan, no matter what. This is the wake up call to the nation. They're liars. This is not pointless at all. We'll still have the coronation, but it will be empty: It will expose the dems and repubs as the heartless power mongers they are.

[Child_Of_Isis]

48. That's right.

I think this will be the deciding factor for those who support the Democratic party. I don't believe there will be forgiveness this time. As far as the media goes...it's not like the Dems (including Kerry) has ever been given a break anyway. We can pansy up to the media all we like and we still will be the crazy liberals.

[SicTransit]

68. if the Representatives and the Senator(s) who stand up give

as a reason for their objection nothing more than the "evidence" that we have so far seen, which IMO does not constitute proof of widespread fraud, it will be seen as a frivolous objection, and will certainly be dismissed by the Congress and by the MSM without causing any damage whatsoever to Bush's presidency, while possibly causing damage, after MSM gets done with the "tin foil hat" imagery, to the Senator(s) in question and to the Democratic party.

If there is more information that actually constututes proof of widespread fraud, THEN you will have no problems finding Senators to stand up and object. What has been revealed so far is not up to that level. Who knows - maybe there is stuff that has not been revealed. If so, and the unrevealed stuff that comes out on the 6th is "proof", I will be the first to eat my hat.

[shraby]

82. Jiggering the exit polls

was proof enough of fraud for me..and that is without all the long lines, votes jumping from Kerry to Bush, counters counting backward, power going out in several areas, recalibrating the machines for the recount, pre-selecting precincts to count for the recount, and on and on. If they don't stand up now, when will they? The answer is never because they will never have the power to do it again.

[SicTransit]

86. Once again - read more about exit polls at this web site:

http://www.mysterypollster.com

and you will be a lot less sure that the exit poll discrepancies are in any way "proof of fraud".

[Kashka-Kat]

51. I respectfully disagree

Hi,

I respectfully disagree with you.

Its not either-or, either we do this OR we do something else.

Its AND. All of the above--any and all actions.

Having been around the block a few times w various movements, I know that there is never any one thing that turns the tide, its more like a snowball effect. Even when there appears to be a single turning point, looking a little closer you will see that it was the ground work laid earlier that made people receptive.

There is so much more to this than alleged fraud conspiracy-there is systemic voter suppression, obstruction and noncompliance w/ recount procedures & related law suits. I believe Conyers on his site stated that it may be more of a hodgepodge of frauds than one grand scheme.

It was eventually proven many times over that Al Gore actually won Florida but do we hear much about that? In fact I didnt know that until recently. I see this action as a continuation or building upon 2000, it's as much about the broken promises of 2000 as anything (that it will be fixed, that it can never happen again-hahha.)

There's something to be said for seizing the moment... even though some or all of what you fear may come to pass, who's to say that X number of people may not also be turned around, moved or inspired.

Im going to go way out on a limb here and say that fraud by democrats, if that is brought up, should not be denied but thrown back in their faces as more proof that the system is broken and needs fixing. The perceived "lack" of incontrovertible evidence of electronic fraud is proof that the old mechanisms for resolving elections (ie recount & election challenge procedures) are outdated and need to be brought into the 21st century. I mean if statistical analysis is acceptable evidence in other sorts of fraud trials, why is it not incorporated into recount/election challenge methodology?

For some of us this is about WAAAYYY more than just the outcome of this one particular election. Its about the integrity of the whole rotten system.

[Pacifist Patriot]

63. Very well said.

[SicTransit]

69. about Gore winning Florida -

read post # 48 here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x215526#221522

and as for the X people who will be "turned around, moved or inspired", I think there will be Y people who will be turned off, and convinced that the Democratic party supports tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories. And I am convinced the Y will be greater than X. If Y>X, do you think it would still be worth doing?

[goclark]

108. Sure do believe its worth doing

We have a right to question anything. We pay taxes.

How I wish I had marched in the streets against the Iraq war. That War was based on FRAUD and LIES and people DIED and are still DYING!

Remember all the "conspiracy theories" that Colin had with the silly photos of all the WMD.... LOL

Well his shit was dead wrong, Bush was wrong, they all were wrong and look who is in the WH.

