Well It's Happening, The RPubs Are Talking About 08 Challenge

[righteous1]

This was a concern of mine as a lot of you know. Being that the "Pandoras Box" of electoral challenge has been opened, a likely 08 RPub majority in the House and Senate could cause problems if we win the presidency

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=5944

[Streetdoc270]

1. what majority...

I'm planning on Democratic big wins in '06 giving us the majority!

[brainshrub]

10. And how the heck is that going to happen if votes don't count?

The Reps now have a play-book on how to disenfranchise the Democrats.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. There is a good chance that we will have a Democratic Senate by....

2008! 53-55 seats. Even with a Rethug house, the GOP would have NO chance of overturning the election.

[righteous1]

8. I like your optimism but most folks on both sides of the aisle

say best case scenario barring huge GOP screw ups would be a couple Senator advatage for Rs. Too many red state Senate seats up for grabs

[PROGRESSIVE1]

13. How the HELL can the Democrats be losing seat in THREE....

elections now! That's the ENTIRE Senate!

[righteous1]

18. No, you misunderstand what I meant, we would pick up 3

[PROGRESSIVE1]

22. Thanks for the correction! Let's try for 51 in 06', but i'll....

take 50/50 even.

[merh]

19. Huge GOP screw up, hmmmmm

Do you think the outing of a CIA agent is one?
How about election theft?
How about paying journalists to promote their propoganda?

It will all come out!

[righteous1]

21. The first one happened before the election and you know the results

The second one is yet to be proven, and the third is a non starter unless Bush gets caught lying and covering up

[merh]

23. Ah, the first is carried into this term by virtue of the fact that the

idiot is still president.
The second will be proved.
The third has the media pissed as all hell (I don't know if they are jealous that they weren't paid or what). Even the likes of Scarborough and Buchanan are screaming for an investigation. After all, it was our f'ckin' tax dollars.

You seem to like to dismiss controversy that involves this admin. :shrug: I find that curious.

[righteous1]

25. I try and dismiss nothing, do try to be a realist as to the political

impact though

[merh]

27. I'm sorry, your thoughts (or is it just your post) seem incomplete.

You seem to be missing something.

[merh]

58. I am very realistic, you should try to be less condescending.

You have been dismissive of the weed's crimes, of the potential of the lawsuits that are pending in Ohio and, if I am not mistaken, you were dismissive of the Jan 6 debates. I think you doubted that any senator would stand with Conyers.

Do not try to portray yourself as the only person posting on this forum that is politically savvy. You are not.

My three (3) points have validity. The repuke party is the party that is imploding. The moderates and the old time members of the GOP hate the weed. They feel like he and his wing of the party are destroying the party and the nation. There is plenty of in fighting going on in the repug party. When all hell hits the fan, when the illegal activities are finally brought to light, the repukes will be struggling to survive.

[righteous1]

62. I am sorry you feel that way, my intent is neither to marginalize or

condescend. I do however have strong opinions on some of these issues and try and defend their validity as best I can

[cali]

55. I don't agree

While I don't see the dems attaining majority in 2006 or even 2008, I think we have an excellent chance of picking up seats in both the house and Senate. It's difficult to imagine that Iraq will be anything in but a continued disaster. This year, the voters gave the repubs the benefit of the doubt. They won't in upcoming elections. The anger over spilt blood and money will be a huge impetus for voters to go for dems. And there's other fruit that will be poisonously ripe by the next election, from NCLB to the payoff to big pharm, to reduced Pell Grants. Not to mention the anger of the religious rignt in 2008 should there not be significant inroads into abortion rights. The repubs have set themselves up for some disasterous losses.

[righteous1]

56. Cali I respect your opinion, but this time I must disagree.

One must assume Iraq is still going to be a mess for that to be valid, it could just as likely be a lot better. Elections go off acceptably, the Iraq Army takes on significant reponsibility and we start pulling out troops, these are all real possibilities within 2 years. Bush will get a big bump if that happens. The pell grant issue is below the radar for most and an issue much more dear to our hearts than many. And never make the mistake of attributing anything to the religious right. There are more issues sticking in there craw now than there were 6 months ago. Bush & Congress are going to need some fair sized screw ups and additionally some bad luck to change the balance of power.

