Letter from Senator Leahy: "I have no intention of contesting..."

[Amaryllis]

My purpose is posting this letter is NOT to start yet another “This really sucks, what is wrong with them, why can’t they see what’s in front of their eyes” thread.

My purpose is to direct you to this link to the Dean People’s new revised talking points which specifically address EVERY single reason Leahy gives for not contesting, as well as common reasons Leahy doesn’t mention but others do. They keep giving the same tired reasons for not contesting, and we keep giving the same reasons why they should. These talking points reframe the conversation. PLEASE consider this in your contacts with your senators today and tomorrow.

http://www.unioncountyfordemocracy.org/files/jan6points.html

Also see Will Pitt’s blog entry http://truthout.org/fyi/:

Manual for pestering Senators
Monday 03 January 2005 @ 11:15

If you are planning this week to write your Senators and ask them to stand up with Rep. Conyers at the Electoral College hearing on the 6th, take a look at the talking points prepared by the Dean people. There is a lot of good stuff in there.

My two cents are as follows: When writing your Senators, be sure above all else to lean on the words Conyers used in his letter. "I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort," wrote Conyers, "to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters."

Debate and highlight, not overthrow. This is enough of a political minefield as it is - any Senator who does stand up faces severe attacks from the GOP as well as from go-along Democrats. Debate and highlight allows for political cover, and puts any Senator who stands up under that premise to be the defender of our right to vote.

Tactics are as important as being right in this matter. Just a thought.
_____________________________________________________________________

Letter from Leahy:

Dear Ms. XXXXXX

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you about the 2004 presidential election.

While I share in the disappointment of many with the results of this election, I was pleased to see such a high number of Americans
turn out to vote. Since Senator John Kerry has conceded, I have no
intention of contesting the results of the election. That being said, the U.S. Government Accountability Office is conducting a
thorough investigation of all allegations concerning voter rolls and
registrations, fraud, and election concerns, and I will certainly
continue to pay close attention to this important issue.

Many Vermonters, after seeing Michael Moore's movie,
"Fahrenheit 9/11," contacted me raising questions and concerns
about the 12 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who
voiced their opposition to Florida's electors at the Joint Session of Congress convened for the ceremonial reading of the electoral
votes. Several key events preceded the January 6, 2001 Joint
Session of Congress, including: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court had
ended the vote-counting in Florida with its decision in the case of
Bush v. Gore, (2) the Electoral College had cast its votes, and (3)
the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, had conceded. For an objection
to be heard during this process, federal law states that the objection must be in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. Then-Vice President Gore met with the Congressional Black Caucus before January 6 and asked that they
not object, telling its members that, had the objection been
accepted, it merely would have opened the floor for debate and
would not have altered the outcome. Problems with the election
had already been debated for months and the decision had already
been made, meaning that additional debate would not have
changed the outcome of the election.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and please keep in touch.

Patrick Leahy
United States Senator

http://leahy.senate.gov/

[MissBrooks]

1. Manual for PESTERING senators?

I thought they worked for us.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. I'm not fond of that phrasing either.

I'm not a pest, I'm a constituent.

[TruthIsAll]

72. HE SAID "NO INTENTION". THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE WON'T

tia

[pbartch]

52. thank you for contacting me, and please keep in touch.

but then he says constituants are pestering???

this guy is WRONG. HE is representing MY vote! He is representing US. We have the RIGHT to contact him!!

[MissBrooks]

55. I agree!

[davidinalameda]

82. where does he say pestering

I missed that part of the letter

and what I'm getting from the letter is why should he care if Kerry, who was the nominee, doesn't care enough to challenge the results

Kerry should be outfront on this if he wants anyone else to care

maybe we need this in order to regroup and come up with a real candidate in 2008

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Two things jump out at me.

Hypothetical - not directed specifically at Leahy

1. If a concession is not legally binding, why should a senator refrain from challenging simply because the candidate conceded if he or she has legitimate concerns about the legitimacy of the slate of electors.

2. Since when is two more hours of public debate a hardship for a politician?

[Amaryllis]

4. The Dean People talking points specifically address #1

[rock]

8. You're first point is particulary sharp

So Kerry conceded. So what? This is not about how pleased Kerry is with the voting process.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

60. 2 hrs of debate: yeah, part of their job.

So he won't contest in part because there had been discussion in 2000? There has been no public discourse about irregularities, and had Blackwell answered Conyers's questions and performed a satisfactory recount, we would not have to ask, What is he hiding? Such stonewalling isn't a red flag? We're less democratic than a former Soviet republic?

[EFerrari]

5. Thanks, Amaryllis. (Now, there's a word I haven't read since

the last time I read the renaissance poets :)

By no means should we open up a debate! That might lead to actual discussion which is the sure precursor to bloody revolution.

Mendacity.

[nmoliver]

6. here is my reply to Leahy

I am planning to call Leahy's office today and ask him what alternate plan he has in mind for containing this epidemic of rampant, unchecked Republican vote rigging.