Now, we are not WRONG that there was Suppression, especially for minorities in the unelection on Nov.2nd. For no other reason, I see this Voter Suppression as the 21st Century version of Slavery. It is a clear denial of the RIGHT to VOTE.

We are not WRONG that the lack of a paper trail with the BushBuddy Phony Voting Machines should be clearly challenged.

If not now, when?

Challenge the crap now! This is no dress rehearsal, this is it!

[Joe Chi Minh]

52. You absolutely do *not*

know how many senators are going to stand up and be counted! Indeed, your basis for believing it, is no more than the lore best epitomised by the term, "old wives' tales". It certainly can have no basis in any kind of scientific analysis, since this situation is utterly unique in American history.

The degree of the fraud is clearly absolutely unprecendented, and the record of the president in one term could scarcely have been worse - not least from the viewpoint of traditional conservatism.

The exit-poll standard used to uncover fraud in the Ukraine and just about everywhere else that such a problem could arise, has *not* been discredited, but rather vindicated yet again. Indeed, more and more evidence is coming to light.

Moreover, far from risking forfeiting their careers, the senators have a surefire opportunity to be key players in history - and successful ones at that. On cable programmes concerning Watergate, it is palpable that even the bad guys involved,(some admittedly, reformed), including senators, such as Baker, not directly involved in the shenanigans, look back on it now with wry humour, if not a smidgeon of excitement at the memories. It was *historic*!

[The Judged]

53. Are you suggesting that to press on the cause, is to defeat ourselves?

You may be right! I hope you are wrong, sorry, and no disrespect intended.

If the Ohio electoral votes are objected to by a United States Senator, then this in itself will be a monumental and historical precedent.

The last time there was an Congressional objection of Electoral College votes, it was not at all for the type of reasons developed here and by Representative Conyers.

It was because electoral votes were cast for persons who were neither from the political party that selected the electoral voters or from the political party of the second place presidential and Vice presidential candidates. Those two challenges failed.

Even if the objection is dismissed and ignored by the Re-uglicans and the MSM, it will never be because it lacked substance.

Instead, it will increase the ranks that ultimately will enlist in our effort to bring the truth to light.

Also, it will gain coverage in the MSM from the least Corporate controlled media in the United States, and it will be very prominent in worldwide media coverage of our Election 2004.

Finally, when history is finally written on the matter, following the Re-uglican Revolution, it will be considered the pivotal event that saved the "dissidents" from obscurity. IMO

[No Exit]

54. What you don't seem to understand...

You say "then they'd vote for bushco overwhelmingly..." etc.

I know you're talking about the Republicans in Congress, right?

Yes, that's probably what they'd do.

But EACH ONE of those reps and senators has constituents... the part I don't think you understand is, BUSH IS NOT VERY POPULAR AMONG THE CONSTITUENTS. And I am NOT talking just about democrats!! All during this past year, I've been looking at how many people from the CONSERVATIVE side have had spats with Bush, or have come out and criticized him. There are many.

Now, it wouldn't be just us who would be watching (if a senator stood up with Conyers). It would also be those other people who are disgusted with Bush for different reasons than we have.

Yes, there might well be a vote in favor of "Bushco" by those partisan hacks up in Congress--doing the safe thing to protect their little racket (which is being a senator.) BUT there is certainly no groundswell of support for him down here amongst the constituents! Remember, I am NOT talking only about democrats.

I think your problem is: perhaps you just don't believe that this election was really stolen. I do. I honestly believe that Kerry was the favored candidate. THEREFORE, there are more people out here who voted for Kerry than for Bush. We have the majority!

I, for one, demand that these political hacks we call "senators" actually do some WORK (instead of perpetually feathering their own and their friends' nests) for us, just this once!

[nashville_brook]

55. and the strategic advantge of NOT standing up would be ??? wtf eom

[Blue State Blues]

56. Why Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus was pointless...

Why civil rights activists who staged sit-ins at whites only lunch counters hurt their cause...

Your logic seems to be that because an action won't fix the problem in one fell swoop that it's not only not worth doing, but that we will somehow manage to be worse off than we are now.

Yes, the media coverage will be negative. I'm sure the newspapers in the deep south in the 60's were just as negative in their coverage of such "disturbances."

