KERRY-Links-Retaking House to-BUSH IMPEACHMENT!!!

[kpete]

December 15, 2005
Kerry Links Retaking House To Bush Impeachment

MA. Sen. John Kerry said last night that if Dems retake the House, there's a "solid case" to bring "articles of impeachment" against President Bush for allegedly misleading the country about pre-war intelligence, according to several Dems who attended.

Kerry was speaking at a holiday party for alumni of his WH '04 bid.

About 100 campaign vets gathered at Finn McCool's bar in D.C. to hear him. In a short speech, Kerry praised Dems who were working on Senate and House campaigns, and then said, according to one listener: "If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." Another listener heard a slight variation: "If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

Kerry Comm. Dir. David Wade, in an email, said his boss was joking.
(Kpete: Not a joke to me!)
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/

[soleft]

1. Why is everything that comes out of Kerry's mouth that's good

is either a misquote or a joke?

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Who knows?

But the fact he mentioned the "i" word is great.

[LSK]

9. some of the funniest jokes are also the truth n/t

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

93. Because HE'S a joke

[ray of light]

117. ahahaha....but not at Kerry

[Media_Lies_Daily]

135. Gee...somebody might mistake you for a rightwinger.

[keta11]

2. He wants to be a centrist. The media "kills" leftists

and does not give them favorable coverage.

[ClassWarrior]

8. More reason for US to say the I-word loud and often!!

WE need to lay the groundwork so it becomes acceptable for our elected Dems to say it:

Visualize IMPEACHMENT.

NGU.

[AuntiBush]

81. We Should All Use the "I" Word During the Coming Holidays...

... then nudge you're fundie family and friends with a smile, and say something like "it's a joke - get it!?!"

Then, bust out laughing or something. Yeah, envision saying it, "Impeachment," with a big smile on you're face!

Sounds like a winner to me. Like making lite of a certain something then it won't seem so outrageous.

[rosesaylavee]

106. Sounds like fun to me!

:bounce:

[karynnj]

60. and Kerry got and gets such good coverage

other than 1971, I challange you to show me when Kerry was ever a media darling. He wasn't.

As to centrist, look at his votes this year and his statements. He was out there with an Iraq plan that called for us to be out in year and which immediately called for us to shift to less confontational positions, he was the Senator who wrote the letter last spring demanding the Intelligence report part 2 which mentioned the DSM (only 9 senators had the guts to sign it). If he's a centrist where are the Seantors to the left of him.

[stillcool]

87. It's not about who Kerry is and how he votes...

or the investigations he's done, or his continued unfaltering support of democratic ideals...NO...It's what Tweety etal says that is important. Like he's a flip-flopper, elitist, green-tea drinking, spineless, snow-boarding, Bonesman? Oh, and 2+2 now equals 5. Get on message!!!

[karynnj]

89. Well if Tweety said it

I guess I have to ignore what I saw with my own eyes where he connected beautifully with people at a rally in support of Corzine, and what my own hears heard from a person in my town who met Kerry when he walked to the ambulance she was taken to after she fainted. I also can't picture who a spine less person could snow-board or wind surf.

Now, why couldn't he do normal things - like when he went on 100+ mile charity bike rides, should he at least have had the grace to fall on his face like Bush did? I mean Bush managed to fall in much less than 100 miles. Also, why was he working on position papers and talking to people when at least one of his homes must have had Brush he could have cleared.

[eppur_se_muova]

125. HEY, watch it! There's nothing wrong with green tea!

Don't want to alienate that voting block.
:silly:

[BOSSHOG]

3. If I may dare correct the Senator

Regardless of who is in the majority there is a solid case right now for pursuing impeachment. Republicans won't do it because republicans hate America and hate the constitution and hate the truth.

[Nickster]

10. Right on the money Boss, right on the damn money.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Interesting.......sounds like the seeds are being sowed.

Someone needs to check Bush. The guy is making overtures on Iran and Syria. Republicans in Congress are too cowardly or co-opted to hold their boy-king accountable. The media is no friend to Kerry, Democrats, or us. I think JK is getting the message out even if it's not something that the present Republican rubberstamping majority will not ever consider as long as they control the committees.

[Bluerthanblue]

67. solid case, but not a snowballs chance in hell unless what he

says happens-

THAT is something to put some hope back into the future-

[Media_Lies_Daily]

136. Do you suppose it's remotely possible that Kerry understands that.....

...without a majority of Congress willing to pursue impeachment that there's not much reason to pursue it unless you want to get it defeated by the lock-step GOP?

[bigtree]

4. he was probably only half joking.

well, . . . we can dream . . .

[Walt Starr]

6. A vote for a Democrat is a vote to impeach!

I like it!

[kpete]

7. That's How I'm Thinking!!!

[loudsue]

15. Unfortunately, the spineless, "politically correct" Dems we have in

Washington would NEVER impeach bush....even if we had solid majorities in both houses.

They're just too "sweet" on trying to be popular with the republicans.

:kick::kick::kick:

[brainshrub]

23. Oh! That's good!

Great one.

[mattclearing]

37. Yeah...too bad only 42% of Americans support impeachment, and that's

only if it's proven that Bush manipulated intelligence. Without that, it drops to 32%.

If we make the '06 elections a referendum on impeachment, short of some astounding development receiving damning media coverage, we will lose.

[loyalsister]

42. Thanks for pointing that out

People don't want a bullshit impeachment. They want to see cold hard facts because we went through a bullshit impeachment in '98.
I happen to agree. I think there should be a verifiable smoking gun that demands it.

[pat_k]

52. 50% to 44% for Impeachment -- 57% to 35% misled

It's 50% to 44% open to Impeachment if he lied. link

57% Bush misled vs. 35% gave most accurate info. link

These numbers in the face of silence of our leaders are ASTOUNDING!

Congress can only determine the extent of Bush's crimes if they open an Impeachment inquiry. People are ready to hear the demand for an inquiry. If some brave member of Congress leads the charge, who knows how high the Impeachment numbers can go?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5605763&mesg_id=5606748

[mattclearing]

53. It's still incredibly risky.

I'd rather have a real war of ideas this year, not an up or down vote on keep him/dump him.

[pat_k]

55. I provide reasons it is risky NOT to in other posts -pat_k

You may want to check out my other responses in this thread (and this related thread) for some reasons it is risky NOT to take the lead on Impeachment.

[petgoat]

61. have a real war of ideas this year

What about a national referendum in 11/06 on a resolution of No Confidence
in Bush?

[pat_k]

63. Why "No Confidence" when we can demand punishment via Impeachment? n/t

[petgoat]

69. Why "No Confidence"

Because, as Rep. Murtha said "The public is way ahead of Congress and is thirsting for a new direction," and we can't trust the politicians to do what's right.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/051202/2005120227.html

I say let's have a national referendum on Bush's fitness to remain in office. If he loses,
he resigns. If he won't resign, he's impeached.

[pat_k]

74. As a step toward Impeachment, sure. Anything to promote "dangerously unfit

Any action that allows us to draw a bright line between "We the People" and this criminal administration is worthwhile.

If the goal is to remove from office, one way or the other, great. Given a choice, I prefer a straight path to punishment via Impeachment (akin to going for the indictment rather that plea bargaining).

Any action that serves to draw a bright line between Us (the nation) and Them (the usurpers) is OK by me. Step 1 in reversing the damage they have done is to assert our sovereignty and restore American legitimacy by punishing them for the crimes they have committed in our name.

We need to create the context that dovetails with the message "THEY Can't Win in Iraq" (And even if they could somehow pull a rabbit out of their hat, which would be a miraculous deviation from their history, their abuses and massive failures to date demand new management.)

More on this in second point of this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5605763&mesg_id=5607274

[mattclearing]

108. Yeah, but what if we lose?

Then it's two more years of a legitimized Bush, and a free pass to push a replacement crony in '08.

