Anyone notice this one interesting thing?

[garybeck]

As of yet, Kerry has not done what Gore did, by asking the congress NOT to contest the election?

Sorry about all the double negatives, maybe a rephrase is called for.

in 2000, Gore asked Congress not to contest the election. That probably weighed in on some of the senators minds when they considered doing it.

This time around, as far as I can tell, Kerry has not commented about it. Me thinks his silence says more than words could say.

G

[Broken Acorn]

1. How do we know this?

Not trying to be doubtful, but none of us are really 'in the loop' when it comes to ties with Kerry.

[garybeck]

2. I guess we don't know for sure but I would think

that if Kerry was asking them not to contest the election, we would know about it. Don't you think all these Senators would be using it as an excuse when they say they're not going to?

[No Exit]

8. I think you're right.

There would be no point in Kerry's SECRETLY asking them all not to contest. Where's the gain for him? (Yeah, I like the guy and voted for him, but he IS a politician, after all.)

OTOH, if he were inclined to ask them not to contest, the only way I can see that being worth the bother to him would be if he made that request in a public way--as a sort of gesture of magnanimity and healing (barf), sort of the way Gore did it. (Not criticizing Gore--I wish he were president RIGHT NOW.)

[Verve]

5. Unfortunately, have to agree with you. We don't know what Kerry has told

the Senators. He may not have told them Not to contest the election, but he may not have Urged them to contest either.

Without enthusiasm from Kerry would you want to put your butt on the line?

I think our only hope is with a truly ethical Senator who cares more about the state of our Democracy than about politics. They'd be willing to put their balls on the line( or lack of balls because it will probably be a female Senator).

[Nothing Without Hope]

13. Why not just say "gonads"?

[Verve]

23. O.K. Gonads!

:hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. LOL! I don't know why all the metaphors have to have sex organs in them

...but that seems to be an immutable rule for political discourse around here. Perhaps we can retrain them all to say "gonads" instead of "balls." There are multiple major advantages to such a move:
1. It saves the wear and tear on the sensibilities of feminists like us, as it is equally feminine or masculine,
2. it packs more oomph than "ovaries," which feminist or not, is admittedly not a oomphy word somehow,
3. It conveys somewhat less of the ridiculous mental image of testicles, surely one of the sillier-looking parts of the human body, going (I was going to say "swinging") into warlike action

It's worth a try, anyway.
:D

[coreystone]

31. How about "intestinal fortitude" :-) eom

[Nothing Without Hope]

36. Like "courage," it just doesn't seem to catch on like sex organs

Which probably says something profound about our collective psychology, but I'm soooo not going there.

Thanks for the laughs, people!
:hi:

[LisaL]

3. He didn't ask them not to contest because

they have no intentions to contest.
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
Why ask someone not to do something when that someone has no intentions of doing it in the first place?

[bunny planet]

4. and you know this..........how?

[New Earth]

6. some people ARE psychic

[Peace Patriot]

11. Dear lizzy:

What is your inside information on this?

It seems much more likely to me that, a) John Conyers would not have formally announced the challenge and sent letters to all Senators if he did not have one who had already promised to do it (it is a stark replay of 2000 and everybody knows that- he is a Democrat after all--would he proceed with embarassing all the Democratic Senators in this way?--maybe, but not likely); and/or b) an appeal from the venerable House leader John Conyers would carry much weight especially with progressive Senators.

Given all this, it would be extremely LIKELY that, if John Kerry did NOT want a challenge, would have to say so, either privately or pubicly. Otherwise, there are many powerful reasons (the above, and others) for some Senators to do it.

[mousie]

7. according to one article....

"A chasm also seems to be opening between the Democratic base and the Democratic professionals in Washington over how to deal with today’s Republican-dominated government. With the Jan. 6 congressional session looming, many rank-and-file Democrats want to escalate the fight with Republicans over democracy in the United States, while the Democratic professionals seem ready to move on to other issues.

This division represents a political risk, too, for John Kerry. While his Washington advisers may have assured the senator that his future political “viability” is best protected by him playing the part of “good loser,” many Democrats want him to stand with members of the Congressional Black Caucus in demanding a full investigation of the Nov. 2 election even if he gets called a “sore loser” for doing so.

For many in the Democratic base, it may be Kerry’s last chance to show that he meant what he said when he challenged the Bush dirty tricksters to “bring it on.” "

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/010405.html

[No Exit]

10. Oh, I love that:

They say the "rank-and-file Democrats" are the ones who want to escalate the struggle, and they say the "Democratic professionals" are the ones who want to go on as things are.

And without a base, exactly WHAT are those vaunted "Democratic professionals" going to stand on??

[Pithy Cherub]

20. The hot air of ego props up a lot...

Icy blast coming from the base because this is a central premise of democracy. If the base remains unacknowledged during this contest, woe betide the 'professionals'. They will be restrategizing their resumes...