[OKthatsIT]

78. good line...i like it

.

[Zan_of_Texas]

7. Leahy's last point:

Problems with the election
had already been debated for months and the decision had already
been made, meaning that additional debate would not have
changed the outcome of the election.

Boy, that does not bode well.

Because I don't see how, even the Senators stand to contest, we win more than just a two-hour debate. If I'm wrong, correct me.

If Senators think they need to put a lid on the slimy facts about our elections and not give anyone more of a podium to stand on to get those facts out, they will NOT stand. They think that they can just shove this thing back in the closet and it will self-extinguish.

They are as wrong about that as they were about the roses to be thrown at the feet of the liberating US soldiers by the grateful Iraqis.

[Amaryllis]

9. Yes, they are wrong. See the talking points. OUR debate with them

needs to be reframed.

[cali]

11. Senator Leahy

was one of the strongest voicest against the war in Iraq. Read his pre-vote speech. He's a truly decent and honorable man, and he's been outfront about the fact that he's not going to contest the election. I have no doubt that if he believed it was the right thing to do, he'd do it.

[Amaryllis]

20. Exactly. Which is why I keep harping on these talking points because

they SPECIFICALLY address all the reasons for not contesting and reframe the debate! Many of the senators are very decent people and attacking them is not the answer. I have talked with the Dean People who have talked with a number of senators' staff, and they find that when these points are used, they begin to view it in a different way. They have put these points together from their direct experience talking to senator's staff.

Dean people also told me that it is amazing how much many of senators and their staff don't know about all the problems with this election, and when approached with information rather than hostility, and with these talking points, many (not all) have been quite receptive. She said this was a shock to her that they didn't know very much. Many of them are fairly clueless about all the issues with e-voting. Hopefully this has changed as a result of Conyer's sending them all the info he has uncovered.

[nmoliver]

10. another important point to tell Leahy and others

Yes, Al Gore asked the Senators not to contest. That is why they did not.

Three years later, Al Gore regretted that decision.

Gore said that he felt that if he agreed to follow the rule of law (i.e., the illegal Supreme Court decision), Bush would cooperate by also staying within American law.

Since then he saw that Bush used this victory to flout the law on a wide variety of occasions. Bush did not meet Gore halfway in submitting to law; his regime has been lawless.

This is how Gore looks back on it.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. I think it was a big mistake for Gore to ask them not to contest

I am sure he does regret it. But it should have been about voting rights, not about the assumption that bush would be lawful.

This whole thing sucks.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

12. This Sucks! What Is Wrong With Them?

Sorry, but it's true. Pathetic. Spineless, bought & paid for, WIMPS!

Let's all play nice and maybe daddy won't send us to bed early. What a sad excuse for a country we live in.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. they are too comfortable in their jobs

they think election to the congress and senate is a promise of life long employment.

[Walt Starr]

21. They have no hard evidence of a widespread fraud conspiracy

so they are doing their jobs correctly!

[nmoliver]

24. how do you go about getting such evidence ...

when you are unable to subpoena the hardware, the tabulators, the records of decisions made, the raw data from the exit polls?

The purpose of the contest would be to enable the necessary investigation.

Mr. Starr, what alternative plan do you have in mind for containing this epidemic of rampant, unchecked vote-rigging that puts Republicans in power even though Americans vote for Democrats?

[Walt Starr]

28. FACT: There will be no Senators contesting the results of the election

Face that fact and figure it out for yourself.

Under the standard you are setting, no presidential election in history should have been certified by the Senate.

[Occulus]

59. Nice declaratives! Now ANSWER HIS QUESTION.

He never set a standard in his post. YOU are putting words in his mouth. Although I think I can see where you think he's asking for a standard that cannot be lived up to, that standard is a free and fair election.

Now, to answer FOR you, open the source code. Forbid the concept of "intellectual property" when counting votes. Create a system wherein experts for both parties examine the source code, line by line. Demand a voter-verifiable confirmation of each and every vote.

NOT hard. NOT expensive. Public and trustworthy.

You, Walt, protest overmuch.

[Zan_of_Texas]

90. No source code at all. No computer tabulation or counting at all.

It's too difficult to secure in the election application, because the voter leaves and can never check their vote later, unlike financial transactions.

I can talk to you for an hour why voting machines should NEVER be paperless electronic machines (or internet). But, in my judgment, especially in light of the tricks that were pulled even in the RECOUNT, the count needs to be gotten right the first time. And, the way to do that is paper.

Paper. In locked boxes in view, with glass bottoms (so they can't be stuffed with ballots before the election even starts). Counted at the precinct. In public, in front of anyone who wants to watch.

Otherwise, hackers or insiders or bugs can win the election instead of the person the voters chose.

[SicTransit]

92. In Ohio, in Franklin county, the voters had to make 100+ choices

on their ballots - that is, there were 100+ different races - all the way from President to local dog catcher to various propositions.