[eppur_se_muova]

126. If Bush** survives a close vote, it doesn't "legitimize" him.

Particularly if the vote is along party lines (duh). If he loses any significant votes from his own party, it's potentially crippling news. It would just show how thin his support has gotten, even among those whose fates are tied to his misadministration.

[mattclearing]

107. This election is going to be that anyway.

But like it or not, having the election be about impeachment is going to remind people of a government that did nothing but flog itself for a year, and it is likely to backfire. There are few ways I can think of that this election could go against Dems legitimately. This is one of them.

[pat_k]

115. They are sworn to take any risk to protect and defend our Constitu

See this reply

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5605763&mesg_id=5613053

[renate]

138. as long as " * deliberately misled the country" is only theoretical,

the numbers in favor of impeachment are going to be unrealistically low.

Once the deliberate manipulation of intelligence etc is proven, I'm sure the numbers will go way way up.

[eppur_se_muova]

71. Hell, I'll vote for anyone who votes to impeach. Don't care what party. nt

[rodeodance]

11. nominate

[Pirate Smile]

12. Here is the rest from the Hotlineblog

"Wade: "Is it really a story that, with a smile on his face and to ensuing laughter, at a Christmas party for his hardest working troops who are still working to win in 2006, a Democrat joked about why these diehard Democrats needed to keep dreaming of a Democratic Congress? Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Don Rumsfeld and as funny as Dick Cheney is gruff. Only the truly humorless would say bah humbug to the rarest of partisan red meat." Wade said Kerry often asks this question: "How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a President over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the Administration intentionally misled the country into war?" More Wade: "Good luck finding a Democrat in America who disagrees..."

But several in Kerry's audience said the comment made them uncomfortable, in part because they believed the press would discover what Kerry said and twist its context. In keeping with Kerry's wishes, several attendees, while acknowledging what he said, declined to comment when asked about the remarks.

Dem strategists know that many in their base might favor impeachment. But they do not want the party to appear hyper-partisan, especially when Cong. approval ratings struggle to reach 30 percent. Most Dem strategists believe that Americans would not stomach a second drawn-out, polarizing impeachment trial in the span of ten years. Others do not believe Bush deserves to be impeached. Dem leaders have cautioned colleagues not to use the word "impeachment" when speaking to base crowds. "

[blm]

20. So, it's the Dem strategists and "leaders" who don't want the word impeach

used?

Those "leaders" just wouldn't happen to be named Clinton and Carville, would they?

[saracat]

48. The same leaders who , like Shrum, have given us consistantly bad advice?

[Tom Joad]

21. Never use the word impeach... never use the word "crime" when talking

about Iraq (it was a "mistake", and "mismanaged")

same old tired bullshit. No real changes in store when the dems take over.

[eppur_se_muova]

73. ...when Cong. approval ratings struggle to reach 30 percent...

So letting the Repugs continue to run the country is going to get those numbers UP?!? :wtf:

[rodeodance]

13. Kick-for the troops

[zulchzulu]

16. Wooo fricking hooo!!!!!!

I've been hoping for this.

[oregonindy]

17. Kerry Comm. Dir. David Wade, in an email, said his boss was joking.

seems I got beat to hell when I made a joke a couple of days ago bout kerry denying he had an office when his assistant came out strong.

have to say I continue to feel justified for making my joke each time crap like this comes from the kerry camp whos motto seems to be "how fast can we take the wind out of the sails of something that was just said"

[ginnyinWI]

99. I think that was the plan from the start

Say it as a "joke" and get it out in the media, without having to take actual responsibility for it. Get the impeachment "meme" into people's heads.
He's playing the media--I should think he's had some experience with this before. I say he's being sly.

[Tom Joad]

18. Serious opposition to the Bush agenda has always been a joke for

Kerry. He voted to support giving Bush (!!??!!) the power to go to war.

[rosesaylavee]

70. He voted along with many others on both sides of the

aisle because of the information provided to Congress by the lying WH. He's already said that if he had had the full version of intel and knew that the *resident wasn't going to follow through on stop gaps and use was a last resort, he wouldn't have voted that way. And I think that opinion is common amongst the majority group who voted for giving Chimpy the powers to make that decision.

[mtnsnake]

19. Kerry better be careful

He's already setting himself up for another flip-flop by having his Comm. Dir. David Wade saying in an email that his boss was joking, according to that article.

He also should be remprimanded by Howard Dean if Democrats have indeed been warned not to bring up the impeachment subject yet, as the article also implies.

I think it's pathetic that Kerry feels he has the luxury to say one thing, and then back out on it later...under the guise that it was only a joke. Gimme a fricken break.

[karynnj]

31. Howard Dean is not in charge of the elected Democrats

First off, this whole article seems to be based on hear-say. I really don't understand the sentence that in accordance with Kerry's wishes, several acknowledged the comment but wouldn't comment on it. Saying or confirming Kerry said it would be the sensitive issue, not the staffers comments.

Seeing that Dean said in a POLISHED public speech that the war was unwinnable then retreated this is pretty hypocritical. This was an informal comment at a holiday party that was clearly off record. The context of the statement is unknown and is important. It is clearly not Kerry's position. (What is on the record was a comment in an official speech that addressed the hypocrisy of the Republicans in the house who voted articles of impeachment over Clinton's lying about sex but not Bush's misleading us into war.)

[pat_k]

45. The war is unwinnable as long as the incompetent criminals are in charge!

As long as they are in charge:

Our moral authority will continue be dismantled.

The view of Americans as incompetent imperialists among the Iraqi population will continue to grow.

The insane and immature reliance on the exercise of military might over diplomacy, economic leverage, and moral authority will create more "hot spot" threats across the globe.

As the American people continue to tolerate the illegitimate Bush regime, the belief that We the People are as insane as that regime will unite the world against us.

This regime has already LOST in Iraq. They have cocked things up so badly perhaps there is no way to salvage. But, we cannot rule out the possibility that a legitimate U.S., working in partnership with the international community on diplomatic, political, and economic fronts that support peace keeping and military efforts, can find a way out of the quagmire. Unless we restore legitimacy by Impeaching and removing the criminals, we'll never know.

[karynnj]

49. I pretty much agree - was just pointing out that Dean retreated

(for good reasons )

I still think the Kerry thing is premature:
-we don't know the context
-it was clearly off record and could have been him repeating someone else.
-it is not a press release, on tape, or from a public speech
-it's hard to believe people would BOTH refuse to comment AND acknowledge it was said. (which is what the report says) This is logically inconsistent.

[pat_k]

54. Need to replace "WE Can't Win" with "THEY Can't Win" + Impeachment demand

1) Regarding the second point:

It doesn't matter what Kerry said or meant, or what context the assertion was made (or not made).

The story is out there. We can use it to respond. We can use it to show him what the consequences of "distancing himself" from demands for Impeachment are, whoever makes those demands, or whenever they are made.

2) Regarding Dean's retreat:

I wish he hadn't retreated (because retreat is perceived as weakness), but I understand why he felt the need to retreat from the "We Can't Win" message. Unfortunately, the nature of his retreat indicates a failure to grasp the real problem with the statement.

The problem is not the "un-winnable" part, it is the "We" part. The most effective, and correct shift in the message is from "WE Can't Win" to "THEY Can't Win." (and even if they could somehow manage to pull a rabit out of a hat, their abuses and massive failure to date demand new management).

"They Can’t Win" is a message has strength and demands action: Impeachment.

Tragically, until they shift the message and get on the Impeachment stick, even Howard will continue to be trapped in muddled wimp-dom.

"They can't win" is the only escape from complicity with this regime. We the People (currently best represented by "We the Democrats") must separate ourselves from this regime. The only way to do that is through demands for Impeachment.

Drawing a bright line between "We the People" and regime that has been acting our name leads to:

A clarity that reflects reality.

A clarity that is simple and resonates.

A clarity that is powerful and right.

A clarity that allows us to shed the shame associated with the failures of the Bush regime.

A clarity that creates an emotional context that allows Americans to feel good about themselves.

A clarity that is attractive because it meets so many needs.