[No Exit]

34. You said it. Or would that be

"restrategerizing" their resumes?

[Eye_on_prize]

29. excellent article from what i read. .. hope Kerry reads this and reports

4 duty Thursday.

[Raksha]

37. Mousie, your article needs a small correction.

It says: "With the Jan. 6 congressional session looming, many rank-and-file Democrats want to escalate the fight with Republicans over democracy in the United States, while the Democratic professionals seem ready to move on to other issues."

It should say: "With the Jan. 6 congressional session looming, many rank-and-fle Democrats want to escalate the fight with Republicans over democracy in the United States, while the Democratic professionals want to roll over and play dead."

[Wilms]

9. Another very significant point.

Barely have seen it discussed on DU.

Extremely disappointed with the way subtleties are lost around here.

[Peace Patriot]

16. Wilms, if you mean fracturing of the progressive side...

...between the grass roots and the Dem Party leadership, I've discussed it a lot. I think the BushCons successfully achieved such a fracturing with their fraudulent election--not the main purpose of the fraud, of course, but a nice bit of frosting on the cake.

I've never seen such a powerful progressive coalition in all my life (44 years of political activism)--so powerful that it overcame all the disinformation of the BushCon Iron Curtain media, conducted a tremendously successful voter registration and GOTV campaign, and elected Kerry by a landslide.

We see a remnant of that work in the almost 60% of those polled STILL opposing the Iraq war, and Bush's approval ratings in the toilet (48%, utterly miserable, almost unprecedented for a recently "re-elected" president).

I am haunted by Germany 1933 and the fracturing of the Left. But if the Democrats continue to behave as they have in their visible actions and words since this election, I see no hope of holding that coalition together. But this might be good. I think there will be a huge defection to the Greens after Jan. 6, if the Dems don't mount a strong challenge. People can still vote for selective Dems in the future, but they really do need to be taught a lesson, if what appears to be true is true.

The silence of the Dem leaders right now is deafening. I hope it's strategy, but it takes some imagination (and a lot of hope) to read it that way. It just seems like the same old useless, cowardly party we've seen for four years--letting our very democracy slip away, and not even defending our right to vote.

For me, it's neither an upper nor a downer. Of course I would LOVE for them to come through, and march en masse up to Cheney and slap the thing right in his face. I would weep for joy!

But if they don't, it won't be a big surprise, and at that point I think we really do have to move on and find some OTHER way to save democracy and our country.

[Wilms]

30. Thanks PeacePatriot

The lost subtlety was a reference to your comment in the "original" pointing out a difference between Gore's action in 2000 vs Kerry not taking that tack this time around.

Perhaps Kerry has folded, but a lot of the subtleties leave open a logical possibility that we're not the only underground movement with regard to the 2004 election.

And a lot of folks here don't seem to get it. They want Santa to bring them something or a seer to tell them of the future. That has disappointed me.

Thanks for your interesting posts.

[European Socialist]

33. wimpy dems

I'm supposed to get all exited about Conyers and Jesse. But to me these are leaders doing there jobs. AS for the rest of the dems-they have been handed the biggest scandal in US history and they hide in the bushes.

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. It's sad when we look to silence for encouragement

Kerry needs to take some steps, and if he travels out of the country to avoid the vote, I'm going to see that as a weaselly refusal to support Conyers that he didn't want to make face-to-face. Silence or no silence, if he doesn't participate in that vote, I am going to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I feel that Democracy is hanging by a thread in this country. On a much less important scale, my trust in Kerry is also hanging by a thread.

[FreeCajun]

14. I'd like to agree, but ...

this is all starting to sound like projection. It's something politicians do when they ask for your vote: create as much empty space around their ideas as possible to have YOU fill in the blanks. Oh, he means this, she means that, and soon they are elected. Just because he is quiet doesn't necessarily mean anything at all. I've lost a good bit of hopes here, too, and it hurts, and I wish something big and great would happen, but we will have the Repugs goose-stepping over some objections and a whole lot of rights violated. I foresee little good coming of this, but maybe that's just ME projecting.

[juajen]

32. Welcome to DU, FreeCajun

It's nice to see a neighbor on here. I would like the Louisiana contingent on here to get bigger. Are you going to New Orleans for the Jazz Funeral on the 20th?

[FreeCajun]

38. Unfortunately, no...

But I'll be wearing orange and spreading the word as best I can. Where from do you hail?

[Doctor O]

15. There is a difference this time around. Kerry did not fight the initial

results of the election like Gore. He conceded on the third of November. The opinions he expressed that there was no way he nor his campaign could see that enough votes were affected to overturn the election. Many leading democrats (including Clinton) and Kerry's spokespeople have publicly stated that shrub won fair and square.