Yes, it would be a symbolic action. The election result would not be instantly overturned. But the time has come when we need a senator to stand up -- to stand up for the basic and sacred right of the people to vote, to stand up for our right to have those votes counted fairly, to stand up simply because voter suppression, racist disenfranchisement, and election fraud are wrong. We need a senator to stand up simply because he or she cannot remain in her seat and let this happen without protest.

Yes, it would be a symbolic action for a senator to stand up -- just as it was a symbolic action for Rosa Parks to stay in her seat.

This is a marathon, not a sprint. No one action will fix the problem and it will take many many small steps before we even see the finish line in the distance. But if no one has the courage and principle to take the first step, we won't get anywhere.

[Pam-Moby]

57. Must we forget

That the majority of voters are Democratic and if the senators are mocked, the repubs may bite off more than they can chew. If we just sit back and allow them to run over us how can we awake in the morning and say that we have strong convictions. We can't if we do not stand behind our beliefs!!! I hope that like the Ukraine we would have the courage as democrats to rise up in unison and show them the real mandate this country is going to have!!!!

[righteous1]

107. The MSM would have a feeding-fest n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

64. Excellent response.

[righteous1]

71. I appreciate your thoughts, but your analogy is severely lacking

on many front. First Rosa was protesting a known fact not a spectre, Secondly, a large minority thought as she did including the majority of the MSM just to name a couple od incongruities

[zann725]

58. What we don't need days before the EV count is more NAY-SAYING!

Unless we plan on joining the Shrub team, I think we need to focus our energies, and think positive about this...not add more doubt, and doom and gloom.

Yes, Senators standing up on this issue is significant! And if they do it in numbers, it should NOT hurt their political careers, or the issues they raise. Standing up, after all, IS Democratic.

As is Filibustering...which seems to be taking a lot of "standing up" heat lately.

[righteous1]

75. So your saying that unless we agree with your opinion

we should go work for Bush? Sounds like an awfully like a Fascist attitude to me.

[Dhalgren]

120. No, not "Fascist".

Any time that there is a struggle against power, it is the easiest position to take to do nothing. You can trot out numerous reasons for not confronting the oppressor - and each of them will be variously valid based upon the assumption that fighting the oppressor is futile. Sometimes you just make a stand because it has to be made. When the Minute Men stood their ground in Lexington and Concord, it was "fruitless", because they could not possibly hope to "win" against the British army. But they made their stand because they had had enough and making a stand was the only action they could take. The same with Rosa Parks, she had had enough - well, so have we.

If you tell us to sit down and shut up, we will take it badly. It doesn't mean we are Fascists, it just means we are through listening to people who would appease the oppressors.

[FreepFryer]

60. It is indeed important

Because we in are in a culture war with many fronts.

A significant political recognition of the irregularities, suppression and fraud of 2004 is absolutely required, and will have major payoffs regardless of any 'sore loserman' attacks leveled by the Republicans.

It was not foolish for the Washington Post to release Watergate information... without the substantial stand made by that paper to back Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon's crimes would have gone unverified...

Please everyone, have perspective, believe, and find in yourself some courage for the coming holding action to protect our civil liberties. With the truth on our side, and the strength of our convictions, we have the upper hand.

Liberal Democrats don't shy away from a battle to protect our rights like that represented in Election Irregularities '04. We're too strong and courageous for that kind of recalcitrance.

In the words of that other 'freedom fighter', Czech president Vaclav Havel:

"Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good."

[grasswire]

61. oh my......

So many gallons of blood have been spilled to protect our right to free and fair elections; so many people have been tortured, humiliated, set upon by dogs, hanged, spat upon just because they sought equality under the law of the land -- from the suffragettes to the civil rights marchers, the honest ballot has been purchased at a high, high price.

Hand-wringers and nay-sayers simply must be ignored right now, if we are to continue as nation of liberty and laws.

There is a Constitutional remedy to our situation. History demands that the citizenry force the process to continue as devised by the founders of democracy.

[Pithy Cherub]

72. A Dem politician would have to be asleep for failing to

realize their careers are in peril for NOT standing for the people. It is their sworn job and not to take that oath seriously... Because the people have no need to stand for them going forward, if they fail us on 1/6/05!