Please explain how you intend to count potentially millions of ballots with 100+ races on each one of them. I am all pro-paper-and-pen-hand-count thing, but I see absolutely no way to do that.

[Zan_of_Texas]

99. Well, I guess we should ask Ottawa how they do it.

It's not like you or anyone by themselves has to count a million ballots.

It's that the personnel in one precinct have to count those ballots.

So, a precinct has to be a manageable size. I'm thinking 1000-1200 voters on the rolls, but I don't know.

Here's what a blogger wrote from Ottawa:

Friday, October 03, 2003
blog: http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com/#106516635608139568

The boring Canadian province of Ontario had an election yesterday, and the voters finally managed to kick out the right-wing American-influenced tax cutters, replacing them with a party whose main promise was that it would not cut taxes so that it would have enough money to pay for things considered inessential by the previous government, such as health care, education, public security and safety, and the electricity supply. A little sanity in an insane world. The interesting thing is the mechanics of the voting procedure. The election used paper ballots which were counted <http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/en/voters_what_after_en.shtml> by hand at each polling station, with the results telephoned in to the Returning Officers, who communicated the results to the media.

Ontario is a huge place, with over 11 million people on 415,000 square miles or over one million square kilometers (at the longest points, 1,000 miles high and 1,000 miles wide), and yet this old-fashioned system produced election results in about an hour, with the winner giving his victory speech less than two hours after the polls closed. Since paper ballots were used, and absolutely no computers were involved in the balloting process, the ballots can be recounted at any time should there be any dispute, and the ballots themselves serve as decisive evidence of the validity of the results. When I look at computer voting, I see a system which is in every possible way inferior to the paper ballot system:

Computers are significantly more expensive, and require constant maintenance and updating.

Computers can break down at any time, while paper ballots never break down.

Regardless of what the computer lover will tell you, I defy any computer voting system to produce results as fast as produced in the Ontario election.

Computers are essentially impossible to secure from cheating. They all use proprietary code, and it is impossible for anyone to be certain that there isn't some fixed result in the machine itself. Once hooked up to the internet, the problems associated with insecurity multiply enormously. It is simply impossible to be sure of the results if a 'black box' is used. It doesn't help that the actual machines produced by companies like Diebold have even more obvious flaws, making them essentially useless unless the desired result is to produce a cheating machine.

One of the most important principles of voting is the secrecy of the ballot. Many voting machines that simply print out a hard-copy ballot for use in the traditional voting procedure leave open the possibility that information associated with the voter can be connected to the choice of the voter. I can see such machines in limited circumstances being used to assist disabled voters (on the theory that the possible loss of privacy is outweighed by the help provided by the machine, with other methods of voting assistance removing privacy anyway), but see the privacy issue as being a possible problem if they are widely used. The use of voting machines to assist disabled voters seems to be a large part of the marketing campaign for these machines (and there are a number of options <http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/en/special_needs_en.shtml?nocache=true>, including such things as ballots printed in braille, which can be used with paper ballots).

I don't want to sound too sentimental, but there is something essentially democratic about the process of filling out a paper ballot and physically depositing it in a ballot box. That feeling is lost if you stand in front of a machine pushing buttons, completely unsure of whether your vote is going to count the way you intended it to count. Voting must not only be fair, it must be seen to be fair.

In spite of this, there is a huge push in the United States to introduce computer voting machines all over the country. Why is this?:

The computer voting industry reminds me of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex. The drug companies grab drugs developed with government money for nominal payments, and then spend billions of dollars promoting these drugs. A large part of the promotion is, as bizarre as it might seem, finding a disease for which they can purport to use the drug. In other words, they often have the drug first, and go looking for the marketable disease later. In fact, it is often not the drug that is marketed, but the disease itself. The computer voting machine makers have nice new computers hooked up to the nice new internet, and had to create the market for these unneeded machines. Since the old system worked spectacularly well, and was much, much cheaper, you would think they would have a difficult job foisting these useless machines on the public. Never underestimate the combination of heavy lobbying, bribing vile politicians and bureaucrats, and our almost monkey-like fascination with bright, shiny, new machines.

Let's face facts. The voting machine companies are all owned by doctrinaire extreme-right-wing Republicans. If the United States holds fair elections in the next round, the Republicans will lose. The Republicans need these machines. Their main purpose, after making money for their creators, is to cheat.

People should go after these awful voting machines like the Luddites went after automated weaving machines: with sledgehammers. Paper ballots have worked well and have formed the basis for the whole history of Anglo-American democracies (with marked shards in urns going back to ancient Athens), and there is no good reason for voting machines. Paper ballots, counted by hand!
posted 3:32 AM <2003_10_01_xymphora_archive.html>

[SicTransit]

102. Canadians do not have as many things on the ballot as

Americans do.

