First Hand Account:Dem Senators "Receptive" [View All]

thought all should read this first hand diary of some activists going to various dem senators' offices the other day. many seem receptive, but others really want more "proof." my personal feeling-you may not get "smoking guns" unless you contest and launch an investigation. hell, if they (congress) can hunt bill clinton down for 8 yrs over an affair, whitewater, why on earth cant the dems challenge this? goodness...
art

A report from Washington: Seeking Senate support of the challenge
http://www.usvip.org/article.asp?id=83&bc=6
Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:39:24 -0500 Today seven of us went to Washington to meet with staffers in Senator Sarbanes' office. I felt it was a good meeting, and each of us had something worthwhile to contribute. I hope the staffers felt as I did that we represented people with different backgrounds coming together on this vital issue, each with our own perspective and our own reasons for caring so deeply. I felt that we had a good grasp of the issues involved and were also able to present the realities of grass roots activism, the contact with people who feel disenfranchised and the need to assuage their fear and ours that individual votes might not count anymore.

Two of Sarbanes's Staff met with us, Kima, who is a pediatrician, and Ryan, who seemed very aware of this problem and sympathetic to our concerns.

We emphasized how important we feel it is that Senator Sarbanes stand up for us and challenge the certification of the election, a step which would open some chance for all this to be looked into. Jay and Lynn spoke eloquently of needing to be true to those people whom they had assured that their votes would count. Tim mentioned that people who've given their all for a cause can't continue working for that cause unless their leaders support them. Jim made the point that Senator Sarbanes is largely responsible for the Sarbanes Oxley bill, which protects stockholders in their transactions in a way in which voters are not protected by the law. Kima responded to that that that legislation was passed under Democratic leadership. Steve stated that 10-15 Senators would be ready to challenge if one would lead the way. Sherri argued persuasively that we who have worked so hard, gone to various states, etc., need to see our leadership standing up for us.

All of us pointed out the various anomalies and cover-ups that have occurred, the fact that we cannot trust the official vote count in Ohio and that that fact is undermining our democracy and our faith in it. Both in the meeting and in getting the appointment for it and later in other offices, I quoted Chris' account of covering up the stray pencil marks in Ohio to make the hand and machine counts agree, and being able to say that I know someone who directly witnessed these things and can attest to them seems to make an impression. We were proud to present the excellent package of information that Sherri had put together. I wish that you all could have seen her binders, with a cover showing our group name, a list of contents, all paginated and very professionally presented.

Coordinating with the cover were the calling cards she had prepared for us, and these were very good to have to hand out as we introduced ourselves and to return when staffers gave us theirs. Steve added a very interesting map about types of voting machines used in different districts nationwide and a great deal of experience at this kind of thing. He made a good case for holding a forensic investigation of the machines and the software and explained that this is entirely possible even this late IF a Senator will make the challenge to let investigation happen. He further pointed out that a challenge would not mean we were without a president. Things would continue as they are while an investigation took place.

We feel that we presented our cause well and that we were listened to carefully by the staffers, who asked good questions and were very supportive in their comments. We believe that our position will be passed on accurately and sympathetically to Senator Sarbanes.

Sherri had prepared two more complete binders for us to use during the meeting, and I had made five more copies of a part of the package, and Sherri, Jim and I decided to visit other senatorial offices to see who would talk to us. We began with a list of possibly sympathetic Democratic Senators, then added one more because his door was open, on this day when so many offices were closed for the holidays. That one may actually have been our next best contact after our own Senator. As we passed the office of Senator Harry Reid, we decided to stop in since he is the new Senate Minority Leader, and we found his staff very willing to talk with us and to pass on both one of Sherri's binders of our information and our comments to the appropriate staffers and the Senator when they return next week.

We were also able to put our case to staffers and leave information in the offices of Senators Biden (Del.), Feingold (WI), Feinstein (CA) and Kennedy (MA). Senator Biden's staff people were very nice and interested and shared with us that all Democratic Senators will caucus on Tuesday, and would almost certainly discuss this as well as other vital questions. We found that a very interesting point, and we're all hoping they all get together and pore over some of Sherri's excellent binders. Senators Biden, Sarbanes and Reid now have them, and Senator Mikulski will by then. Senators Feingold and Feinstein's receptionists were pleasant and willing to pass along our information.

Only Senator Kennedy's office was rather negative about it, seeming to indicate that there was no point in challenging, and doing so could cause Democrats to lose political clout, to which we asked, "what clout?"

Interestingly, while one staffer spoke to us, we could hear the one behind him fielding a call from someone asking the same thing and recording their comment. We left our last copy there, started to walk out, then realized we were three buildings away from where we'd started and weren't sure of the shortest way back, stepped back in to ask, and heard the one who'd been on the phone saying something about wondering whether he should let people like that know that Senator Feinstein is the best bet. We were glad we'd left her info too.

We'd also put the small version under the doors of Senator Boxer, whom we'd heard was the strongest possibility, and Senator Murray (WA).

A shocking thing to us was that as we went from office to office discussing the anomalies in the election, no one argued or seemed shocked or defended the 2004 election. Although all didn't necessarily state agreement with us, none challenged the idea that inappropriate and illegal things had happened. The question was about proof and the ability to produce it and prevail, rather than about whether bad things had happened.

Happy New Year, folks. Keep hope alive!

Laurel