[cali]

59. You're right. I assume Iraq will be a mess in 18

months. Tragically, I don't see that it can be anything but a mess. Sure a lot can happen in 18 months, but all we can do is extrapolate from the past, and doing that, it's safe to assume that Iraq is not going to be in good shape. We'll get some indication of that in 3 weeks. The Iraqi army is still a very, very weak vessel. There's no reason to believe that the insurgency will die down after the election. In fact, there're plenty of reasons to believe that
with the non-participation of the Sunnis, violence will increase.

The Pell grant issue may be a blip now, but as its effects start to be felt it may become emblematic of the administration's abdication of responsibility to the middle classes. The prescription drugs for seniors legislation is beyond piss poor, and seniors will react to it. In addition, I think there really is a built in and barely conscious dislike of one party rule in this country. Periods of one party rule can only be sustained if the party in power is achieving significant victoriies on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts.

In any case, we'll get an idea of whither we goest in less than 2 years.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. This is why three things are extraordinarily important.

1. A fair and transparent election process.

2. Wider margins of victory.

3. Having a majority in the house and senate.

The Pandora's Box was opened in 1877. Any historians know if there was retribution in following elections?

[righteous1]

7. Yes, but the difference this time was the members challenging

stated that there was no chance to change the result and that fraud "did not" occur (many of them at least). They used the challenge as a vehicle as the opposition could do in 08, only with a majority it could be effective

[BattyDem]

9. Oh, I'd love to see that ...

No evidence of fraud, no justifiable reason, yet a Republican Congress would overturn the results of an election simply because their guy didn't win? Even the most brain-dead sheeple would wake up after a move like that. The revolution would begin on January 7th, 2009!

On edit: The fact that they are talking about this now, proves how childish and petty they actually are. It also proves that they have no respect for democracy or the rule of law. I hope the Dems keep track of these threats so if the Repugs do challenge in 2008, these early threats can be used to discredit them.

[righteous1]

11. You need to realize we would have to be squeeky clean in the election

Election fraud is not exclusive to the opposition as much as we would like to believe ourselves angels

[BattyDem]

16. I understand that ...

but do you honestly believe Americans would allow a Presidential election to be overturned by Congress if extensive fraud was not PROVEN in court? That's the reason the Dems didn't vote to challenge the electors - they have lots of evidence, but nothing has been proven yet.

Besides, the fact that they are talking about it now, discredits any challenge they may make in the 2008 election.

[righteous1]

17. I don't know if proving massive fraud is neccessary. Just bringing

enough question to the reults combined with the power to do something about it could be a poisonous mix

[BattyDem]

24. I honestly don't think Americans would stand for Congress ...

overturning a Presidential election without substantial proof of wrongdoing. Maybe I'm naive, but I think that would be the last straw for the sheeple and they would finally realize the fascism of the GOP.

[bemis12]

30. Well many,

perhaps even most, in here supported overturning the last election in Congress. Are they not even as smart as "brain-dead sheeple"?

[BattyDem]

38. Of course we supported it ...

we've seen the evidence and we're far more educated on the situation than most people. But ... since that evidence hasn't been used to prove the case in court, there was no way the Dems would vote to overturn the election. The vast majority of Americans are not going to support any Congress overturning a Presidential election without substantial proof of fraud. Conyers 120 page report is terrific, but unless the case is proven in court, the masses won't accept it - and it doesn't matter if it's a Democratic challenge or a Republican challenge.

There are certain issues that will cause the sheeple to stop blindly following the GOP - the draft is one of them. I suspect that overturning Roe v. Wade is another. Reversing election results for partisan reasons is a third. We're used to dealing with the far right, but middle America actually does believe in Democracy and fair elections. If they knew the truth about 2000 and 2004 - if the case could be PROVEN - their attitudes would be very different; the apathy would end.

As I said in another post, maybe I'm being naive. In any case, I honestly believe the only thing stopping the American people from rising up is the fact that they haven't got a clue. That's why we need to educate people about the bias of the media ... but that's a discussion for another thread. :-)

JMHO

[happyjack27]

4. yahoo news voting

Yahoo news, how did this get 206 votes an only 1.03? I think repubs have an effort to vote on these.

