Which Senator is our best hope to contest the election?

[politmuse1]

As I'm sure you all know, the election cannot be officially contested unless one Senator joins House members to protest the electors. We need a full-blown targeted campaign to persuade one Senator to take a courageous stand. Four years ago some of us went to great lengths trying to talk Sen. Boxer into it. Our cries fell on deaf ears. I doubt that at this stage in her career she'd be willing to put herself on the line.

So who's our best bet? I'm thinking Bob Byrd. He's spoken out more than almost anyone (not on this issue necessarily, but against the regime in general). And because of his age and seniority, he has the least to lose by going out on a big limb. We could ask him to be a hero. I say it's worth a shot. Do any of you have further insights into how Bob Byrd is likely to respond?

Any other suggestions? Time is running out.

[chicagojoe]

1. Top notch idea. Let's spread the word. WV people?

[flordehinojos]

2. it woul be great if hillary clinton who took a part in thenixonimpeachment

trial would again become a vocal voice for the recount--however, i doubt that she would.

[proudtobeadem]

9. I doubt she would, I think

she wants to run for Pres. some day. Wants stay out of controversies.\
If not I would have already written her -she's my senator.

[flordehinojos]

10. since she is your senator, i wonder if she would reply to any letters from

you, as her constituent,in a personal sort of way, rather than in the canned answer that most senators have for replying constituents' e-mail. that is why I stopped writing to those who represent me in the Senate and in the House. Their answers have mostly consisted of THEIR agenda, rather than a straight forward answer to whatever it was that I was writing about.

[Peter Frank]

3. Definitely -- John McCain...

He was slimed by the same machine in 2000; and he cleverly worked his way into the inner circle of respected Republicans -- while retaining credibility among "conservatives."

He also just slammed Rumsfeld for his poor planning & was followed by other Republicans.

If possible, let's get McCain. He can do what no Dem can.

[read the law first]

4. Don't we need one senator PLUS three puke Senators?

What's the value of getting one Senator to challenge if we need three puke Senators to Zell Miller in order for the challenge to go anywhere? And if the pukes lead in the state delegations 30-20, aren't we wasting our time?

Fellow DUer's, don't get all hysterical on me, but what's the value of a challenge if we know going in that it's doomed to fail miserably?

[IndyOp]

18. ReadtheLaw Please clarify...

I know that we have to have only one Senator and on member of the House to raise the issue -- but then what has to happen?

What do you mean by "if we need three puke Senators to Zell Miller in order for the challenge to go anywhere? And if the pukes lead in the state delegations 30-20, aren't we wasting our time?"

:shrug:

[bemis12]

22. Then you have a vote after

two hours of debate, no more. If Republicans don't go for it, the Republican slate is accepted and we move to the inauguration phase.

[read the law first]

23. If we find a senator to raise a successful challenge....

..and throw out the Ohio vote, don't we go to the House for President and the Senate for Vice President.

I wouldn't think that the pukes would vote for Kerry on a challenge so the best we can hope for is for them to toss Ohio. But why would pukes that worked so hard to steal the election throw it away?

I'm still re-reading the procedure for what happens but if nobody gets a majority, the House votes for President and the Senate votes for Vice. The pukes hold the Senate 55-44-1, so actually a bunch of them would have to Zell Miller (betray their party). The House doesn't vote by individuals but rather by state delegations and the pukes hold a 30-16 advantage with three ties and one independant, so we're not going to win that.

So, I guess my question is more philosophical that tactical, and that question is "How far do we take this thing if the end of the road is that we can not win?" It comes from what one of the senior partners told me when I was a pup "Begin with the end in mind." So, it just seems to me that we've got to win this in some other way than getting a Senator to challenge on January 6th because a Senator challenging with the House on January 6th doesn't seem to lead to victory when I follow the trail to the end of the road. I don't know what the answer is other than fight pukes on the beaches, in the cities, in the fields, etc., etc., etc. but when does "Never Give Up" mean attack somewhere else rather than a frontal assault into a machine gun?