Here is a calculation. 100 things on the ballot. 1000 ballots in the precinct. If each choice takes 10 seconds to hand-count and record, and obviously that needs to be observed at least by 2 more people from the major parties (if not more) that would be 3*10*100*1000 seconds or 833 man-hours. Let's say there are 3 teams of counter+2observers per precinct. That would mean that it would take 92 hours to count all the votes. That is 12 working days - or 2.5 weeks of hugely repetitive monotonous labor for 9 people - and that is only in one precinct. If you pay these people $10/hr (which would be slave wages for this type of work) - that's $8.5K (observers would probably have to be paid by their respective parties). Multiply that by 11,000 precincts in the state of Ohio. You can see where I am coming from when I say it is unworkable.

[Zan_of_Texas]

107. I see you have posted other dog sh*t elsewhere, sic.

Let me just say this, then.

We can either spend billions of dollars to have mock elections the way we do now, or we can do it right, for less money, and know our vote was counted.

Take yer pick.

[bunny planet]

61. and you know this ..........how?

[ConstitutionGuy]

80. Wrong!

The contest of the electoral votes categorically WOULD NOT open up an investigation with discovery, soepena powers, forensic examination of computers, et al. The debate on the objection to any one state's electors is limited to 2 hours and no representative or senator may speak more than once and for no more than 5 minutes during debate. Like it or not, the current law does not allow for the congressional objection to serve as an investigative/discovery forum. There just isn't time. When I watched the Florida state court proceedings in the various Bush/Gore contests, they kept some poor schmuck on the stand talking about punch card ballots something like 5 hours! And that was only one witness talking about one topic!

With all due respect for the durability of our Constitution, and peaceful and orderly transition of the Presidency, do you really want to open up a pandora's box where election reversal, delay, or casting of doubt on a president of either party can be accomplished with nothing more than 2 hours of debate where any claim from any corner, completely unchallenged and unverified can be put forth?

I think the signal the reluctant senators are sending you is that they don't want to be the agent of deligitimizing or overturning a presidential election in a 2 hour gab session unless someone known, trusted, and vetted by them has provided first hand, irrefutable, no-shit evidence of a stolen election.

When you think about it, the stakes are just two high. Of the stack of statements about irregularities, how can a senator know which are genuine and which were filed simply because someone had a partisan ax to grind? OK, so you've got a couple of statistical studies floating around out there? Have they been subjected to rigorous peer review to ensure they comply with generally accepted scientific and numeric methods? What about the countervailing information? Have any of the 176 Democratic election officials in Ohio, which includes 88 who hold either the Chair or Vice Chair of the county BOE, contacted any Senator and said, "This election was fraudulent." Don't you think at least one of them would have credible, inside information?

I'm not poo-pooing the idea that fraud may have occurred. What I'm saying is that the United States of American has a 200+ year of peaceful, orderly transition of power. It is one of the most important and enduring features of our republic. I'm sorry, but you just don't fuck with that on a suspicion or a whim. When you do, you set in motion a precedent for electoral mischief that will haunt both parties for the rest of our history.

If the move towards a congressional challenge continues to play out as I fear it will, that proud legacy will be lost and the quadrennial meeting to count the electoral votes will become a permanent extension of the campaign, which instead of ending on the 1st Tuesday in November will now be extended to January 6th. Mark my words, from this time forth there will not be a presidential election that passes without witch hunts for vote fixing problems, scape goating of local election officials, claims and counterclaims of fraud and theft, and a contested electoral count that will be viewed as illegitimate by half the country.

What a shame! And to what end? No matter how you slice and dice it, a challenge on January 6th WILL NOT keep Bush out of office. What it will do is poison the institution and create a resentment that will surely come back to haunt the next Democratic president.

If the fraud and corruption is as widespread and pervasive as some believe then the conclusive, ironclad, no-shit evidence is there. The truth always finds a way out. If its there, the GAO will find it. If its there, some court will find it. If its there, Congress will find it. The case will be made eventually. But in the meantime you can't build a credible case that is worthy of overturning a United States presidential election in the next 48 hours.

The hopes, dreams, and energies of the impassioned would be better spent on building the case - a case so ironclad and irrefutable that even the most partisan of Republican house members have to no choice but to bow to the obvious and impeach (remember Nixon - he was told to get out of Dodge by his own party). But that takes time and it takes knowing where to pick your fights. The fight that is being staged for January 6th will do nothing but inflame and infuriate those who are not yet convinced, fail to achieve the objective of keeping Bush out of office, and completely stop up the ears of any Republican in Congress whom might have been skeptical but willing to lend a listening ear. The cause will be lost at that point.

This whole exercise of pushing the Congressional objection is a collosal strategic blunder. We may win the tactical battle, but it will utlimately lose the war.

[katinmn]

66. Prove to me there was no election fraud. Prove it!

Prove there was no voter suppression. I saw it with my own eyes.

I won't be satisfied and I won't "move on" until we have have assurance there will be clean elections going forward.

[euler]

75. What did you see ?

[DemonFighterLives]

96. Used to like your posts

But the last several hundred sound like a broken record. I might just as well believe Blackwell then.
Nothing to see here, move along.