[peacetalksforall]

62. What is the cabal expecting us to do> Answer: ROLL OVER AGAIN !

The short term lame move would be to 'be nice' once again.

The long term need is our constitution.

(And the elimination of patriotic hypocrisy).

We cannot do what they expect us to do. Our leaders had four years do get the election system straightened out. They allowed Republicans to build secret machines and they did not attempt to vet them or the the tallying system. They did not stand up to CNN, FOX NBC, CBS, ABC and their polling and calling the election thievery.

It is either we the citizens and our constitution this time or they pull another 'be nice' and burn the constitution.

[pointsoflight]

66. It's never pointless to do the right thing.

It's never pointless to defend our democracy, and it's never pointless to defend the disenfranchised who are supposed to be guaranteed equal rights under our constitution.

[righteous1]

74. I believe it is debatable as to whether it is the "right thing" but for

the sake of argument let's say it is. Cutting your nose off to spite your face still leaves you disfigured. One must choose fights not only to win the battle but ultimately the war. A misguided stand can end up doing more harm than good and I believe this could very well be one of those instances. Especially considering that the downside is potentially far greater than the upside

[pointsoflight]

78. Defending our base of voters is NOT a misguided stand.

We stand to lose much more by NOT contesting than contesting. Do you not get how upset the black community is with what's gone on in the last two presidential elections? If we do not stand up and support our disenfranchised constituents, and if we instead slap them across the face like we did in 2000, than the party will have much more serious problems than some temporary criticism from the republican majority.

[righteous1]

94. Fine, that is admirable, but a Senator standing in contest of what

the vast majority of Americans feel was a legitimate election may not be the best venue. Document, catalog, and collect data. Make a convincing case then lay it all out when you have clear and convincing evidence or risk looking the fool. Remember all the wild accusations in Fl 2000 concerning voter suppression? When they finally held hearings a grand total of three (3) individuals testified and they were shown to be partisan and unreliable. I believe that fiasco helped re-elect Jeb Bush. Fight, but fight smart or risk being classified a moonbat right out of the starting gate.

[Machiavelli05]

70. Exactly!

Everything you say is exactly right.
Also, the time that an objection buys is like 2 hours or something. A senator is goign to put his career and the future of his party on the line for 2 hours of debate that is going to made into by the GOP as sore losing? No.

Sorry that so many people on this board are also guilty of loudly shouting accusations and conjecture and mocking those that disagree.

[Joe Chi Minh]

88. OK! Which of you shite-hawks

has been mocking Machiavelli's sensitive wee apprentice and his neocon poster friends? Come on, now! Own up! Never mock the afflicted. Some of you tearaways have *not* been as gentle and as good and as tame as progressive Democrats are supposed to be. And that's well, frankly, hear-rending to hear.

That should stop them Mack... I think you'll find they'll be *ever* so nice from now on. We hate raised voices and arguments. Anything for the quiet life of ease and plenty, you folk always provide.

[Machiavelli05]

100. youre not too smart, are you?

[Joe Chi Minh]

134. That's the kind of question

you really need to form an opinion about yourself, Mac. I can't help you there. You see water finds its own level. And if I told you I was immeasurably smarter than you, because you're not smart enough to be in a position to judge my intelligence, yourself, you'd just have to take my word for it. Which is not a good idea, ever.

You see, whatever the merits of the case in point, in principle, accepting people's authority blindly is not a good idea, especially if you ask the person in question to evaluate his own intelligence for you.

You're really in the wrong place. It's Peter principle. Some of your managers are not too good at assessing the intelligence of their operatives. Anyway, worldly ntelligence is not everything, by any stretch of the imagination, so don't take it too hard.

[Joe Chi Minh]

146. Of course, I realise that

it was not very nice of me to exploit the ineptitude of your post, by pretending that you were asking me a question. Alas, had you *not* followed your statement by a rhetorical question, it would have been revealed in all its infantile fatuity - barely concealed though it was, anyway.

"You're not very intelligent, ya.. yaa... ya.. ya... ya!

To which I would probably have replied, "My dad's got a hundred guns!"

And you, of course, characteristically, would have taken the bait and replied, "My dad's got 1000 guns! So there!"

Never mind, old chap. Even Machiavelli had to start somewhere....

