Based on the Kerry Newsweek article, why would any Senator come

[xultar]

forward on 1/06/05?

I don't think 1/06/05 is going to go our way. I think we need to prepare for that and look forward to showing our voices on 1/20. I'm thinking of flying up to DC to tell * to eff off! Then I'm gonna turn my back on him.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[xultar]

4. Ahem--Excuse me???? n/t

[cali]

2. What people will flock to tell you

is that it's not about standing up for Kerry, it's about standing up for democracy and the people. I've made my position clear in that I don't see a Senator refusing to certify as a step that advances electoral reform, and I've been given a fair amount of shit for that stance.

[iconoclastNYC]

5. I agree with those who flock and add

You will not get electoral reform if there is no issue raised. The refusal to certify would help get some traction on the issue.

The only reason HAVA happened is because of the fallout from 2000. If we want reform there has to be a big deal made of the Ohio sheniagans this go around.

I can understand the pessimism but we have to be positive if we want change.

[SueZhope]

7. excellent iconoclastNYC

now is the time, the senators must rise , much of this country has no idea about whats been going on.

The media can not ignore this one..this will bring attention and open up more discussion to the reform issue .

This needs to happen for progress and for democracy.

[electropop]

10. The reason HAVA happened

is that the GOP figured out ways to write it so it made cheating even easier and offered a fig leaf. For example, touchscreen voting is a HAVA innovation.

[pick_a_dilly]

20. yep ...

and correct me if i am wrong but the GOP used HAVA to place many more of the THUG paperless monsters throughout the land . . .

hava is / was no answer to the problem of CORPORATE CONTROL OF ELECTIONS.

[SicTransit]

13. You will not get electoral reform if there is an objection on Jan 6th

that is almost certain. As soon as there is an objection from a Representative and a Senator - *without* hard proof of fraud - that raises the stakes and makes it an *extremely* partisan issue. Any talk of electoral reform after that will be taken as a further attempt to undermine Bush's presidency, and, since Republicans are in the majority, they will simply not allow it.

So - if there is an objection by Rep+Sen on 6th, you can kiss goodbye to any chance of a Congressional investigation of the 2004 elections and to any chance of electoral reform any time soon.

But it will make everyone on DU feel warm and fuzzy. And that's a lot more important.

[bunny planet]

18. So Congressman Conyers must have sent you a copy of the letter and

packet with fraud information. Please share it's contents with us. We await your inside information with baited breath.

[Karenca]

21. yes.

i'de love to see where all this info is coming from :))

[SicTransit]

24. You *really* think that Conyers has hard proof of fraud?

Hey - all power to you. I myself think if he did have it, he'd be trumpeting it all over. Somehow I think you will be disappointed.

[bunny planet]

30. And you will be so fulfilled if I am disappointed. Happy New Year!

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Because this fucking biased piece of crap was from 11/11/04

Plus the writer had a clear agenda to create an image of Kerry has a poor, beaten, lonely old man.

Anyone who believes this crap is in for a big surprise. Bring 'em on.

[understandinglife]

11. Ditto (n/t)

[IndyPriest]

12. Ditto, ditto. n/t

[whometense]

14. Ditto ditto

n/t

[bunny planet]

19. Quadritto

[whometense]

22. LOL

can I up it to 5???

[zapped 1]

6. you need to think about this "news" story some more

no offence intended

[xultar]

8. Does this help you? - No offense taken, I should have remembered

that everyone hasn't heard of this article yet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...

[Wilms]

9. And may still haven't. The link seems broken.

Can you check it. Can you post more about it.

[k8conant]

15. Links...

requires registration:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=DU5QUNAN34E25QFIQMFSM5WAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2005/01/03/wkerry03.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=1766

Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6777696/site/newsweek/

[xultar]

16. Thanks so much for the links. Everyone was talking about it Sunday

I figured most knew about it.

:pals:

[xultar]

17. I apologize, it was all over the place Sunday, I just asumed everyone

knew what I was talking about.

[gkhouston]

23. 'cause it ain't about Kerry. It's about the voters!!! n/t

[musette_sf]

25. They held on to the article until THIS WEEK's issue

hmmmmmmm? Why would THAT be???

I won't cancel my subscription since it was a freebie, but when I start to get hammered with renewal offers, I will let them know why I will not renew, and tell them what bottom-feeding spineless scum they are.

[spooked911]

26. yes-- I believe the article was timed to undercut Kerry's attempt to fight

the rigged election.

I'm serious!

[musette_sf]

29. Yep, I'm serious too, it was timed for just that.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?????

[demo dutch]

32. Duh!!, Newsweek is published by the Washington Post

The CEO is Christopher M. Schroeder

[JoMama49]

27. But I thought this wasn't about Kerry, but about making sure

our elections are fair and honest?

[Niche]

28. F*ck Newsweek!

edit to include: the article is so biased. Stop letting them rewrite history. Do you guys remember HOW MANY PEOPLE in this country came out to see KERRY! We REMEMBER and so does Kerry. This article is sh*t.

P.S. Yes I do Wonder - Thanks for kick ass comment! Kerry is not a confused weak freaked out defeated guy! And TO FIGHT ELECTION THEFT IS MANDITORY WITH OR WITHOUT DEMS OR KERRY.

[demo dutch]

31. Yeah, that's really a good idea!, splinter the party some more and that

will really stamp out any future possibility of winning. Don't you get it! that's why the repugs beat us every time. They stick together no matter what!

[xultar]

35. I don't get where you're coming from. What I said has nothing to do

with not sticking together. :shrug:

[demo dutch]

36. Sorry posted to the wrong thread in error

[merh]

33. I am guessing some of them can read and know that the article

was written about an interview given on NOVEMBER 11, 2004. That was 2 months ago and a lot of evidence has come out!

My question is, why do DUer's insist on posting crap about this article. You have been tricked by Rove. How does that feel????

[MissWaverly]

34. What I told my senator, Barbara Mikulski

I told her that I had to wait in line for 2 hours in Baltimore, and I had trouble voting, in addition to my voter registration card, they wanted a photo ID, when I finally got in the voting booth, I punched the screen next to Kerry and box next to George Bush lit up 5 times, on the sixth time it finally lit up for Kerry. My sister says that my vote probably did not count because it was an overvote. I told Senator Mikulski, that it was lucky that the machine did not do that when I voted for her. That's what is going to happen in the future. Although Maryland is a blue state, it has a Republican Governor: Gov. No Slots!

[zann725]

37. That interview was 4 days POST-election...before anyone knew the scope

of Fraud, and irregularities. He stated after that, that he conceded so early because he was advised there were simply not enough votes to put him over the top in Ohio. THat was then. This is now. A lot has changed. A lot of people have joined forces (legal and grass roots).

Why is anyone giving any credence to an interview that old?! And why on earth would Newsweek publish such an old interview...particularly 4 days before Jan. 6...the day of reckoning.

Though the article clearly did its job. A lot of people are duly discouraged by it today. Though...however...not me!

Hang in there people! This is when they'll fight us the most!