There is power in truth.

[karynnj]

57. No other politician has even used the word at all

My view is that Kerry's use of the sentence questioning why Republicans insisted on impeaching Clinton over lying about sex but don't see the need to impeach over misleading the country into war in a SENATE floor speech is actually stronger. If anything when the comments are made even in jest they gradually gain weight.

Does Bush deserve to be impeached - very likely. The problem is that just as Clinton said the American people knew about Monica before they re-elected him, Bush can say the same thing. (Both are slightly lying - I think we didn't know Monica was telling the truth and the DSM made it clearer Bush was lying.)

As to holding him to it - there's nothing to hold him to. He didn't call for impeachment hearings - he's not a member of the house where this is done. The house is different from the Senate - the Republican leadership can control the agenda and they won't consider impeachment. By 2007, when the new house is seated - the liklihood is that the party will be looking forward.

[karynnj]

58. No other politician has even used the word at all

My view is that Kerry's use of the sentence questioning why Republicans insisted on impeaching Clinton over lying about sex but don't see the need to impeach over misleading the country into war in a SENATE floor speech is actually stronger. If anything when the comments are made even in jest they gradually gain weight.

Does Bush deserve to be impeached - very likely. The problem is that just as Clinton said the American people knew about Monica before they re-elected him, Bush can say the same thing. (Both are slightly lying - I think we didn't know Monica was telling the truth and the DSM made it clearer Bush was lying.)

As to holding him to it - there's nothing to hold him to. He didn't call for impeachment hearings - he's not a member of the house where this is done. The house is different from the Senate - the Republican leadership can control the agenda and they won't consider impeachment. By 2007, when the new house is seated - the liklihood is that the party will be looking forward.

[pat_k]

62. Shouldn't stop us from pressuring Congress to lead on Impeachment.

Our belief that "no Dem will take the lead" must not stop us from pushing them to do so.

We need to let them know that we will not tolerate inaction because they believe "it will never happen in a Republican Congress" or "they will call us bad names".

The center/left has a terrible time with the notion that action is futile if the chances of success are low.

Sure, it may be unlikely for a Republican Congress to open an Impeachment inquiry (although I would argue against 0% chance).

What the center/left fails to get is that there is power in accusation and demands for punishment that is independent of the probability that the demanded punishment will ever happen.

It is not rational to refrain from action because you don't think it has a chance of success. The whole concept is circular. If you never just do something because it is right, you never test your power to make things happen.

In my other responses in this thread (and this related thread), I provide a number of additional reasons why leading the charge NOW is not just the right thing, it is the politically smart thing!

[karynnj]

90. They can't even get on the House agenda

It's not like the Senate. The house leadership controls it. They can't present it as a bill. Nothing The most they can do is hold unofficial hearing like Conyers did.

[pat_k]

105. So what? The fight for Impeachment has many fronts.

So what? Why would you let House Rules prevent you from calling on our leaders to LEAD? Calling on them to open a mouth?

It is not all about co-sponsoring ROIs, moving things through committee, and getting things on the calendar... Sure, those efforts are key too, but if resolution after resolution is killed, so what? Members of the House (and Senate for goodness sake) can still stand up and make the case for Impeachment in the court of public opinion. Candidates can accuse the regime of their crimes and demand punishment.

Whatever our leaders fear might happen to them if they stand up and fight for the truth is nothing when compared to the risks faced by the members of our armed services.

We expect our soldiers, sailors, and marines to risk life and limb to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. We should expect no less from our candidates and elected officials.

I just don't get this notion that we should sit on our hands because an effort may not be successful. With a little leadership, "Impeach Bush" numbers could rapidly go over 70%. Members of the House – even a Republican House -- would find it tough to block serious Resolutions of Inquiry when 70 or 80% of their constituents are calling for blood.

The people hell-bent on making it a crime for a frightened women to end a pregnancy have never allowed the futility of their effort stop them. Why is it that people on the center/left find it so tough to just get out there and fight their battles, come what may?

[petgoat]

127. If the Dems take Congress and the Senate in 2006

John Conyers will be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Nancy Pelosi will become
President if Bush and Cheney are impeached. (Maybe Bush will appoint a new unimpeachable Vice
President.)

pat_k, while you're agitating for Chimpeachment, you might want to work with this outfit on
their "Bush Step Down and Take Your Program With You!" campaign.

http://www.worldcantwait.org/

Your government, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.


They ran this statement in the NY Times on Monday http://worldcantwait.net/flier/nyt.pdf


Take a look at the endorsements:

ACT UP, New York City
Mumia Abu-Jamal, political prisoner, journalist
Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid, mosque of Islamic Brotherhood; Justice Committee, Majlis Ash-Shura, NY
Pam Africa,Move Organization and International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
After Downing Street Coalition
"Alberto Lovera" Bolivian Circle, New York
Aimee Allison, army conscientious objector (Gulf War
90)/counter-Recruiter
Tom Ammiano, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Aris Anagnos, Los Angeles
Anti-Flag
Carlos Arango, director of Casa Aztlan*
Edward Asner
Axis of Justice
Rosa Ayala, Justice for Janitors*
William Ayers, professor and author
Russell Banks, writer
Father Luis Barrios, Iglesia San Romero de Las
Americas, New York
Rev. Willie Barrow, Women Connecting*
Dave Berenson, Cleveland, OH, U.S. Green Party
Michael Berg, anti-war activist
Jessica Blank, writer, actor
Blase Bonpane, author
Bob Bossie, SCJ, 8th Day Center for Justice*
Elombe Brath, Patrice Lumumba Coalition, NYC
Carol Brightman, author, "Total Insecurity: The Myth of American Omnipotence"
Dennis Brutus
Gabriel Byrne, Actor
Campus Anti-War Network(CAN)
Tim Carpenter, Director, Progressive Democrats of America
Chicago ADAPT
Ward Churchill
Citizens For Legitimate Government
Kate Clinton, humorist
Clothing of American Mind
David Cobb, 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Code Pink: Women for Peace
Steve Colman, poet
Barry Crimmins, writer/
correspondent, Air America Radio
Culture Clash
Chris Daly, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
DC Anti-War Network
Democrats.com
Carl Dix, Revolutionary Communist Party
Dominican Women's Development Center, New York
Tom Duane, NY State Senator
Michael Eric Dyson, author, "Is Bill Cosby Right?"
Steve Earle, musician
Edwin Ellis, President of Veterans for Peace, LA*
Eve Ensler
Michelle Esrick, actress, poet, filmmaker
Donelle Estey, artist, Artists Against the War
Christian Ettinger, exec. prod. of film "The Weather Underground"
Jodie Evans, Code Pink
Nina Felshin, curator, writer
Rev. John Fife
Jane Fonda
Michael Franti, musician
Aaron Freeman, comdian
Samina Faheem Fundas, American Muslim Voice*
reg e. gaines, poet, playwright
Deborah Glick, NY State Assemblywoman
Global Justice and Peace Ministries, Riverside Church,
New York
Francis Goldin, literary agent
Sam Greenlee, poet
André Gregory, theater director
Andy Griggs, US Labor Against the War, Exec. Board of United Teachers of LA*
Jose Guerrero, artist and muralist, Chicago
Paul Haggis, Director/Writer of Crash, screenwriter of Million Dollar Baby
Haitian Coalition for Justice
Suheir Hammad, poet
Sam Hamill, Poets Against War
Kathleen Hanna, Le Tigre
David Harris, founder of The Resistance*, writer
Jon Hendricks, jazz singer/lyricist
Jon Hendricks, artist
Hermandad Mexicana
Warren M. Hern, MD, MPH, PhD, Director, Boulder Abortion Clinic
Hip Hop Caucus
Marie Howe, poet and writer
Impeach Bush Coalition
Mesha Monge Irizarry, Idriss StelleyFoundation
Islamic Association of America
Abdeen Jabara, past president, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee*
Ron Jacobs, writer
Alan Jones, Dean of Faculty at Pitzer College*
Bill T. Jones, dancer
Sarah Jones, poet and actor
Rickie Lee Jones, musician
Esther Kaplan, author of With God On Their Side
Casey Kasem
M. Ali Khan, American Muslim Council
C. Clark Kissinger
Frances Kissling, President, Catholics for a Free Choice*
Yuri Kochiyama
Ron Kovic, author, Vietnam Veteran
Jonathan Kozol
Joyce Kozloff, artist
Ray Laforest, organizer, DC 1707, AFSCME*; member, Pacifica National Board*
Beth Lamont
Martha Lavey, Chicago
Mark Leno, California Assemblyman


Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine
James Levin, co-director of Cleveland Festival of Arts & Technology (Ingenuity)
Simon Levy, director, "What I Heard About Iraq" at Fountain St. Theatre
Bruce Lincoln, professor, History of Religions, University of Chicago
Margarita Lopez, New York City Council Member
Haki R. Madhubuti, chairman, publisher, Third World Press
Gregory Maguire, author, "Wicked"
Make the Road by Walking, Bushwick, Brooklyn, NY
Lucinda Marshall, Founder Feminist Peace Network*
Bill Martin, philosopher
Allen Michann, owner, Grand Lake Theater, Oakland, CA
Ellen McLaughlin, actress and playwright
Camilo Mejia, conscientious objector
Dave Meserve, Arcata California city council member
Carol Migden, CA State Senator
Carly Miller, Clothing of the American Mind
Millions More Movement, Pittsburg /Antioch CA organizing committee
Bill Mitchell, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace*
Leon Mobley, musician
Tom Morello, Audioslave
Tracie Morris, poet
Andrew Muñana, Images Salón, East Los Angeles
National Lawyers Guild
Armando Navarro, chair and professor, Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside
Bill Nevins, teacher, Albuquerque
Not in Our Name
Mike and Julie Nussbaum
Efia Nwangaza, director, African American Institute for Policy Studies, Greenville, SC
Brian O'Leary, PhD., author, former astronaut
Bertell Ollman, prof. Dept. of Politics, NYU
R. Tomás Olmos, President, Mexican American Bar Foundation, Los Angeles County*, Dean Emeritus, People's College of Law*
Outernational
Ozomatli
Jose Padilla*, executive director, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA)
Grace Paley, writer
Patrick Henry Democratic Club
Rosalind Petchesky, prof., Hunter College & Grad. Center, CUNY
The Network in Solidarity with the People of the Philippines
Peter Phillips PhD, Project Censored, Sociology Dept Sonoma State University
Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter, Bulworth
Harold Pinter, Nobel Prize winning playwright
Frances Fox Piven
Sterling Plumpp, poet
Kevin Powell, writer
Progressive Democrats of America
Queers for Economic Justice
Jerry Quickley, poet and playwright
Malik Rahim, New Orleans Community Organizer
Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*
Reach Hip Hop Coalition
Raghava Reddy, stem cell biologist, biomedical scientist, film maker
Eric Resnick, Gay People's Chronicle* reporter, peace activist, one time candidate for US Congress
Allan Rich, screenwriter/actor
Boots Riley, The Coup
Walter Riley, lawyer
Douglas Rushkoff, author
Kalamu ya Salaam, Listen to the People
JD Samson, Le Tigre
Sonia Sanchez
Rev. Henry Sanders, Fountain of Life Missionary Baptist Church, Watts, CA
San Francisco Bayview Newspaper
Sapphire, poet, writer
Rinku Sen, Colorlines*
Richard Serra, artist
Lou Shaw, writer, creator of Quincy MD
Cindy Sheehan
Martin Sheen
Stanley Sheinbaum, economist, LA
Nancy Spero, artist
Dona Spring, Berkeley Council member
Sunsara Taylor, Revolution newspaper
Studs Terkel
Marianne Torres, Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane*
Dwight Trible, jazz vocalist
Gore Vidal, writer
Kurt Vonnegut
Alice Walker
Wavy Gravy
Leonard Weinglass, lawyer
Rev. Dave Weissbard, senior minister, The Unitarian Universalist Church, Rockford, IL
Cornel West, Princeton University
Rev. Phil Wheaton, Episcopal Co-pastor, Community of Christ, Washington DC
Saul Williams, poet
Standish E. Willis, National Conference of Black Lawyers
Krzysztof Wodiczko, artist
Ann Wright, former US diplomat, resigned in protest of Iraq war
Leland Y. Yee, Speaker pro Tem, California State Assembly
Juanita Young, courageous resister, leader in October 22nd Coalition*
Dave Zeiger, filmmaker, "Sir, No, Sir!"
Zephyr, graffiti artist, writer
Robert Zevin, Robert Brooke Zevin Associates, Inc.
Howard Zinn, historian, "A Peoples' History of the United States"
David Zirin, author, "What's My Name, Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States"

[pat_k]

130. Thanks for the reference to www.worldcantwait.org

Thanks for the reference. Don't know how they escaped my attention.

Conyers for speaker 2006! (then he'll be President Conyers when we've kicked Bush and Cheney's criminal butts out).

BTW, you might want to check out january6th.org, jan6points.html (draft talking points), and burden_of_proof.html

[petgoat]

140. Thanks for the reference to january6th.org

I was absolutely flabbergasted when Congress accepted the Ohio electors' votes.
I thought a bipartisan group would stand on principle and refuse those votes.
Since the election was clearly so flawed by the Bushites' major factual
misperceptions about the war, by the 35 million unverifiable votes, and the
dirty tricks in Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico I thought there would be wide spread
support for retaining Bush as Acting President until new elections could be held
in June.

Come January 6th I learned that there were no Republicans of principle, and damn
few Democrats of backbone.

[rman]

22. call me when they've figured out whether or not they're serious

[mimitabby]

36. yeah, right

[mtnsnake]

24. Amazing how anything Kerry says gets so many "greatest page" votes despite

it all of a sudden being nothing but a "joke" and he didn't really mean it seriously NOW. A flip flopper John Kerry is.

[rosesaylavee]

72. As this wasn't a formal event - a holiday party with

staffers, I can't think why this is being made a big deal about. As stated above, he did compare formerly, on the senate floor, the current *resident's lies with Clinton's with the obvious question begging to be asked as to why lying about sex was worse to these REpugs than lying about the war intel?

Speaking formally on the Senate floor was the stronger statement and the one "on the record."

Besides, I find it very hard to believe that Kerry is the **only** one making impeachment jokes in DC. So the media is going to start sneaking into parties and taking notes on private comments? I guess as they aren't up to reporting anything important like the economy is in the shitter, and the Katrina victims are cold and homeless still, and our armed service personnel are dying every day, or....

It's pretty silly when you think of it. Much ado about nothing, IMO.


edit for spelling, sheesh.

[second edition]

124. How can it be considered as such, when it was always said in

jest to begin with? It wasn't even suppose to be a statement. it was relayed as a joke at a party.

[pat_k]

25. Call Wade / Boyd -- Kerry is Now The Joke!

Arrgghhh.

Kerry Comm. Dir David Wade needs to hear from us. Loud and clear: "Don't back down. Put Impeachment front and center!"

If Kerry doesn't make a show of strength; if he doesn't accuse and demand punishment on the corrupt election and the criminal abuses of power, he will be a joke.

If he doesn't stand up, any mention of Kerry '08 will be met with guffaws of derisive laughter and cries of "What, that quitter? Just what we need, a guy that turned his back on democracy because he feared being calls a bad name!"

David Wade or April Boyd, 202-224-4159

Staff listed at http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/newmemberbio.cgi?member=MAJR&site=congressmerge

Chief of Staff: David McKean
Scheduler:Julie Wirkkala
Legislative Director: George Abar
Press Secretary: April Boyd

Impeachment NOW! See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5589990&mesg_id=5598231

[kpete]

26. My e-mail to Kerry

Supposedly, you joked the other day about taking back the house and impeaching Bush. I realize that your gut may urge you to take back these comments or trivialize them. Please listen to your heart. In your heart, you know what is best for this country.