[cali]

22. Nothing gets my dander up more

than the slandering of my Senator, who's fought the rethugs for years and years. There's nothing bought and paid for about Pat Leahy. There's nothing spineless about him. Don't like his decision? Too bad. Vermonters overwhelmingly support him. He garnered over 70% of the vote this election. His refusal to object to certification won't change that to any perceptible degree. We know how well he's represented us.

[hootinholler]

15. Uggggg!

Does the Senator really think that the reading of the electoral votes is meerely ceremonial?

If indeed that is the case, I am beyond words. It is his SWORN DUTY to object if there is any unresolved dispute.

Look here for more.

-Hoot

[ocnbcsurf]

16. Called Florida officials

there answer was "The voters have spoken. We will not contest the vote."

[roenyc]

47. more like diebold has spoken

[Walt Starr]

17. Leahy is doing the right thing

HE sees that there is nothing to gain and only power and influence to lose in such a stupid move!

[merh]

19. What power & influence will be lost?

You continue to post crap like that and it makes no sense to me. Standing up for principles is never a mistake, to stay out of the fray is simply cowardice.

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
Abe Lincoln.

[Walt Starr]

27. Any Senator that contests loses

Any Senator so stupid as to stand up wihtout hard proof is marginalizing themself and will never be taken seriously again. They will become pariahs and will lose in their next primary challenge or the seat will definitely go Republican.

Sorry, but that's the political reality. What is being asked of these Senators is that they lose their careers.

[merh]

37. All dems are on the blocks - if they aren't then they are not doing

their jobs. Repugs will run against anyone who defies them and if the dems in office do not defy their attempts to strip us of civil rights and to line their pockets and pay their buddies, then they are not doing their jobs.

To take a stand and say that there needs to be election reform and that the irregularities need to be investigated is not stupid, it is necessary.

If the election process isn't fixed, then it doesn't matter what the dems do or don't do, they will lose cause the repugs have the fixin' of elections down to an art.

Me thinks it is those that think it is stupid to take a stand that are not living in reality.

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
Abe Lincoln.

[genieroze]

39. I'm sorry but if these people don't stand up now they won't be

back after their terms are up because the rig will be permanent and our country as we knew it will be dead. After such a HUGE rig goes unchallenged to you really think the Republicans will stop with this election? They will know that they can walk all over the Democrats and they will say to the Republicans "Thank You Sir May I Have Another" Do you really think they deserve another term, I don't. Next Republican target the Blue States.

[bunny planet]

62. The Democratic party is already severely marginalized. They have nothing

to lose.
:hi:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

32. Walt Starr is just being a realist

Sorry if I won't accept fantasy views of how politics works.

:eyes:

[femme.democratique]

34. This goes way beyond politics, and I'm sorry you don't see that. eom

[Walt Starr]

36. Nope, it's a purely partisan issue

and a very small minority at that who believe in a widespread election fraud conspiracy theory.

[merh]

40. It is partisan because the repugs have the art of election theft

down to a fine science and no one will stand up to their crimes. What did anyone do in 2000? Not enough obviously since it happened in 2002 and now 2004.

[Walt Starr]

43. It's partisan

because 18% of the public refuses to face the fact that we lost our asses over the war issue due to the fact that our candidate did not have a clear stance on the issue!

[merh]

45. My ass, the exit polls do not show that at all!

Oh, but I forgot, those aren't any good anymore and they are numbers. You ought to stop believing the rove spin!

[Walt Starr]

46. Exit polls ARE MEANINGLESS

without corroborative hard evidence of election fraud! ESPECIALLY IN CLOSE ELECTIONS!!!!

[merh]

50. Oh, that's right, they only mean something if they were favorable

to the candidates that the US supports in foreign nations like Venezuela and Ukraine. They mean nothing here, you've been roved!

[Walt Starr]

53. There was overwhelming corroborative evidence of fraud in the Ukraine

and a decided LACK of the same in the U.S.

[merh]

56. And what was that evidence?

share please.

And how about Venezuela?

[Doctor O]

69. I believe if you look back at the Venezuelan exit polls, the

early returns showed the challenger winning by a large margin.

[merh]

71. I'm sorry, where is the evidence, separate from the polls?

I believe if you look at the polls (not the slanted ones) after the debates, Kerry was leading.

But again, where is you "EVIDENCE"?

[merh]

76. hmmmmmm

Ever notice how requested proof is never supplied?

I do mean never. Allegations, supposition, tinfoilhat conspiracy theories, but never evidence!

[Doctor O]

79. Proof Is Here

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/20/Worldandnation/American_backs_his_Ve.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/20/Worldandnation/American_backs_his_Ve.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082004W.shtml
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/8/15/175735/064

You've got a lot to learn.

And Jimmy Carter blessed this election as fair.

[Doctor O]

81. And if you need proof for that statement on Carter

http://cartercenter.org/doc1801.htm

[merh]

83. Go find his statement about the U.S. elections. Find where he

said they are a disgrace.