[Machiavelli05]

150. By missing my point, you proved my point

I believe my initial post was apologizing to the original poster, by using his own word selection, that so many members of this board resemble Republicans because they refuse they could ever be wrong, they act with such unmitigated arrogance that even the stuffiest brit would be appalled, and they loudly proclaim any dissent as enemies of the effort (the state?).

And then you responded in kind - thereby proving my point. Which then led me to point out that you were not showing much intelligence by doing this. Just because you fancy yourself a witty writer doesnt make it so. No ammount of clever sarcasm and keen sense of irony intermingled with a what you might consider a good vocabulary (I dont) can make up for complete and utter ignorance.


Again though, I will ask you what you do in Edinburgh. Not only does your screen name seem familiar to me as a running joke I encountered with a staff person while I was over there (which one I cant exactly pinpoint) but your diction and sarcasm also seem familiar.

Enjoying the Holyrood building, are you? PM me if you wish.


Think you can stop being a complete jackass now?

[Eye_on_prize]

126. Jan 6th IS the Constitutionally prescribed venue for challenging election.

This is what you nay-sayers don't seem to grasp. You claim you want to wait until there is 'irrefutable' evidence, someday, later...but when precisely?

When the issue has been successfully disappeared from public view already ... when the MSM and KO would rather forget about it entirely, especially once the election has already been officially certified as valid by resounding silence on Jan 6th? Is that when?

Just trying to imagine how you think you or anyone is going to successfully challenge election fraud by waiting until after Jan 6th, until we advance so-called 'election reform' measures in a GOP controlled Congress who will gladly oblige us by further cementing our feet into electronic unverifiable privatized voting and because we didn't use our feet on Jan 6th to join Conyers courageous challenge.

I agree with others who say this discussion is over. Conyers is into this *bless his big wise heart* and I believe anyone who cares a whit about democracy owes Conyers their support on Jan 6th.

Maybe we needed to have this conversation to sharpen our resolve on Jan 6th, but enough already, ok we had the discussion now lets get back to work.

[righteous1]

135. If there is clear and convincing evidence such that a large %

of the American people (40%+) could be convinced as you obviously are, then I say by all means have at it. But if not, if there is not more than I have seen and I am a Dem. it will do more harm then good. The MSM and all the Rs and some Dems will rip it apart and the average American voter will have a bitter taste in thir mouth that they will remember in 06 and beyond

[berniew1]

73. You are mistaken; if they fail to certify, Kerry likely to win

Because there was clearly documented widespread vote machine fraud that is known about down to the precinct and machine level and easily documented, and likewise well documented sytematic voter suppression of minorities, and other documented fraud collected by the Greens and Free Pres in Ohio, and by analysts in New Mexico. If the ceritification is contested, the widespread fraud and suppression will get more attention and publicity and more of public will become aware. I think the momentum would be unstopable- given Bush's already low popularity and major foulups in economy and overseas.
documentation
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19

[pointsoflight]

77. This is about standing up for our constituents!

Black voters continue to experience massive disenfranchisement. Do people not realize that 90% of black voters vote for democrats? They are by far the strongest, most reliable base of our party. Do people not realize what's at risk if the black caucus in the House stands up yet again, but is once again not joined by even one senator?

You're thinking about this in terms of the election outcome, but contesting the election is not about putting Kerry into office. We know there continues to be major suppression and disenfranchisement of democratic voters. Contesting the election is largely about protecting the right of minority voters to participate in selecting their government representatives, a right that is supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution.

Think about the possible outcome if we don't contest. We risk losing our very strongest base of voters! Either they'll look elsewhere for support, or they just won't bother to vote in future elections. Either way, that would hurt our party much longer-term and much more dramatically than any damage that would occur if a senator objected.

I'm sorry, but I think you're looking at this very short term and very narrowly. Defending our base of voters is much more important than any short-term criticism that comes from the other side of the aisle.

[Dhalgren]

121. Excellent point and dead right!

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[righteous1]

90. That's not what he is saying

there are many different ways to pursue this that make alot of sense. Why don't you grow up and discuss things in a mature way instead of having a verbal temper tantrum like a 5 year old

[understandinglife]

80. Disagree.

Those who 'stand' on 6 Jan 2005 are the only members of the 109th US Congress worthy of any future support.