"Action is my duty. Reward is not my concern"
M.Gandhi

[blm]

28. I think his gut and heart say impeach and the entire Dem powerstructure

wants to keep that talk shut down.

The Hotline article sez it's Dem strategists and leaders who cautioned against using that word.

[mattclearing]

32. See my post below about why...

It will turn the '06 elections into a referendum on impeachment. It strikes me as one of the only ways the Dems can blow this. The other would be to allow BBV fraud (again).

[pat_k]

43. Absolutely disagree

Standing up and demanding Impeachment would open flood gates of activism and energize people of principle in a way not seen in recent history. The demonstration of strength inherent in accusation and demands for punishment will pull in a surprising number of white males (who revel in punishment) from across the political spectrum. Impeachment is their only way out of the "muddled about Iraq" attacks that are already being mounted against against the Democratic leadership.

WRT the attack on Dems for being "muddled about Iraq" -- offering the Bush regime plans only supports the fantasy that the regime is legitimate and capable of anything but more damage. Supporting the fantasy is to be complicit with their crimes.

Impeaching Bush, and seeking to purge PNACons down the line for terrorizing the American people into a criminal attack on Iraq, criminal policy of torture, and criminal incompetence in the conduct of the criminal war is the only way America can restore its moral authority.

For goodness sake, polling already found that a majority of Americans believe Bush should be impeached if he lied us into war. Connect that with polls that show a majority of Americans believe he lied, what do you have? Built-in public support for a movement to open an Impeachment inquiry.

The effort to rally public demand for Impeachment will be strengthened by the parallel effort to break through the denial that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen. As we break through the denial, we expose the illegitimacy of the Bush regime. The truth demands action.
Impeachment NOW!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5604755&mesg_id=5605618

[mattclearing]

33. Bad idea.

Impeachment should not be mentioned until the Democrats have safely taken the House and Senate back.

THEN WE IMPEACH.

If the '06 elections become a referendum on Impeachment, we're screwed.

[pat_k]

41. Opps wrong link at the end...

Meant to link to this:

Impeachment NOW! See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5604755&mesg_id=5605618

[Dark]

27. Even if we were to impeach him, the Repubs would say we're doing it out of

revenge and not right.

[pat_k]

44. Being called "bad names" doesn't stop them. Why would we let it stop us?

When you are ACTUALLY RIGHT, it is insanity to let fear of being called "bad names" stop you! What stance could be more cowardly than that?

This irrational fear has immobilized the center/left for far too long.

Succumbing to this irrational fear is precisely why the Democrats are perceived a wimps.

Leading the charge for Impeachment is not just the RIGHT THING to do, it is the politically SMART THING to do!

Related:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5605763&mesg_id=5606748

[leeroysphitz]

29. He never said that... n/t

[pat_k]

56. Effective response doesn't depend on whether he said, or meant it . . .

As I noted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5605763&mesg_id=5607274

It doesn't matter what Kerry said or meant, or what context the assertion was made (or not made).

The story is out there. We can use it to respond. We can use it to show him what the consequences of "distancing himself" from demands for Impeachment are, whoever makes those demands, or whenever they are made.

And here's some contact info for response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5605763&mesg_id=5606138

[mattclearing]

30. Well, it's out of the bag now. Edit: STFU, Senator!

Kerry needs to stop telling people shit in confidence. It didn't work with Mark Crispin Miller, and didn't work here either.

Don't most Dems realize that if we retake the House, we can impeach?

By saying it outright, it makes the next election a referendum on impeachment. If the majority of Americans decides it doesn't want to go through the hassle of impeachment again, guess what: they will reject Dems for no reason other than to avoid a lengthy impeachment debate and possible trial.

And people complain about Dean's big mouth. :eyes:

[librarycard]

34. That should motivate a lot of Americans to get off ass & register to vote

[mattclearing]

35. Yeah, and alienate the middle that thinks Bush sucks, but not as

bad as President Cheney would.

[pat_k]

65. Impeachment of Bush is an indictment of all.

Impeachment of Bush is the avenue to take the regime down. As part of the Impeachment inquiry, the crimes of his co-conspirators are brought into the light of day, and can be used to bring criminal proceedings.

Electing Conyers as speaker of the House would put him third in the succession. As speaker, I have no doubt he would lead the fight. Remove Bush and Cheney, and Conyers is President.

In any case, who cares if Cheney survives? That's no reason to refrain from going after Bush and potentially bringing down (or rendering ineffective) that whole regime.

[mattclearing]

109. I don't care if Cheney survives politically.

In fact, best that he go down too. But that is not what elections are for. I say fight the election on Bush's extremism and win a decisive victory. Fighting it on impeachment is going to run the risk of overreaching and backfiring, and this election is too important for that.

Edit: If we win, then we can impeach. But why telegraph our punches?

[pat_k]

114. No risk they perceive can compare to what members of our armed services fa

Re: Impeachment runs the "risk of overreaching and backfiring"

Any risks they perceive -- ridicule, political suicide -- are nothing compared to what the members of our armed services face.

We expect our soldiers, sailors, and marines to risk life and limb to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. We should expect no less from our candidates and elected officials.

This regime has lied and terrorized the American people with their threats of a mushroom cloud. They've abused power in ways that are unprecedenced. Their failures have been criminal negligence and their actions have been just plain criminal.

Facing these facts demands action. No person sworn to protect and defend the Constitution really has a choice. Their duty demands they fight for the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Through our representatives, we must assert our authority as sovereigns to purge and punish.

Just as members of our armed services have a duty to protect and defend, they have a duty to do whatever it takes to restore the United States to legitimacy.






.

[mattclearing]

121. I agree in principle.

I think the main way that we differ is in the how to get there. I think opposing Bush and holding him accountable for everything he has done will be a great weapon in the upcoming elections. I just wonder if the I-word will shift the whole debate somewhere that is a harder sell.

[pat_k]

132. Your concern is a common one, but No Consequence = No Accountability

Your concern is a common one, but accountability for criminal acts cannot exist without a consequence (e.g., restitution or punishment). Trying to take some action short of Impeachment, is like failing to go to trial, even though you have more than enough evidence to convict a perpetrator of a colossal crime.

You are not alone in advocating half measures. Folks on the center/left are hesitant when it comes to accusation and punishment. We do reports. We investigate so we can prevent the crimes "next time," but when we fail to punish wrongs -- or even seek to do so -- our actions are weak and ineffective.

When we "look to the future" instead of demanding punishment for past wrongs, the reactionary right just chuckles and says:

"Whew! For a second there I thought they were actually going to DO something!"

[Initech]

38. Hypothetical situation

Say that we do in fact get to where we could impeach Bush for mishandling of pre-war intelligence and that trial fails. Could we still nail him and Cheney for voter fraud?

[kpete]

39. From Wonkette-Rush On Board

Kerry's Christmas Hush

Rush Limbaugh is making a fuss over a Hotline report that John Kerry tried to fire up his troops at a campaign reunion Christmas party by promising them an impeachment trial in their stocking: "If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." Spokeskid David Wade insists that Kerry was "joking," which surely must be the case as they held the festivities at a place called "Finn McCool's." I guess Drinky McLoser's was booked.

Right after cracking his "joke," Kerry hushed the staffers: "Don't tell anyone I said that." Whether he was afraid the appearance of jocularity would break his face or if he just didn't want word of the master plan to get out is unclear. One thing is for certain: These people still leak like an Irishman after happy hour. Remind me why the press didn't like him again?

http://www.wonkette.com/

[stepnw1f]

40. I Want to Hear and See It

Good on ya john.

[MissMarple]

46. Dem "strategists" need to get a backbone, put on their fighting faces.

"Dem strategists know that many in their base might favor impeachment. But they do not want the party to appear hyper-partisan, especially when Cong. approval ratings struggle to reach 30 percent. Most Dem strategists believe that Americans would not stomach a second drawn-out, polarizing impeachment trial in the span of ten years. Others do not believe Bush deserves to be impeached. Dem leaders have cautioned colleagues not to use the word "impeachment" when speaking to base crowds."