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=511&ncid=696&e=2&u=/ap/20050108/ap_on_el_gu/ohio_election_chief>

please vote the news item on kenneth blackwell up, and the one above it down.

[creeksneakers2]

5. I agree with you

The Republicans started this in Florida. They declared that if a recount would have made Gore the winner, the GOP Florida legislature would still certify Bush's electors. They have the power to do that under the constitution. Now the Dems have done this kind of thing too. Its opened a big can of worms.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. The Republicans opened the can of worms in December 2000!

They were the scumbags who said that THEY WOULD NOT CERTIFY ANY VOTE THAT GAVE AL GORE THE STATE'S 27 ELECTORAL VOTES!

[davidgmills]

15. They were the one's who went to the Supreme Court -- n/t

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

12. Good Lord, that site cited in your link is

almost as bad as Free Republic.

I have to go take a shower....

[righteous1]

20. You want to see the manure field you gots to tiptoe thru a few cowpies

[Wilms]

14. No worries.

Let 'em try that.

[buddysmellgood]

61. I agree. It's one thing to deny, deny, deny. Let them try making the case.

Look at Wasington State. They have nothing...well they have the media and that is a problem. But they can't make the case unless they lie about that too.

[spooked911]

26. Aww, screw them. They're gonna be SO hurting in '08.

[WilliamPitt]

28. I don't understand the logic here

It strikes me as a catch 22.

It's a bad idea to make an electoral challenge when an election has obvious flaws, because the precedent could be used by the opposition...

...but then we have no recourse when an election is demonstrably flawed.

Cognitive dissonance, and a sure-fire losing strategy.

Here's the deal: If we had won in 2000 or 2004, they would have DEFINITELY challened the electoral votes. We are not giving them any ideas; they just haven't had to use them. All that high righteous talk from the GOP on Thursday would have been turned on its ear.

[righteous1]

41. A challenge in 2000 made a lot more sense then it does this time

You had a 530 odd vote difference with a court making the final decision. Not to mention the "loser" having a 350000 popular vote margin. You also had Senate control. This time you had 118000 vote margin in the important state and a 3 mil popular vote margin nationally. Congress in solid GOP control and not strong enough evidence to convince the contestors let alone the American peoplethere was fraud. It was an excercise in futility that gained nothing and potentially was damaging

[smartvoter]

29. False logic -- Damned if you do; Damned if you don't.

If we don't fix the election problems, they're going to win anyway. Think about it. By your logic, we accept false elections or else they'll challenge our legitimate ones. It's lose/lose.

[righteous1]

31. That's neither what I said or meant. I was against the contest

without having clear and convincing evidence. Everything should be done to uncover evidence of fraud and and election problems and then take it to the people. I think the contest was a "stunt" that gained us little and may have actually hurt the cause. For crying out loud most of the contestors said there was no fraud. Timing is everything and this was a half cocked effort IMHO

[smartvoter]

34. We see it differently. It would have been a stunt if the system was

working, but when laws are broken in 86 of 88 counties, and the clock is deliberately dragged out so that whatever is uncovered won't be found out until it's too late to make a change, your ONLY OPTION is to make a stand. Otherwise, you're just rolling over.

I respect your opinion and don't want to this to be misinterpreted as a closed mind. I personally did not plan to go to D.C. to protest until the recount games began. I just don't see where we had any choice in the matter.

[righteous1]

37. To me a more potentially more impactful excercise would be

a complete hand recount in Ohio including the undervotes as was done in Fla 1000

[bemis12]

40. I hope that happens...

... one would think it would settle this once and for all.

If John Conyers and Keith Olbermann personally recounted each and every vote by hand and it confrimed a Bush victory, do you suppose the talk of election fraud would be diminished at all?

[righteous1]

42. Probably not, because the charges of machine rigging and electronic

vote alteration would not be dispelled, but it would be a start

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

35. Righteous1, you keep saying "clear and convincing evidence".

I'm assuming you have read the Judiciary Committee Staff report that Rep. Conyers referred to on Thursday. Don't you think that some of these allegations need to be investigated?

Please don't get me wrong, I realize both parties engage in less than legal election "activities". After all I live in Illinois and have heard of many sheningans that have occured here while voting since 1972.