It's lonely, harsh, and often fatal being a leader.

Fortunately, for this Nation, one or a few have always been willing to take those risks.

6 Jan 2005 is not just any other day.

Peace.

"Who bought he green shoes: daddy or karl?"

[FreepFryer]

85. It's certainly not any other day

I believe it'll be one of the most important days in American political history, whether we recognize it now or not.

But it DEFINITELY isn't 'Drink the Kool-Aid and Wait for the Comet' Day.

We're not going to politically kill off our leaders to elect new ones under this oppressive political climate. We're going to consolidate, rally, and prevail.

[Helga Scow Stern]

81. Senators standing up is the beginning of reform. n/t

[righteous1]

132. Symbolic maybe, but impotent and insignificant. Want reform

get cold hard evidence and submit it when the complete compelling story can be told. Otherwise people will just brand you a conspiracy nut

[Helga Scow Stern]

139. What do you mean? The evidence is all over the place. And I love the

analogy with Clinton someone else made--look at how very energetically that was pursued. I'd say we have mountains more of evidence, plus a much greater cause. This is not about getting Kerry in, it's about the integrity of our electoral system. If we don't press this now and never give up, we won't get anywhere.

BTW, I appreciate your dissenting point of view. I did a lot of research for my dissertation about groups and the biggest failing is when conflict and dissent are squashed. That does not mean that disruption should be allowed, but opposition is always to be encouraged. So oppose on!

[righteous1]

141. post # 111 n/t

[BigBearJohn]

91. WHY CALI'S WHOLE THREAD IS POINTLESS

Oh, so, if we had “clear and compelling evidence,” it would make a difference, eh? Do you mean evidence like Rep. Chris Bell (D-Tex.) submitted to to the House ethics committee, accusing Tom Delay, the House's second-ranking Republican of soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter? Oh, and this kind of "compelling evidence" would get the kind of response we need from Congress? And exactly what kind of response did Congress provide regarding Delay’s crimes?

House Republicans acted to blatantly protect one of their own - Majority Leader Tom DeLay - by carelessly discarding a rule they came up with 11 years ago in reaction to ethical lapses wherein any House Republican named in a felony charge used to be automatically required to give up any leadership position. Under the new rules adopted, members of the Republican Steering Committee would have a month to decide whether to take action against a party leader named in a state or federal charge. The change was made to protect DeLay.

[FreepFryer]

95. Or perhaps DeLay's staff's exploitation of Native American businesses

uncovered in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/opinion/02sun2.html?hp

--
Sleaze in the Capitol
Published: January 2, 2005

One of the sorriest chapters of American history, the gulling of native Indian tribes, is continuing apace in Washington, where two Capitol insiders close to the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, are being investigated for allegedly fleecing six tribes of more than $80 million with inflated promises of V.I.P. access. The shameful dealings of Jack Abramoff, a Republican power lobbyist, and Michael Scanlon, Mr. DeLay's former spokesman, are coming to light as Senate and Justice Department investigators follow leads from nouveau-riche tribes whose casino profits spurred a new category of lucre and greed in the hyperkinetic world of Washington lobbying.

Even as the two fast-talking political brokers banked large profits for three years of minimal labor, it was found, they were exchanging gleeful private messages mocking tribal leaders as "morons," "troglodytes" and "monkeys." "I want all their MONEY!!!" Mr. Scanlon exuberantly e-mailed in the midst of one deal. {...}

[bunny planet]

92. If lots of Senators refuse to certify though, they will have to cover it.

Even if one does, it is a big story. They would be hard pressed to explain why they wouldn't cover it. It hasn't happened in our lifetimes, if at all. It is a history making event, however insignificant the results might be ( I personally don't consider contesting the electors insiginificant) We must be the media again if the MSM doesn't cover it.

[SicTransit]

96. Oh the MSM will cover it, don't you doubt it

they will paint the Senator and the Representatives who stood up as "tin-foil-hatters", explain that the objection was frivolous, grandstanding, and based on no hard proof of fraud, and damage the Democratic party for years to come in the eyes of voters who believe the things they read in MSM.

Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.