They don't want to appear hyper-partisan? They don't know how to fight back against mean mouthed Republicans and a complicit media, they should say. That is not an easy job, but it can be done. We need fighters, not weenies. They do need to get smart about this.

If George lied (he did and he does)impeachment needs to be seriously considered.
If we did this for the oil and the pipelines Rumsfeld tried to get in the 80's and was derailed by Saddam in the early 90's, then George may have committed treason. He put corporate interests above national interests.

[Generic Other]

47. Stakes are high

How many GOPers are on shaky grouns this election cycle? Can we get rid of them? I sure hope so.

[Generator]

50. Impeachment?

Hardy har har. That's a good one. Every REAL Dem is thinking/hoping/praying/ nashing their teeth for it anyway. Everyone knows it's not a joke. Everyone fears or believes it's nigh impossible. First congress. First this that and everything else. IT's not a joke. Except it's a joke (on us) dreamers, idealists, and real patriots until it can be made real.

[AntiFascist]

51. Now we're talking!

Kerry is starting to look better and better, if he was serious. I've always respected Kerry for the comment he made that time when he "thought" the microphone was off, about how "they are all criminals," or something to that effect.

Now if we can just prevent vote fraud in the upcoming elections.

[rosesaylavee]

75. Absolutely. I agree.

Not sure how we are going to prevent the voting fraud when its not acknowledged publically yet that it happened. The GAO report pretty much stated it but who read about that on the front page of WaPo or NYC?

Good that Diebold is going down - that may be the best thing to happen all year in my opinion.

[AntiFascist]

83. At least the Miami Herald has confirmed.....

that the Diebold voting machines can be hacked and has reported on it. Maybe there will start to be more MSM coverage.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/15/104444/79

[walldude]

59. Joke or not the case is more than solid

Hell, we take the house and Senate and Bush is done for. Expect to see alot of fishy election results.

[MellowOne]

64. Bush just admitted they messed up on intelligence

It's only a matter of time before manipulation is proven.

[pat_k]

66. Quitters 2008 !

Why Not? Ain't Like They're Gonna Count the Votes Anyway.

[LiberalUprising]

68. How true

:toast:

[karendc]

76. At the party last night

He was focused, comfortable, and enjoying himself.

He was serious about the need to work hard for 2006. He was looking ahead and he knew what people wanted him to say. Was he kidding? He winked when he said it.

Whoever rushed breathlessly to Wonkette to dish is challenged in reading affect or interested in developing a rich career as a gossip-monger.

That said, it's always good to let the Senator know what you'd like him to say or do. He does listen well.

I know.

[globalvillage]

79. Thank you, Karen.

Good to hear a first hand account.
Anyone who attends a staff party and then runs to gossip and misrepresent the host is a sad case,indeed.
And people who repeat spin that works against our common interests...well...'nuff said.
I'm glad the Senator had a good time at the party. Hope you did, too.

[LSK]

80. karendc can you start a fresh post on this?

This is most important to shutdown all the Kerry haters here and it is buried deep in this thread.

[karendc]

88. Hmmm

not sure HOW to start a thread! I am still new here.

I've read for a while, but just started posting.

Usually I blog at the Democracy Cell Project.

[LittleClarkie]

94. Actually, you may not be able to yet. But if you don't mind I will

I was thinking your perspective was important enough to warrant a new thread.

[LSK]

95. low post count might keep you from making a new threat

Please post in LittleClarkie's thread.

[LSK]

97. low post count might keep you from making a new threat

Please post in LittleClarkie's thread. Thanks.

[ultraist]

96. So Kerry didn't say this? Or he didn't want people to know he said it?

Your post sounds as though he did say it but didn't want it to be known publicly, but your post is not really clear on this.

"Whoever rushed breathlessly to Wonkette to dish..."

[rosesaylavee]

78. Disagree. They are not quitters. Just the opposite in fact.

I think - no I KNOW - that Gore and Kerry both won - and that there is growing evidence for both that the machines were tampered as well as voters were actually turned away at the polls.

Problem is getting the hard proof. Gore threw in the towel after a bitter fight over chads. And as Nov 3, the numbers presented to Kerry/Edwards didn't indicate that even with a fight, they would have a chance to win.

AutoRank has several posts on this - you may enjoy reading those threads. If you need links, let me know.

[pat_k]

84. It's not about winning. It's not their job to "throw in the towel."

They knew the Republican counts didn't match the polls (didn't reflect the will of the electorate).

Kerry via exit polls. Gore via simple extrapolation of uncounted votes by precinct.

They failed to do anything about it. All that was needed was to open a mouth. That would have been honorable. That would have been leadership. Instead, they became complicit.

And now they are asking us to go forward together in dishonesty? Sorry.

[rosesaylavee]

86. I am curious about what actions you feel that they

both could have pursued? I know that this is a sore point for many and it sounds like a difficult one for you personally. I don't want to rub salt in a wound, but I would like to discuss it if you are willing.

In 2000, according to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, Bush was declared a winner. In our system of law, I don't know of any recourse remaining to Gore to follow.

And, given the information coming from the vote counts after the 2004 election, the numbers didn't indicate - even with the possibility of voter fraud - that the questionable discarded or lost ballots for Kerry/Edwards would have won them Ohio. They do have a lawsuit pending on the vote there but I don't think it is due to come up in the courts until Spring.

[pat_k]

104. Tell the truth and give the fight for our Constitutional Democracy 100%

Both Gore and Kerry failed to fight for the only real stakeholders in an election: the voters.

Risking ridicule or sacrificing future political viability pales when compared to the risks faced by the members of our armed services. We expect our soldiers, sailors, and marines to risk life and limb to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. We should expect no less from our candidates and elected officials.

It was well-known that the appointment of the Bush electors in Florida in 2000 did not reflect the will of the voters. Even Republicans readily acknowledge that if all the votes in Florida were counted, Gore won, but they justify appointing the losing candidate's electors by adhering to a fascist and Un-American view of the law; a view that has no problem invoking legal technicality and the cynical misuse of our courts to trump reality.

Kerry was well aware of the innumerable problems with the elections in Ohio and Florida in 2004 (and New Mexico, and other states for that matter). Even if he had irrationally dismissed the massive disconnect between the exit polls and the official (o-fishy) tallies on November 3rd, by mid-November, it was clear that something was seriously amiss.

There is nothing binding about a concession. Elections belong to the people, not the candidates. As the truth became clear, Kerry had a duty to the people to stand up, withdraw his concession, and call on the election officials in Ohio to address the problems or risk having ANY slate of electors they might appoint rejected by Congress.

Both Gore and Kerry had a choice. Stand up for the principle of consent and assert the right of the people to have confidence in their elections, or crumble and be complicit with the perpetrators of fraud.

Even after every court decision (even SCOTUS) and the appointment of electors, both Kerry and Gore had a duty to stand up for the will of the people and open a mouth, tell the truth, and call on Congress to carry out its Constitutional duty to ensure the will of the people prevails.

On January 6th, when the members of the House and the Senate convene to count the electoral votes, it is more than a mere formality or ministerial responsibility; they have a positive duty to pass judgment on those votes. It is up to each member of Congress to independently judge whether the electors from each state have been lawfully appointed pursuant to an election that is a valid measure of consent.

The Supreme Court's Un-Constitutional intervention on December 12th, 2000 was a blatant attempt to usurp the role of Congress (aided and abetted by the pund-idiots and fascists who parroted the "highest court of the land” propaganda until the big lie became "conventional wisdom").

After December 12th, it was up to members of the House and Senate to save the nation from the irreparable breach of our Constitution. In fact, Justice Breyer instructed them on their duty in his dissent to Bush v. Gore

531 U. S. ____ (2000), Breyer, J., dissenting, Bush v. Gore (from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html - emphasis added)

The legislative history of the {Electoral Count} Act makes clear its intent to commit the power to resolve such disputes to Congress, rather than the courts:

"The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the count of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there is no other constitutional tribunal." H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President).