[IndyOp]

24. Read the law first -- again, please clarify...

I swear I wasn't dropped on my head at birth, but your post and Bemis12's are together, confusing. And I really, really want to understand this...

------------------------------------------
1. Any one member of House and any one member of Senate can contest

2. This is followed by two hours of debate/screaming match

3. Vote on whether to toss Ohio (and other states in which fraud is implicated): This vote is won by simple-majority of the 565 present at the joint congress?

4. If state(s) are tossed and neither Bush nor Kerry wins the Electoral Vote then the House elects the President and the Senate the Vice-President.

5. For a Democrat to win in the Senate, six Republican Senators would have to defect to vote for Kerry/Edwards (I suppose). .

6. For a Democrat to win in the House would be virtually impossible because each state gets one vote and the states are 30R - 16D - 3ties - 1 Independent.
------------------------------------------

Please don't get me wrong - I don't think we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting past Step 3 without SCOTUS stepping in and re-appointing Bush. So, what's the purpose - more people will know the extent of the fraud and/or complete investigations to reveal the extent of the fraud will be completed. Eventual goals: Convict people guilty of fraud in voting machine industry, get people to insist in future on paper ballots, hand counted.

:shrug:

[politmuse1]

5. We need this for the recordbooks -- we only need one!

Of course I don't expect a winning vote, should there be a protest. I don't even expect a second person to back him up. That's not the point. The point is to make a statement, and only one senator is needed for a formal motion in the United States Congress. The world would be alerted that something is amiss.

Right now the entire country, even yellow dog democrats, believe there was no controversy this time, that we just lost. Too bad. A formal Congressional protest will go in the recordbooks. The media would not be able to ignore it. History would remember this as a contested election. And we won't be treated by everyone as demented conspiracy theorists. (And who knows? Maybe someone will dare investigate?)

If only we could find that one brave soul.

Making a statement in this world is never a waste of time.
 
------

P.S. Somehow this thread got started twice. Not sure how that happened, but replies are now going to two identical threads. Sorry for the duplication. Not intentional.

[jsascj]

6. You'd think they would be knocking down the doors

to do it. I cannot understand why they are all so reluctant to contest this clearly flawed election.

What am I missing?

[politmuse1]

7. I fear someone's blackmailing them all

Call me just another conspiracy theorist, but this eerie silence from all members of the opposition, all of whom know what happened, is ominous. They oppose Bush on everything else (at least a small minority, I mean), but no one touches the election theft. Remember election night, when Sen. Kennedy was so sure Kerry had it in the bag (and by a landslide), that he was calling him "President Elect" already? You think he doesn't know? What are they holding over everyone's heads?

That's why I suggested we focus on Byrd. Unless they're threatening their very lives, careerwise he has less to lose and could be talked into becoming a hero by taking a stand. But there would have to be a massive campaign. If a few of us write him a letter it will do no good.

[cali]

8. Yep. You're a conspiracy theorist.

Blackmail? I doubt all dem Senators are being blackmailed. I'm pretty sure Senators Leahy and Jeffords aren't. I'm also sure that they won't refuse to certify. What you guys fail to realize is that these folks in the Senate don't see things the way you do. They may believe that fraud took place but that bushco won despite the fraud, that it wasn't the deciding factor. That's my position. I think expending energy trying to get a Senator to refuse to certify is a total waste of tiem. Wouldn't changt anything even if it happened. It's time to accept that bushco is president, and focus on election reform for the sake of clean elections. Having a Senator refuse to certify doesn't move reform, and it won't change the fact that JK is not president.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[buddysmellgood]

12. Why can't Kerry?

[buddysmellgood]

13. The more I think about this the angrier I get. Why just 1 senator?

Why should we be struggling to get just one senator. DAMN IT. Every Democratic senator with a spine should stand up and say "THIS ELECTION WAS A FRAUD AND WE REJECT IT"
Election reform is job one. We can accomplish nothing until we have fair elections. If they would all stand up for democracy, it would put things in motion.