Do you, in your heart of hearts, honestly think that if Cong. Tubbs-Jones and Senator Boxer hadn't put themselves in the line of fire on Thursday that the Republican controlled House and Senate would even begin to look into what happened in Ohio?

If these allegations aren't investigated in a fair and bi-partisan manner by both the House and Senate, how will the American public ever get any "clear and convincing" evidence whether the vote in Ohio and many other states as well on November 2, 2004 was fair?

My take on all of this is this: it's time both parties feet were held to the fire. Investigate every allegation of "fraud" or whatever whether or not it occured in a "red" state or a "blue" state.

I would also ask you, what do you think of Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. resolution for an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the individual right to vote as a federal right, not a states right?

[righteous1]

36. I simply don't feel that the contest made significant election

reform any more probable

[righteous1]

45. Great concept, but I seriously doubt it's realistic. We have been

moving toward greater states rights and less Federal government control since early into the first Clinton term. Really don't see a majority of the pop approving of taking a major state reponsibility away and giving it to the Fed. Going to have to be baby steps. Paper trail most important first step IMHO

[Vektor]

32. One thing at a time! Let's win the presidency first!!

That would be wonderful.

[Snivi Yllom]

33. exactly what I was worried about

The genie is out of the bottle.

And is the top news story in the MSM election reform?

No.

It's Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston.

[mattclearing]

39. There's a big difference between a symbolic effort and changing

the result of an election.

Let them change the outcome of another election.

The last two elections have proven to us that they will try to do it anyway.

I think we did the right thing.

[thanatonautos]

43. This is silliness.

The basic problem cited is one that Democrats currently
face anyway, in every area: Republicans control both
Houses of Congress.

Could anyone seriously argue that Democrats
should therefore refrain from opposing Republicans,
on various legislative initiatives, for fear that
there may be retribution?

Sure, a Republican challenge to a close
election is a possibility, but it has always been a
possibility. The law and the constitution do
allow for such challenges, and the Republican
party is as well aware of the law as is the Democratic
party.

If you posit that Republicans would vote to support
a challenge to a winning Democratic Presidential
candidate in a close election, irrespective of the
merits of the case, then you surely cannot draw the
conclusion that Democratic actions in the current
election make such an eventuality any more probable.

The reasoning here is inconsistent, at least as it
seems to me.

[righteous1]

44. Why do you think that Frist is so hesitant to impliment the so called

"nuclear" option concerning judicial nominees? It's because once he does it's precedent. If we get contol of the Senate then we can do the same and he is not prepared to make the change allowing that to happen. It works for them now but it sure could work against them in the future. It's the same principal here

[thanatonautos]

46. Two possible reasons ...

(1) I think Frist knows that the votes are not yet available
in his own caucus to succeed in changing the filibuster rules.
He could change the filibuster rules by getting a ruling from
the chair (Cheney, or whoever is President pro tem at the
time.) Then all he needs is a majority vote to overrule the
inevitable Democratic objection to the rule change.

(2) Even if reason (1) is false or nearly so, I think
Frist probably reasons it is much more effective to
talk about the `nuclear' option, and use it
as a threat to hold over the Democrats heads. Democrats
probably do not have a completely clear idea of the
situation in the Republican caucus.

In other words, the object of talking about it is
intimidation of the Democratic leadership. Democrats
should not bow to such intimidation, in either case.

[thanatonautos]

49. Also remember that the Repubs are getting most of their Judicial

nominees through in any case, and that despite the
overheated rhetoric, Frist is well aware of that.

[righteous1]

50. The second thought you propose may be right although it just about

as easy to invoke it as it is to threaten it assuming the votes are there. I believe they are. I read an article a few weeks back , I believe it was in the Weekly Standard but could have been the Nation I can't remember, at any rate they thought that the only votes likely against on the R side would Chafee, Snowe, and potentially Hagel, and Grassley. Spectre wouldn't cause he wants to keep his judiciary post

[thanatonautos]

51. Sounds like an interesting article ... I don't know how the votes would

actually stack up, clearly, though the reasoning about Specter
may be correct. But it strikes me that there are some cases
in which actually grabbing for power, even if you can, is a
worse option than threatening to grab for power. If they
actually do it, it's such a clear symbol of contempt for
the opposition that the likely result is probably going to
be to galvanize and unify them.