The Bush admin supported the polls in Venezuela and Ukraine. They supported the "fraud" in Venezuela when there was no proof of fraud. The proof of fraud in the Ukraine is very similar to the fraud here.

You have a lot to learn, manners would be a good place to begin. My conversation was with another. You should leave folks alone, especially those that it appears you are just trying to antagonize. It is as if you stalk me.

[Doctor O]

86. Yes I have seen many

of your posts and when people don't completely agree with you, you become rude, nasty and arrogant. While in some of your comments you show yourself to be a good, inteligent thinker with a lot to offer. However some of your arugments have been unfounded and not based completely on fact, and some quick research such as in this case shows this lack of research.

[merh]

88. Oh, and your posts have been so pleasant and informative.

Never condescending or judgmental, never ridiculing or insulting. You have a habit of dodging the issues in a post by politely, yet ever so cruelly attacking the poster. You ride on the edge of disruption balancing your words to be sure an alert has no effect.

My arguments have not been unfounded, your attacks or intrusions have. Your "quick research" did not answer my question. I ask again, where is the evidence of fraud that the weed's admin claimed existed to support their position that the exit polls were correct and the results of the elections were wrong.

Also, have you found the statements made by neutral observers to our elections wherein they opined that the elections held in 3rd world countries are more honest than ours? How about Carter's take on the disgrace that is our election process? Since you are such an expert, do the research.

[SicTransit]

97. Here is hard evidence of fraud in Ukraine -

you probably did not notice when I posted it before - so it is repeated for your benefit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/28/wukra28.xml

You're welcome.

[merh]

98. This is not evidence, this is conjecture.

"The thugs - believed to be loyal to the pro-Russian presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovich from his stronghold, Donetsk - were repulsed only when locals pushed them back and a policeman fired warning shots." This article contains no proof that the pro-Russian candidate had anything to do with this attack and even the writer qualifies the description as "believe to be loyal".

Funny how Putin believes that the bush admin has been interfering in the Russian elections and Russia's business lately. He warned the weed after the attack on the school (which he believes bush and the CIA supported and financed) and he has warned him since all of the election woes that his country still has nuclear weapons. This type of thing sounds very similiar to Roves hired goons in Florida after the 2000 election.

An article written by a writer with such qualifications is not proof.

[SicTransit]

100. how about the other violations, such as

pouring acid into ballot boxes, "carousel voting" and the disappearing ink pens - witnessed by international observers, no less?

You know, your bias is amazing. You want the Ukrainian election objections to be based only on exit polls - so you blithely dismiss any evidence, however overwhelming, that is not exit-poll-based. Yet in the US you would take any tenuous conjecture, and tout it as proof. Bias, much?

[merh]

103. The question is proof as to who is responsible.

Again, Putin is not happy with the US/CIA's involvement.

My bias is not amazing, I am actually illustrating the hypocracy of the bush admin's position. No "proof" (eg admissions or confessions) yet ready to support one candidate's claim of fraud over anothers. If I am not mistaken, the fraud was worse the 2nd time around and the candidate that Russia supported alleged that our admin's candidate was responsible.

It is you that is bias. Your bias drips from every reply you post. The proof of the election fraud at home is mountainous (affidavits, video, tampering, lost ballots, locked down precincts, closed precincts, destroyed ballots, admissions of the owners of the companies involved, admissions of the elected officials, etc.) yet you chose to ignore it.

And you have yet to accomplish the research (as simple as it may be) in providing the links to the international observers statements regarding our deplorable voting process or even acknowledging that you are aware of the statements.

Bias, not much!

[merh]

106. Here's ya some reading!

http://www.pdamerica.org/field/final%20status%20report.pdf

[SicTransit]

93. Here you go - hard evidence of fraud in Ukraine

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/28/wukra28.xml

"They started to beat voters and election officials, trying to push through towards the ballot boxes," he told The Telegraph.

"People's faces were cut from blows to the head. There was blood all over."

...

Maya Syta, a journalist working at polling station 73 in a Kiev suburb, witnessed ballot papers destroyed with acid poured into a ballot box. "The officials were taking them out of the box and they couldn't understand why they were wet," she said.

"Then I saw they started to blacken and disintegrate as if they were burning. Two ballots were wrapped up into a tube with a yellow liquid inside. After a few moments they were completely eaten up."

...

The most common trick was "carousel" voting, in which busloads of Yanukovich supporters simply drove from one polling station to another casting multiple false absentee ballots.

In another brazen fraud recorded by observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, voters were given pens filled with ink that disappeared, leaving ballots unmarked and invalid.

=====================

When you can come up with something that happened in the United States that even approaches some of the above events, please tell us. Otherwise stop the propaganda about how Ukrainian elections were contested because of the exit polls there. The exit polls were a tiny corroborative corner of the mountain of hard proof of fraud - something that is completely lacking in the US.

[merh]

57. What, you don't like what the exit polls actually reflect?

You can't stand to be wrong about your loathing of Kerry, so you say they are not correct? Turn your hate to the repugs and their weed commander-n-chief. Stop attacking folks for trying to make a difference.