[bunny planet]

98. How do you know there is no hard evidence of fraud??????

[righteous1]

102. They have not released anything compelling

The Arnebeck stuff that the Ohio SC just ruled on was classified as "woefully inadequate" and to be honest, from what I have seen of that material, I couldn't disagree

[euler]

117. Arnebeck case was a joke.

I don't know how anyone could read it and not come to the conclusion that the lawsuit was a big nothing. It appears to me that Arenbeck spent a few days familiarizing himself with every conspiracy theory posted on DU, then put every single one of the theories into his lawsuit.

[SicTransit]

103. There may be - but if there is

I have not seen it. And I have followed it pretty closely.

[bunny planet]

104. I hope there is, but I 'm sure they would not be sharing it with us yet if

they have it.

[goclark]

112. The Diebold Machines have already damaged the Democrats

for years to come.

We either fight this now or be damaged forever.

We wimped out in 2000 and rolled over and played nicey nicey. They laughed and cheered that we were so dumb and they were even bolder this time.

They do not respect us. They know we will be afraid that they will think we are "frivolous and grandstanding."

[SicTransit]

114. It is not the Republicans that will think it is

"frivolous and grandstanding". What Democratic party worries about is that those who voted for Democrats in 2004 would think that the objections are "frivolous and grandstanding" - and I am sure if no hard evidence is presented, that is exactly how MSM will portray it.

[Dhalgren]

123. I am not sure what country you have been in over the

passed few years, but in the last election, people voted against Bush or for Bush. If someone stands up now and says "this election was crooked!", it will not make anyone who voted against Bush suddenly say, "Oh, Bush was the best one all along and I was wrong to have voted against him!" That is a bullshit argument - we do not need to be worried about what "people" will think, we need to fight for our freedom - everywhere, anywhere, all of the time. Jesus! This whole subject is ridiculous! Of course we fight! And if our fighting makes you want to become a republican (wink. wink) then that's fine by me!

[SicTransit]

124. Your mistake is you're thinking that whoever runs in 2008 will run

against Bush. They won't. So the ABB voters from this election are up for grabs. It will be much harder to grab them if we're slapped with a "sore loser" label from the frivolous objections without hard proof.

[Dhalgren]

125. And you think there will be a 2008 "election"?

If we don't stand up on the 6th and get a real investigation going on the corruption of our electoral system, the 2008 "election" won't matter, at all. I am so tried of "Democrats" coming to gunfights armed only with knives... Rove has all of the "good" Democrats worried about 2008, heh, we won't even have a country by 2008 - it will be the Corporate Empire of America and your vote will be construed by your consumer activity.

[righteous1]

130. You can go to a gun fight with a "nuclear bomb" if you want but

if it doesn't go off, your still gonna lose

[bettyellen]

161. and your mistake is thinking we will not still be at war.....

and bush will appoint the next commander in cheif and keep the throne with his two F's fraud and fear mongering.

[Eye_on_prize]

128. be careful too what you "fear" the outcome will be = neg. spell casting

fear attracts that which is most feared. The brave House Members and Senators -- Conyers and whoever else is joining him -- who stand up on Jan 6th are doing so admittedly at great personal risk. The FEWER of them there are the GREATER the risk. Get it? More = less risk. duh?

[Lostnote03]

97. "You think the public will rally......" , I believe they already have....

................those defending our country, and those paying the bills may not be able to recite the Bill Of Rights, however I believe that a great portion understand the fundemental precepts Freedom of speach, The right to bear arms AND The right to vote!!!......pessimism will only delay the inevitable wrt EV/Fraud....As far as Kerry/Bush, anything can happen if/when citizens catch "wind" of the manipulation that is threatning our countrys underpinning....

[Vinnie From Indy]

106. Democrats MUST Fight

If the last few years has proved anything, it is that there is no compromise with these people. They ARE NOT INTERESTED in common ground, decency, fairness, justice or the truth. They want power so they can steal and accumulate wealth. It truly is that simple. Think about the scorpion asking the frog to ferry him across the stream. Scorpion's sting because it is their nature. This group of extreme right wingers nature is to steal and lie and destroy anything that gets in their way. I think the Dem's need to abandon any thought of bipartisan cooperation on most every issue. We need to fight them on the small stuff and the large stuff. I am astounded that seasoned politicians seem unable to grasp the fact that this group has not discriminated between Democrats and Republicans when challenged. They destroy them all. Where are the sane, moderate Republicans I knew in the past?