The Member of Congress who introduced the Act added:

"The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government. The interests of all the States in their relations to each other in the Federal Union demand that the ultimate tribunal to decide upon the election of President should be a constituent body, in which the States in their federal relationships and the people in their sovereign capacity should be represented." 18 Cong. Rec. 30 (1886).

Under the Constitution who else could decide? Who is nearer to the State in determining a question of vital importance to the whole union of States than the constituent body upon whom the Constitution has devolved the duty to count the vote?” Id., at 31.

To count "only legal votes" they MUST make a judgment.

To represent "the people in their sovereign capacity" the judgment must take into account the necessity for states to meet their obligation to conduct a fair election that instills confidence in the results. Disparate treatment of voters alone is sufficient to invalidate an election. (10 hour poll-tax lines for working class, poor, and minority voters and none for wealthy whites is an intolerable condition -- a clear violation of any rational "fair election" standard.)

They are Congress, not the Judiciary. They have a different role to play. They are the back stop to ensure that the intent of the law and the will of the electorate are carried out. It is their job to "preserve the government" – i.e., to preserve a government that has been instituted by We the People, and that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. They must rely on their own judgment and conscience to determine what constitutes a "regularly given" electoral vote and a "lawfully appointed" elector.

On January 6th, each Member of Congress must make an independent judgment -- a moral decision grounded in the intent, not the letter, of the law; a decision that upholds the principle of consent. The intent of our election laws is to ensure that election results reflect OUR will.

It is an absolute necessity that we have confidence that our elected officials have obtained our consent and therefore exercise legitimate authority.

Gore failed to stand and fight to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. Kerry failed to stand and fight to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. In 2000, with the exception of our heroes in the Congressional Black Caucus and handful of others, the members of the House and Senate failed to stand and fight to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. More of them joined the fight in 2004 (including one brave member of the Senate, Barbara Boxer), but tragically, a vast majority of the members remained complicit with the criminal breach of our founding principle.

[karynnj]

111. I understand where you are coming from and

from several speeches that Senator Kerry has made, he does too.

The problem is that nothing you list is proof that can stand in court. The best summary of what they found out in Ohio was the summary written by Cam Kerry. It boiled down to a long list of various things that were done to suppress the vote - some before the election like the SOS refusing all registrations on the wrong paper and many on election day. They also worked out how to deal with people not on the voting list - possibly at the wrong location.

The suppression of the vote by controlling the number of machines was despicable - but you can't prove the number of votes lost. The problem is the SOS sent a printout with information on machines to the Bi-partisan county committees and no one caught the fact that fewer machines than normal were being sent to Democratic strongholds. The Ohio Democratic party really did a very poor job.

Other votes were lost because in some multi-precinct locations, the elections workers were so poorly trained that they told people to use any punch machines - but the order of the candidate differed by precinct. So if you were in precinct A and used a machine for B, your vote would go to the wrong candidate. (This is seen by seeing unusual patterns - like one inner city precinct that gave Kerry the most votes followed by the candidate from FL who was very very RW who happened to have the position Kerry did in the other precinct. Blacks voting for this guy had the same probability as Jews voting Buchanan.) Here it's an error, but you can't get votes lost by mistake. There were also no Spanish speaking workers at a few places with large hispanic populations - and there were a significant number of votes that were more internally consistent if the card were rotated (or upside down) - details fail me.

None of these could be fixed by a recount. The recount was done and it did little to change the numbers. Even if the Ohio courts said there was a problem with the election, there is no provision for a re-vote under the constitution. Like in FL (as per SC justice Roberts' opinion), if who won the election was unclear, it's the legislature that has the responsibility for determining the electors. (In both Fl and Ohio they were Rep)

You can't use the exit polls as proof that the votes are wrong. As a person who did a lot of sample design and analysis over a 24 yr career, I can tell you that although I'm very suspicious that the exit polls went the other way, I can't prove that there weren't design flaws or implementation errors. The exit polls are primarily done to get information on voting patterns - so the sample design is intentionly not a straight forward 2 stage sample with locations and then voters chosen randomly. You would need some evidence of HOW the voting itself was hacked if it was.

As to Kerry being in Iraq when the voting happened - the Black Congressional conference wanted him gone - so they could focus on the problems, rather than on Senator Kerry. (Gore had no higher court to appeal the decision to and he asked that no Senator vote against it to help heal the country. The Republicans do NOT agree Gore won - Carter does and some studies have said so, but this has never been conceded.)

What has Kerry done;
1) He has spoken out strongly about how it is wrong that some people waited 4 hours in the rain and other types of ways people were kept form voting. Off the top of my head here are times when this was the main issue:
- MLK day, 2005 in Boston (He was then criticized by the media for talking about the election instead of honoring MLK
- He spoke in Boston, before a LWV's sponsored event honoring kids who wrote winning essays (April, 2005)
- He mentioned voting issues as something we in our time need to work in the spirit of Rosa Parks
- He and John Lewis led a march in Oct/Nov (?) 2005 in Boston with speeches dealing with voting rights.
Oddly these are covered more by the RW - usually saying Kerry is delusional,

2) He has co-sponsored legislation with Hillary and Barbara Boxer that among other things calls for a paper trail.
3) He has co-sponsored legislation with Obama on voter intimidation
4) Cam Kerry was running for SoS in Massachusetts to get a close look at the machines and other issues, but the incumbent has decided to go for that position, so Kerry pulled out. (I assume there is some agreement between them as Kerry was running only if the other guy didn't. (someone may know the relationship)
5) Kerry long ago worked with Wellstone on campaign finance reform - their clean elections bill didn't have some of the flaws of McCain Feingold and was the basis for the state laws in Maine and (I think) Arizona.

Teresa Kerry has spoken publicly about the machines - which she likely wouldn't if Kerry sharply disagreed. Her comment is that it is a problem that it has been proven that they CAN be manipulated. Unless some one confesses - we won't know if they cheated in 2004, we have to make it impossible in the future. (If it was done - Kerry is doubly the victim - he should have achieved him life long dream and should be working his heart out fixing things as President AND he has people like you questioning his integrity, that he has demonstrated over a lifetime, because he doesn't have the facts needed to contest this.)

[pat_k]

112. Forgive me, but you are not understanding where I am coming from

They do not need "proof that can stand in court."

Members of Congress have a Constitutional duty to judge the validity of the electoral votes.

Their judgment is ABSOLUTELY NOT bound by the letter of the law. It is bound by the INTENT of the law.

The Constitutional duty was given to CONGRESS for a reason. The duty was explicitly NOT given to the JUDICIARY. When the judicial process fails to give us an election that We the People have confidence in, it is up to Congress to step in and right the wrong.

Every Member of Congress has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the US Constitution. The single moral tenet on which that document, and therefore the nation, rests is the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

Consequently, the right of the People to have confidence that they are being afforded free and fair elections for their government officials is a right that no other consideration can supersede. A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

As they count and judge the electoral votes, Congress can do ANYTHING it wants to preserve our right to have confidence. When electors are challenged, they go into debate. Sure, that debate has a time limit, but they can suspend debate and demand a comprehensive audit of any election in question. They can call for a new election. They can toss out the electors entirely because a state failed to met its obligation to hold a free and fair election. There are NO deadlines in our law. There is only a balance of interests. Dates are set, but moved when a more compelling interest demands it.

[karynnj]

122. The constitution gives the states the right to pick the electors

There are deadlines. Congress can not do anything it wants - it can only do what the constitution says it can do.

If they rejected the slate (which wouldn't happen with the 55 Republican Sentors and the Republican majority in the House) it would be sent back to Ohio. Where the Republican legislator could determine what to do. The constitution doesn't even require an election because the early idea of a federation of states gives the power to the state not the people of the states.