He has not become directly involved in the court cases except with supporting motions.

One statement from Nelson's office stated that before he made up his mind he had a call into Kerry to discuss the challenge with him. Subsequently he came out and said he would not challenge. What did Kerry tell him?

Kerry left the country.

Are these Senators supposed to believe that with his public actions and public statements that he is sending them a privately coded message that he wants them to challenge?

If Kerry is not willing to put his career on the line, Why should they? And if their is a "Secret Plan" he is following it would have shown its face by now.

[seito]

17. Yes

John Kerry knows what when down. He intends to continue to fight this issue regardless of what happens on the 6th. For so many, this is the day that the world shall cease to exist, should not one senator step up. :wow:

This is going to be a long and hard fight. No matter what happens on the 6th, it will be long and hard, period. Change does not happen overnight. I have absolutely no problem with John Kerry being in Iraq. I am glad he is there. The troops need him there. It only helps our case, that he is over there, not over here playing "sore loser". THIS IS NOT ABOUT JOHN KERRY.

I Believe

[Blue_In_AK]

21. Seito, I always love your posts. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. I agree, Jan 6 is not the end, whatever happens

But it will be a blow if Kerry refuses to support Conyers' challenge on the 6th, even with a letter to read while he is traveling elsewhere.

That does not mean we wring our hands and give up. It means that we continue to fight to get the truth out and the country back on the path of law. That would have been true anyway.

So in that sense it ISN'T about Kerry: if he takes himself out of the fight against the 2004 fraud, then we have to go on without him. But it would be helpful in a lot of ways if he threw his influence and cash into the fight.

BTW, I'll miss the KO Brigade thread tonight, so I'll look forward to reading your posts along with the others when I check in later. It's great to be able to keep up even though I don't have cable!

We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot foresee. -- Marian Wright Edelman

[autorank]

18. Excellent observation!!!

[Not a Sheep]

19. This is just my opinion. I think Kerry doesn't want to.......

.....be here on the 6th and I think it's probably a smart thing.

Here's why: He would look silly (to some) if he was the only senator to stand and challenge. He would also look silly if he was there and did not challenge while others did. Afterall, if he was there and did not challenge that is saying he doesn't agree that there is a reason to challenge.

So being there, is a lose/lose situation for him. He's better off letting other's do the challenging.

[PATRICK]

27. Sounds lose/lose/lose/lose to me

Pretty nifty situation. The only way not to lose his remaining prestige is for someone to challenge and him not to rush in to quash it. But it does not look to be challenged at all which will be the greatest loss for America and more than a few "loses" for Kerry as well.

[Firespirit]

22. And it can't be explained by ignorance.

Kerry knows what's up.

I agree, he has NOT asked them not to contest, even though he knows what we're doing.

If he had, don't you think that we'd be hearing that in the responses from these people? But none of them have said it.

Not.

A.

One.


And all I can say is, he'd better KEEP his mouth shut on this point if he wants my support in the future. I don't expect him to tell anyone to contest, so he'd better not even mention the subject. This could be a way to get the mess investigated, and get some actual reform going, and if he's true to his word on wanting election reform, he should stay mute on the subject of the 6th.

[keepthemhonest]

24. that is a good

valid point. i have not heard him say that. thank you for pointing that out.

So what are the different theories of what is going to happen if they contest the election , then they go debate for a few hours.

Then the next step is? What are the different legit senarios people have heard

[m.standridge]

28. What about "if someone else will, I will, too?"

You know, Obama wasn't there in 2000.
He's relatively safe, and a member of the most directly-affected (though by no means, mind you, the only) group in the Ohio frauds.
Surely Obama is aware of how unhappy Jesse Jackson is with this.

If Kerry knew Obama would challenge, would he join, even by reading a letter while overseas?
I'm a bit disapppointed in some top Dems and Clinton giving up on the challenge. Do they really think they're immune to rigged elections?
Clinton, especially, is the kind of "new" figure in politics that can change rather abruptly, on relatively short notice, with little "teflon" coming off (among Clinton "gonad" and "ball" followers).

[AmerDem]

35. In the case of Nelson

from threads posted here yesterday. Nelson was very keen on the issue of voting fraud in Ohio. He was reviewing information from Conyers and said he would also contact John Kerry. A short time later people from his office said flatly he will not contest. Others said they were actually hung up on. I kind of put two and two together. If ya get my drift.

[roenyc]

39. i read this morning somewhere that Kerry

is best far away in Iraq while all this goes on. how would it look if a senator does contest and they turn to him for his opinion? he gets to stay out of it (saves face) not a sore loser. and lets everyone do the job of saving democracy (we hope)and then he can come back to help in the investigation. without the stigma of being john Kerry who screwed with GWBs election. know what i mean?

kind of makes sense.