The Democrats position will get weaker in the years ahead if they follow this posters misguided advice. Timing is everything in life and the time is now to stop catching punches and start throwing punches. If we wait, we may not have another chance for a good long while.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[euler]

119. This particular post speaks for me as well.

[jazzjunkysue]

147. your name describes you perfectly

[euler]

118. Not a single one of these...

...instances of fraud constitute proof and some of them are simply false.

[jazzjunkysue]

148. tell that to the people who were not allowed to vote because they lived in

democratic neighborhoods.

[cali]

129. Glad it felt good because I have

absolutely had it with people who toss the troll label at anyone who dares to disagree with them. Doing so is strictly against DU board rules for a very good reason- it puts a damper on the free exchange of ideas, and that's the very foundation of the board. No I'm not going to hit alert on you, but I would ask that you think before tossing accusations of troll and rethuglican.

[goclark]

127. Let's get ready to rumble ! nt

[bettyellen]

145. i got your back!

this is a pointless but not necesarily harmeless thread.
I'm with you Clark! Go get em!

[bush_is_wacko]

109. Huh??

I keep wondering why people are willing to accept this crap from our elected officials. IT IS TIME ONE OF THEM STOOD UP FOR DEMOCRACY. I am sick to death of Americans giving their Senators PERMISSION to continue the status quo in Washington. These men and women are supposed to REPRESENT us! Career be damned at this point! It is time to take this country back for the people. Our founding father's risked EXECUTION to form this country. I have such a hard time defending our cowardly elected officials to my foreign friends and this is exactly why! It sickens me to see that AMERICANS have become such hero worshipers that they can now find excuses and give their Senators and Representatives the message that THEY and THEIR CAREERS are more important than THIS country. Am I the only liberal democrat that feels like our elected officials have been cowardly enough for long enough?

[molly]

115. Pssssst - it will be LIVE on C-Span

[malatesta1137]

133. the only culprit is JOHN KERRY

had he kept the fight alive with the American people, Senators wouldn't be so afraid of coming forward and the media wouldn't treat them as sore losers.

But Kerry was the first to cave in and everything was lost.

[m.standridge]

136. White states

are always the problem... Going all the way back to the Hayes-Tilden thing. There are always white states--states that are so hair-close, it's nearly impossible to tell who carried them.
Also, in those same states, you have to research sometimes to determine if pivotal votes are valid.

That's because of the nature of their demographics. They tend to have alot of people who are registered in more than one state, and a lot of temporary residents.

On top of everything else, the demographics make them hair-close.

Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, are like that now.

A few years ago, it was Indiana, back in the 1880s.

These white states, are what tend to make the Electoral College not work. They keep us from knowing who "won" because just getting the Popular vote can never be enough. And, since there are "white" states, it makes it often questionable, who actually won the election, under the rules of the Electoral College. Who carried the white states this time? Bush or Kerry? WE don't know, but there's too much to indicate Kerry carried a pivotal one--Ohio--and that Bush was pulling out a lot of stops to keep him from doing it.

I wonder how many Republicans are that comfortable with Bush, that they'd put up with destroying valid elections, to keep him in office?
Once this system is in place, it can be displaced.
It's something everyone should think about.
Republicana as well as Democrats.
And, try this one on, right-wingers:
How much would Bush actually feel he owed to any political group, if he knows he doesn't actually have to get votes, just rig computers?

[m.standridge]

137. correction: once in place, it CAN'T be displaced

[bunny planet]

138. So the American Revolution was fought by a bunch of people playing it

safe I suppose.

[righteous1]

140. With all do respect ,If that's an anology it is just about the

silliest most ill conceived ones I have ever heard

[bunny planet]

142. oh snap!

guess it was a silly 'anology' with all 'do' respect.

[suffragette]

154. Bullies never stop

You describe the Republican response like that of a bully in the school yard. That's a fitting image. If you keep cowering before a bully and handing over your lunch money, he or she will keep taking it - and you get no lunch. At some point, you have to stand up to the bully to change the situation.
Now is the time to stand up.

edited for typing error