Please clarify - was having only Boxer object part of a strategy?

[nmoliver]

From: Tim Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:14 AM

Subject: RE: Desperately needing clarification ASAP
Importance: High

Boxer signed the objection and 12 senators spoke out in support of her effort – this was how the democrats decided to move this forward…only one person can sign and they decided to speak out in support of her and not vote like the house but 12 not 6 senators spoke out.

Tubbs signed and 33 house members voted to support her!

Please tell your depressed organizers that this marked only the second time since 1877 (when the GOPs stole the election from Tilden, with the help of anti-Reconstruction southern Dems) that this law has been invoked, and both chambers have been forced to debate the election results...

(and the other time was literally about one Wallace elector only)

It was a great day!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:47 AM
Subject: Desperately needing clarification ASAP

Tim - There is a huge confusion out there. My understanding from our conversation Thursday late afternoon/early evening was that there was only one objector on record from both the house and senate. BUT everyone seems to read the House as having included many objectors and the Senate as being only Boxer. And yet, we were told at the Rally there were six senators signing onto the objection AND when we spoke you said there were thirteen or fourteen.

Were there more Senators as "on" the objection as there were a team of House members "on" the objection in the House? Or was it only Boxer? and only Stubbs?

This is urgent and we need to get the agreed upon interpretation out to all our lists, ASAP- Thanks, Grace

[Career Prole]

1. Dunno...but you might want to edit out the e-mail addresses.

:hi:

[Wilms]

2. A brilliant day.

What if a whole pile of Senators jumped on?

A pie fight.

And if just one signed on (and only one was neccesary)?

Then you have a debate where, in the case of the Senate, 12 members rise and give testimony that advances what we're doing.

Most of the naysayers don't realize the brilliance of this. They want Kerry now, or a pie fight now.

I'm glad they ain't in charge. Just wish they had their own forum because a lot of us are really sick of it.

It's been explained over and over, and it's not like they reject the theory...they don't even understand it.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. I interpret all speakers as being with her on election refrom, Dayton

had a good point about the dangers of both bodies launching actual challenges (as opposed to a symbolic challenge in one body). If Kerry had won Ohio with a close vote and the GOPers in Congress had decided to get pissy and claim Democrats voted twice they could have challenged the Ohio electors and overturned the election. Dayton didnt actually explain it in so many words, but I like the idea of the Senate doing a symbolic challenge unless it is going to actually affect the outcome----say it turns out that space aliens took over a state and replaced the electors and Congress finds out in the nick of time or something screwy like that.

[rfrrfrrfr]

4. don't understand what your talking about

Its a joint session of Congress. Both the House and the Senate are in attendance and for the challenge to be valid it has to be signed by at least 1 house representative and 1 Senate member.

You can't have a challenge in only one house. Both chambers are required by law to debate it for 2 hours which is what they did.