The Repugs accused there was "no evidence presented," but...

[Ian David]

We have all seen pages and pages of evidence.

We have all seen pages and pages of graphs and charts.

We have pages and pages of sworn affidavits.

We have all seen at least a dozen photos and videotapes documenting fraud.

We have all seen these things.

And all of this stuff was in the hands of Conyers and others on the floor today.

So, why wasn't anyone standing in front of a projector with a powerpoint presentation?

Or with an easel and some posterboard like Ross Perot was famous for?

Could we have done this?

If not, why? And if not, how can they claim "no evidence" if this was not the propper forum to actually present the evidence?

And if we could have done this, why didn't we?

All I heard was testimony.

Our testimony was better. Their's was the same talking points over and over.

I think the closest thing to "presenting evidence" was Conyers saying the evidence was on his website or something.

My question:

Is this the best we could have done?

[thoughtanarchist]

1. grandstanding.

they'll say "no evidence" after being handed Conyers report full of evidence. What MSM pickes up:

"no evidence"

[FreakinDJ]

2. Rules of order

only 2 hrs alloted for debate

and who would second the motion for additional debate or much less a majority to approve it

[Dave Reynolds]

3. Repug rule #1

Repeat the lies enough, they become the truth.

[Webster Green]

4. Pretty close to the best we could have done....

I would have liked more Senators and Reps to vote to not certify, but the end result would be much the same.

I think it was a great day for dems. The repukes have spent the day defending torture and voter fraud and intimidation. They own the mess we are in, and it is just going to keep getting worse. Eventually, people will get fed up. Its like a hard-core addict having to hit rock bottom before any attempt at rehab will have a chance of working.

And....as someone posted in another thread, The challenge will go into the history books as the first in over 100 years. Two dubious "wins" for the lying little war-chimp.

[Al-CIAda]

5. The list of Conyers' findings should have been read aloud.

They each could have taken an instance and detailed it. The lazy corporate media isn't even going to bother with the report, let alone the fascists.

[Ian David]

6. So the copies of Conyers' evidence was given to the repugs in advance?

Am I understanding that correctly?

If so, why didn't anyone say, "What do you mean "no evidence"? Yesterday I gave each of you a stack of evidence. Didn't you read it? For example, turn to page 12 in your packet right now and see..."

We did a damn better job than the repugs:

"The people need to have confidence in the electoral process. Therefore, we should not examine it to make sure it works." They repeated the same talking points over and over-- in both houses.

I know, because I watched-- as best I could-- both debates at the same time. Very few of them strayed very far from the same message the rest of them were repeating.

The Dems, on the other hand, seemed to have a more-coordinated effort. They made many of the same moral arguments, but many of them read from different parts of Conyers' report. It seemed that they had sat down and decided, "I'm going to read the part about the long lines in that polling place... you're going to read the part about Blackwell's stonewalling..."

There was still a lot of repetition, but Repugs need to hear things repeated and spoken slowly if they are to have any hope of understanding.

Still, I was expecting charts and graphs, photos and videos.

WE have all seen these things ad nauseum.

Yet all we saw on TV was testimony. No charts, graphs, photos or videos.

I am VERY disappointed that it did not go down that way. But perhaps if I understood more about the process, I wouldn't have been surprised.