[bunny planet]

64. Right, they only mean something in Ukraine.

[SicTransit]

94. see post #93 n/t

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

44. Thanks for the personal attack

I must assume you have no argument as an ad hominem fallacy generally is indicative of that.

[cali]

51. Hey Walt,

Pay no attention to this person. I can tell you from experience that she's more than a little tiresome. It's not worth the energy it takes to tap out a response.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[bunny planet]

63. Realist is not the first word that comes to mind.

[femme.democratique]

29. Power and influence? Over who? Please....YOU'RE delusional if..

..you believe the democratic party still has influence anywhere. What makes you think the Repuke majority gives a shit what dems think?

[Walt Starr]

30. Power and influence of the individual Senators

Sorry, but you are deluding yourself if you honestly believe any Senaotr will devestate their careers with such a foolish move that will ultimately do NOTHING MORE than destroy their own careers and legacies.

[femme.democratique]

33. Their careers WILL be devastated, but not by challenging the election...

...their careers will be decimated by:

1) Unchallenged systemic election fraud
2) Losing a non-trivial portion of their constituencies because of their continued documented apathy
3) Eventual revolt after 8 years of a fascist regime because no politician has any interest in defending the rights of the american public.

There is now a line in the sand, how much are we willing to let go for politics and the "hope" of '06 and '08? You seem to be willing to sacrifice some pretty basic principles.

[Walt Starr]

35. Sorry, the numbers disagree with you

Last poll I saw said only 18% of the electorate believe in the fantasyland tinfoilhat widespread election fraud conspiracy theories about how Bush won the election.

[femme.democratique]

38. 18% of 100 mil+? So how many millions is that? Almost 20 mil?

Yeah thats trivial. Keep your head up your ass and I'm sure you'll have fun when Bush ships your ass to Iran...

[Walt Starr]

41. Okay, say they placate that 18%

Then nthey lose the rest who voted with them this election, like me. I would never in a million years vote for an idiot who would stand up and contest this election. They are not worhy of consideration if they are that big of an idiot.

[Doctor O]

48. Was the 18% the number who thought there was widespread

election fraud or was it that 18% thought varied degrees of election fraud took place?

[bobbieinok]

85. and WHERE can they hear anything about POSSIBLE problems????

I disagree with you on this issue.......I do appreciate your work on W's medals, etc

I don't understand your unwillingness to consider the possibility of fraud in the election........but I've read your opinions on other issues and have learned from them

this is NOT an attack on you......it's an expression of frustration with your inability/unwillingness/whatever to consider the possibility of this having been a stolen election

but I do appreciate that we are not all alike and that each of us has our own 'lines in the sand' and rules for proof

[bunny planet]

65. I'd say that the * administrations plan for one-party government will do

more to damage and destroy Democrat's careers than standing up for what is right will anyday.

[PATRICK]

73. More to the point

Walt is likely right in that is exactly how the Senators perceive the situation as evidenced by Leahy and Nelson and others. It is not about persuading Walt but the Senators. Even PROOF of fraud will not do that unless the public is already there(which the media has been allowed to stifle as even a discussion) and Kerry can demonstrably win. the catch is the fraud has rendered the Kerry victory invisible and no one can put a clear face on massive fraud to get the Dems to relinquish their myth of the ballot number contest.

In fact the Dems have been stifling dissent as well as going along with this result with few and cautioned exceptions.

I think if the Dem Senatorial wisdom is the best that good people can come up with then the human race is not worth a bucket of spit, but it looks to to be heading Walt's way. It doesn't mean it is right or effective, but that will soon be coulda shoulda been scenarios of speculation. The precedent of this "wisdom" after 2000 was not encouraging in the slightest so that will leave idealists free to rant with perfect justification when things go bad these next four years of extreme peril.

This is the second post of Walt's I am responding to, but seriously I am not stalking. He is stepping on a lot of toes by taking what he gets right maybe a tad too far.

[pacalo]

68. Gloomy Gus strikes again...

When you investigated WhatsHisFace’s skimpy military record I had respect for your opinion, but I’ve learned something since then. In almost every thread that is hopeful about investigating the election fraud, you’ve made it a point to show up to discount all hope of it happening.

I know you don’t like WhatsHisFace, or at least you have contempt for his military record. I see now, however, that you’ve re-directed your discontent toward Kerry, perhaps because your candidate didn’t get the nomination. So, perhaps in your view, or at least in your attitude, the election results are Kerry’s fault.

I have news for you: No Democratic candidate would have defeated WhatsHisFace’s vote-stealing machine.

You said in another thread that John Kerry wasn’t the best candidate. That only tells me that there’s sour grapes against Kerry. You also said in that same post that Howard Dean was your man. What if Dean had won the nomination? Remember how the corporate media tore him to shreds after “the scream”? Instead of continuing in his in-your-face mode, he toned it down quite a bit. He succumbed to the pressure & he shelved away the part of his persona that drew people toward him. I would have had more respect for him if he had ignored the jokes & the criticism & continued in the same stride.