It might be better to divide the opposition, and keep them
guessing, at least until they really do have a filibuster
proof majority. (Heavens forfend.)

[righteous1]

54. Well I agree with you completely on that. I believe the contest

was akin to the "nuclear" option although certainly not to that degree. If they would have "had the goods" and could have made a good faith presentation of same, win or lose I would have been behind it 100%. But it was usurping a very serious and important proceedure in half hearted political move having little practical affect. I believe after seeing the 2 hour debate the average American percieved it as a bit of grandstanding and we ended up with a net negative out of it. This is not even mentioning that if we ever do it again we have raised the bar on what needs to be presented in order to be taken seriously. In other words we spent political capital and got nothing in return

[thanatonautos]

57. I don't think it was akin to the `nuclear' option precisely because it was

as you say, `half-hearted.'

In fact, that's the central point. If the goods are
available, paradoxically, the bar to making a challenge
becomes even higher. A challenge in that case would be
a power grab, whether justified or not, and you can be
quite sure, it would be opposed with all possible force.
It's not to say I wouldn't have supported that, but I
would recognize going in that the risks were far higher.

As it is, I think that Barbara Boxer actually stated
the reasons why using the rules in the way they were
used was a correct thing to do. It was shameful and
a mistake to let the Congressional Black Caucus
be silenced over disenfranchisement of minority
voters. That they did speak up this time is, in
my view, an embarrassment to the Republican majority ...
I think that's clear enough from many of the
responses. I think it should have happened last
time around. I saw the electoral vote count in 2000
on CSPAN, long before M. Moore ever publicized it,
and it enraged me at the time that no one let their
objections be aired. I think it was symptomatic
of the Democratic party at that time ... they
were certainly not willing enough to oppose Bush,
and were far too solicitous of him both before
and after September 11.

I don't see what happened as an abuse of the rules by
the way, as it isn't entirely clear what the uses of
the rules should be ... for example, it's possible to
make just the same argument about what happened in 1969,
when the vote of the faithless elector from North Carolina
was challenged, even though, had it been decided he could
not cast his vote for Wallace instead of Nixon, it would
not have changed the outcome.

The bottom line for me is that there was a real basis
for challenging the electors from Ohio ... there is
a question as to whether the electoral votes were
lawfully and regularly given, because of the question
of voter disenfranchisement.

It is perhaps only a symbolic act to formally challenge,
but I think the results of standing up for principles are
never entirely negative.

If the only cost turns out to be a little wounded
Republican pride, I don't think that is too much.

Anyway, time will tell which of us is right.

[righteous1]

63. That's where we disagree. Republicans don't seem to be the wounded ones

The editorials are come out now on this Sunaday morning and most are not good ie Sun Times, Manchester Union Leader, Trib. are are saying basically the same thing, the contest was an ineffective temper tantrum by Democratic fringers trying in desparation to create an alternative reality. This does not surpise me, This has gained us absolutely nothing other than some bad PR and possibly has given the Rs a bit of ammunition for 06. I think it was a bad move, and the more I hear of the aftermath the more I am convinced of it

[mattclearing]

48. These people don't care about precedent.

More likely is someone threatened him with damaging information, and they are scaling back their plans.

[sepia_steel]

47. Pffffffffffft

fuck these morons. I"m sure they're already waiting and planning. Let them try.

They're all going ot be HATED by 2008.

[IndyPriest]

52. I say: BRING IT ON!

The country is NOT worse off by challenging elections. It's part of the process. Let 'em contest 20 states. I'd LOVE that. Two hours apiece. THEN, by god, the country would be talking about election fraud, reform, and the whole ball of wax. That'd be TERRIFIC!

[Bouvet_Island]

53. This is why you have to have a transparent system

in place before 2008.

If it is possible to prove the election wasn´t hacked, the republicans will have a darn hard case. They will generally have to make it plausible the fraud was larger than the margin to pull a stunt like that, the same as conyers.

[Clark2008]

60. ROFLMAO

That site listed as a grassroots Dem site belongs to a friend of mine. :)

I just e-mailed him to tell him he's hit the "big time."