[me b zola]

14. I wrote a letter challenging Sen. Wyden of Oregon

I told him that even if he doesn't believe there was fraud, voter suppression & intimidation were widespread and done openly. I reminded him of OUR party's work during the civil rights movement, and how wrong it is to sit by and watch as the Congressional Black Caucus does all of the heavy lifting. I respectfully asked him to ask Rev.Jackson what he meant by "there is a straight line from Selma to Ohio", to reflect on the core beliefs of the Democratic Party, examine his conscious, and to ask himself if he is upholding the Constitution of the United States.
I believe that when we ask Senators to work with Rep. Conyers in uncovering the truth, we frame are requests with heavy emphasis on civil rights and the core beliefs & history of our party.

[politmuse1]

15. How do you expect reform if the truth is hidden?!!!!

Cali says:

<<It's time to accept that bushco is president, and focus on election reform for the sake of clean elections. Having a Senator refuse to certify doesn't move reform>>

Having a Senator stand up brings the fraud issue to the forefront. I don't know what's so hard to understand about the principle of it. That's the ONLY thing that will ever result in reform. If no one knows the election was stolen, how on earth do you expect anyone to lift a finger to change something that's not being recognized as having happened in the first place?

That's what they said in 2000, too. Move on, get over it! And that's why the theft happened in 2004. Because everyone just moved on, and there weren't enough of us to remind the world that Gore won. And now you want to move on again? Unreal!

Any fighters out here?

[genieroze]

16. How about NJ

Corzine or Lautenberg both very liberal

[IndyOp]

17. We need to think BIG, get organized and contact 4-5 Senators

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

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

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

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

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

[autorank]

19. Uh, the same one as in 2000. Count on it.

[lthuedk]

20. Lets be clear to our senators: You will ALL stand up to contest the

election. You will show solidarity or you might as well resign.

This is not the time to roll over. This is most certainly the time to let the nation and world know what side you're on: Democracy or Fascism.

[Klimmer]

21. I agree, as many Democratic Senators . . .

as can possibly be convinced should stand and contest.

Kerry and Edwards especially!

Stand and be true men and women. I doubt any Republican senators will. If they don't know or believe this election was stolen then they're not informed with all the facts. We must contact our Senators and give them the information or request that they get as much information from Conyers et al. as possible regarding the fraud of this election. No reasonable person confronted with the full facts can doubt that this election was fraudulent and stolen.

They must stand to voice their opposition to this fraudulent election. They must make a stand in unity to secure our constitutional right to vote and our ability to vote free from oppression, intimidation, disenfranchisement, spoilage, and fraud. Our right to vote with an honest transparent system that leaves a full paper trail ballot (perhaps we should get a carbon copy when we leave the voting precinct) must be the highest priority. I think we should have a system that scans our vote to tally, as well at the same time scans an image of our ballot to be put on a county wide or state level website so the entire world can see each of our votes. Our carbon copy with serial number should match the original image scanned with serial number. With a system such as this we can verify that our vote did indeed count, and recounts to verify could be easily done by many organizations at once visually. Absolute transparency throughout. We need a national voting system that is truly fair and equal and transparent.

We know that this contest will be closed down by a majority Republican Senate. But it must be stated loud and clear that we know the last three elections were stolen, we are not ever going to forget it, and it stops now!

Investigations into the fraud must continue to their proper end and those responsible must be brought to justice. And if the evidence leads to the White House, then so be it. The investigation of election fraud and immediate national election reform must be the highest of priorities. We are powerless without the right to equal and fair elections. Anything we care about, they control, if they control our vote.

[AirAmFan]

25. If Byrd stands with the CBC, he'd obliterate any freeper criticism of

his long-ago KKK flirtation. He's already lived that episode down many times in my book, but making a stand with John Conyers, Major Owens, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, and other outspoken African-Americans would clinch his position as Mr Constitutional Rights.

Barney Frank, Nadler of NY, Wexler of FL and others who are standing with Conyers would do it in a heartbeat, but they're not in the Senate--yet.

[AirAmFan]

26. This situation is a reminder of DC's two MISSING Senators.

African-Americans already would have a steady voice in the Senate if DC had full voting rights. While we're discussing fairness in voting, let's not forget about taxation and military service without any voting representation in Congress at all for the District of Columbia.