So you don’t like Kerry -- get over it, just like you’re telling us to get into fetal position & give up all hope of drawing attention to the election fraud. If you can’t join us, then perhaps you should get out of the way. Your Gloomy Gus posts in hopeful threads only serve to entertain the freepers. I bet they love you.

[LibDemAlways]

18. Leahy was the recipient of an anthrax

letter. He is not about to mess with the BFEE.

[cali]

23. What utter bullshit.

Leahy took the anthrax letter in stride. This isn't about his fear, it's about his own convictions.

[LibDemAlways]

26. I'm not trying to attack Leahy

just pointing out that he knows firsthand what bushco is capable of.

[Doctor O]

70. Leahy has always fought for what he thinks is right without

compromising his beliefs. He has been a VT Senator for 30 years now,and has always stood his grounds. I have followed his career since 1978 when I lived, knew him, and supported him in VT, and if he felt there was substantial evidence of vote fraud and enough evidence to set aside the Ohio results, he would stand up in the Senate and enough evidence to set aside the Ohio results

[Amaryllis]

25. Would you guys please stop attacking each other and look at the

larger point that Will Pitt was making in what I quoted from his blog and the other points I was trying to make in the post? A lot of you are making good points but is it not possible to do it in non-atacking manner?

[joevoter]

49. Kickit

[KansDem]

58. "I have no intention of contesting the results of the election."

If election fraud isn't stopped, be prepared to read this statement over and over from Democrats in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, that and "We must come together as a nation and forego this protest that promises to divide our country..." That will become very popular as well. In fact, I believe it is already appearing in the statements of some public officials...

Public election, private vote gathering and counting...makes sense to me! :crazy:

[LibDemAlways]

67. If election fraud isn't stopped, there will

be no Dem officeholders left to read the statement.

[Padme Amidala]

74. Kick him out. Find someone better to run in the primary.

I suggest we contact the Hollywood community and get some actors to beat the incumbents. They'll have instant recognition and they couldn't do wose than Leahy. Which actors live in Vermont?

[slackmaster]

77. The LAST thing we need is more actors in politics

If we kick out the strong, effective leaders we have like Senator Leahy we'll be in even worse shape than we are now.

[cali]

84. You've just demonstrated your stunning ignorance

of all things Vermont; the citizens, the process and Senator Leahy. You could run Brad Pitt against Leahy and he'd lose in a landslide. Senator Leahy was elected this year with over 70% of the vote. He's one of the most liberal members of the Senate and known for standing for what he believes in. There's a reason that Cheney told him to "go fuck himself"; Leahy's been a bulldog about Cheney's ties to Halliburton. BTW, WTF do you think some actor would be a better choice?

[pacalo]

87. kick!

[Dancing_Dave]

89. Thank you for a constructive post!

We need to keep up the pressure, keep improving our talking points, and there is an excellent chance that some Senator will have the courage to do what is right.

[Amaryllis]

104. Thank you so much for noticing the point of the post! I felt it was

really important information and was quite disappointed when it degenerated into another personal attack thread, having nothing to do with what I thought was a very clear point I was trying to make: That there are effective and ineffective ways to talk to senators, and if they are giving these arguements, it means we need to reframe the way we talk to them. The Dean People have talked to quite a few senators and have develped these points based on their experience doing so.

I thought personal attacks were against DU rules, but then I am fairly new, so what do I know...

[GetTheRightVote]

91. I think that Senator Leahy is missing the point, it is us he needs to be

concerned with not who is or who is not President. This is about our right to vote and to have that vote counted correctly.

:kick:

[Ronbrynaert]

95. Say it ain't so, Leahy

Extremely disappointed with Senator Leahy...I thought he was our best option.

"Since Senator John Kerry has conceded, I have no
intention of contesting the results of the election."

John Kerry has nothing to do with this. This is about our election system which needs significant repair. It's not about proving who really won. An objection tomorrow will mean much to the work that needs to be done...no objections will force people like me to desert the Democratic Party in droves.

At the same time, objections tomorrow will only lead to a debate...because the Republicans control both houses.

Leahy's excuse is pathetic. And I hope he reconsiders. The clock is ticking.

[malatesta1137]

101. is this the loser Cheney cursed?

if so, now it's my turn:

Senator, GO FUCK YOURSELF.

[Peace Patriot]

105. You're absolutely right, malatesta1137...

...on both counts. I often don't agree with you. I do on this. It's "separate the wheat from the chaff" time. Much as I fear a Germany 1933 situation (fracturing of the Left), the Dems must contest this fraudulent and invalid election. If the Left had done the same in Germany--if it had stuck to FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, like those at issue here-- the right of black citizens to vote, and election transparency (as opposed to BushCons owning and controlling the election system with SECRET source code tabulating all our votes, and no paper trail), Hitler would have had less pliable ground in which to OVERTURN German democracy.