[pat_k]

133. Things would be COMPLETELY different if Kerry fought for our right to have

Yes, the states appoint electors and Congress judges them.

You have taken "Congress can do anything it wants" out of context, rendering the assertion meaningless.

I said

As they count and judge the electoral votes, Congress can do ANYTHING it wants to preserve our right to have confidence.

The Electoral Count Act defines the duties given to Congress, which Breyer so clearly summarized in his dissent (included in previous post).

If Kerry had stood up and fought; if Members of Congress had taken their duty seriously, we have no idea whether or not the count of the electoral votes would resulted in a Bush or Kerry win. And it doesn't actually matter.

We do know that the way things played out between November 3rd and January 6th would have been COMPLETELY different.

Standing up for the right of the people to have confidence in our elections reminds "We the People" that WE are the only stakeholders in an election. The act of standing up cuts through the fascist view of the law that has taken hold in this nation. The crimes in Ohio would be FRONT PAGE news, for weeks leading up to January 6th. If Kerry had lead the fight for our rights to have confidence, the demands for Members of Congress to do their duty could not be brushed under the rug. As it became clear that their electors were at risk, the election officials in Ohio (and other states) would be under enormous pressure to take action to respond to charges, instead of stonewalling. The armies that fought for Kerry during the election would have remained 100% engaged throughout.

If, in the end, the count of the electors in Congress gave the White House to Bush, his legitimacy would be sorely undermined. No assertions of "mandate" when the many crimes that corrupted the outcome are burned into the national psyche.

[pat_k]

116. Citing "margin of victory" to dismiss disenfranchisement is nonsense

Re: "The suppression of the vote by controlling the number of machines was despicable - but you can't prove the number of votes lost."

Disparate treatment alone is sufficient to invalidate an election.

Every citizen and leader must answer the following question for themselves: "Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a tolerable condition for you?"

No rationalization can justify different public and private answers to this question (e.g., "Well, it's intolerable to me personally, but elections have always had problems.") To tolerate disparate treatment in an election is to be complicit with the perpetrators of the condition.

Some people invoke a large margin of victory to dismiss the rights of the disenfranchised, claiming that insufficient numbers were disenfranchised to change the outcome. It is impossible to know how many voters have been discouraged from voting due to discriminatory practices. Extrapolating from past elections is useless when the conduct of those elections also failed to guarantee fairness.

Accepting the "margin of victory" rationalization means that a state with a history of untrustworthy elections that strongly favor one party is completely free to discriminate to any level with no risk of consequence. This is an absurd argument on its face.

If the law fails to invalidate a discriminatory election for our highest office, the duty to falls to Congress to right the wrong.

[pat_k]

118. After the fact actions are irrelevant to the failure to protect and defend

You cite lots of "good things" Kerry has done.

None of that justifies his failure to stand up and carry out his sworn duty to protect and defend our Constitution. Nothing he can do, short of admitting error and calling on the House to bring Articles of Impeachment can even begin to repair the damage done by his failure.

[karynnj]

123. I cited what he has done to try to prevent a recurence of this

Two questions
1) Precisely what action should Senator Kerry have taken?
2) What possible outcome of Kerry's action could have made any change to where we are now?


Kerry cares very deeply about the Constitution - but there is nothing in it that could have been done after the fact to change the outcome of the election.

Elections are run by the states - per the constitution. The main fix has to be done at that level in each state.

[pat_k]

134. Answer 1): Open a mouth (detail posted above). Answer 2: Radically differ

Answer 1:

Open a mouth -- detail in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5605763&mesg_id=5610603

Answer 2:

Things would have been COMPLETELY different -- detail in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5605763&mesg_id=5615716

Regarding his actions "to prevent a recurrance of this":

Closing the barn door is all well and good, but it doesn't get the horses back.

[Joe Chi Minh]

77. I understood him to mean the request not to tell anyone was

a joke.

[adigal]

82. I think he means it, and good for him n/t

[lonestarnot]

85. Yes and wooodamnwhoo on him!

[robbedvoter]

91. My vote was a joke to him too!

[wisteria]

92. There was noting reckless in what Kerry had to say nor was it

inappropriate. It was said at a private party and those in the media who are repeating heresy and the Republicans both owe Kerry an apology. His words hurt no one and there were some hope in those words for some. Any Dem that attacks Kerry for this has another agenda and is doing the Rebub work for them.

[ultraist]

98. Then why did Kerry ask it be kept under wraps?

Was he concerned it would reflect poorly on him that he was making one big fat joke out of possible impeachment?

According to one of his staffers, Karen, upthread, whoever 'rushed to dish' is a 'gossip monger.'

[ginnyinWI]

100. because the best way to get something leaked

is to tell people not to leak it! :rofl:

[ultraist]

102. Uh, huh. His staffer doesn't sound pleased about it.

Does she? She did criticize the leaker yet didn't really make it clear if he did say it or not. I suppose she's learning from the best. :eyes:

Not being able to trust your staff is a good thing? Hmmm...It was a staff party.

[kerrygoddess]

120. I don't think

staff is worried. It was David Wade who responded to the Hotline piece and there was no criticism of leaker. Just an explanation that JK was speaking off the cuff in joke to staff and former campaign staff about something that many feel. That's what I got from it.

[proud patriot]

101. hey did somebody say impeachment ?

I'm in

[ima_sinnic]

103. why doesn't he just stand behind something he said for a change?

as soon as I read that he had said something about impeachment, I knew the "but" had to be in there somewhere. Sure enough, it followed immediately.

[mistertrickster]

110. KERRY TAKES STRONG STAND . . . Oh wait, no he didn't . . .

he was just kidding . . . no, he wasn't . . . yes, he was.

I need one of those flip-flops from the Republican National Convention.

On edit--If the man isn't going to own what he says, then he should just shut up.

[robbedvoter]

113. But his fan club loves those - they find them brilliant

It seems consistency is overrated and we are clueless :shrug:

[second edition]

129. "Well if the shoe fits"........ n/t

[second edition]

128. Go negative somewhere else. You comments don't make sense

in relation to these statements from kerry and office. I'm always amazed when "our own" fall for misleading repub talking points. Go read up on kerry then I dare you to come back and in all honesty make the same references.

[mistertrickster]

131. Your own post describes Kerry's whole problem--"go read up on him"

Read up on him? Like I'd have to read up on Henry the Second or Thomas Middleton?

A national politician is supposed to be able to express his positions so people DON'T HAVE TO read up on him . . .

[Media_Lies_Daily]

137. I wonder if folks like yourself voted for Herr Busch. Seriously.

[mistertrickster]

139. I canvassed for the Democratic party last weekend.

You dope.

Just because I state the dead obvious, people want to call me a Kerry basher or a BUSH BACKER for God's sake.

I go and argue on my local newspaper's website with the FReepers about how Bush is the worst president ever and they call me a "terrorist" and then I come here and get labelled a Bush voter . . . unbelievable.

[ray of light]

119. A song in Kerry bashers honors:

They're singing the blues because not one other PROGRESSIVE is standing up forcefully for the same values we all have.

So while all these people have nothing to say except the media lie about flipping, you gotta know when they pull their candidate out of the hat, they're gonna hate like heck to defend their candidates record.

Gee...I guess it's easier to pick on someone who ACTUALLY sticks his head out there to fight than to actually look at other candidates records and defend those records.

Fact ONE..

Kerry is no flipper.

Fact TWO..
KERRY is a STRONG and ARTICULATE Senator who BY VOICING his comments can stir up the fears of both right-winged extremests and the biased left-winged people too. Why is this? Because they FEAR HIM!

Fact THREE..
Kerry is respected around the world and even NOW has world leaders who honor his service and are loyal to him.

Fact FOUR...
Kerry's making a joke at a private function makes the REPUBLICANS run into hiding! AND BRINGS THE VERY TOPIC THEY FEAR INTO THE PUBLIC.

Fact FIVE..
If Kerry said the sky was blue, the same bloggers here would run up and call him a flipper because he said the sky was cloudy and blue the day before.