If a Senator didn't stand in 2000, I doubt one will in 2004

[WI_DEM]

Not that one or more shouldn't, but in 2000 Gore clearly had the popular vote, there was enough indicatins that he won the state of Florida, Gore was vigoriously contested the results, and it was the top news story of the year. In 2004 it is not clear that Kerry won the popular vote. Rather than being a few hundred votes down in Ohio (as Gore was down in Florida) Kerry is down by over a 100,000, Kerry is not publiclly contesting the election and hardly any of the "mainstream" press is reporting on the story of voter suppretion and problems with voting machines.

This is what we are up agaist. If one Democratic Senator couldn't stand up in 2000--when clearly problems existed with voter suppretion that year as well--why do we think one will stand in 2004? I hope I'm wrong and a Byrd or Feingold or some other Senator will surprise me, but I just don't see it.

[Dr Fate]

1. I agree- they are too scared/corrupt to ever stand up for truth.

We will be flamed perhaps, but I'd LOVE to be proved wrong.

[imenja]

2. also agree

I don't see it happening.

[Sparkle]

3. I'm thinking that way too.

If not one senator with a (D) behind his/her name didn't stand up for Gore, then they won't stand up for Kerry. Their seat is more important to them than democracy.

[SharonRB]

4. Sorry, but I disagree

Last time, Gore didn't ask anyone to stand up. The response of some senators when asked why they didn't stand was that no one asked them to. This time, Kerry has at least shown some support by joining the GLIB's lawsuit. He has not asked them not to stand up. And, the senators have been asked by many, many people, starting with John Conyers, to stand up and be heard this time. They know they are being watched by their constituents because of the many thousands of letters they have received. It may be a no-win situation for them, but I am confident that we will have at least one, if not more, senators in our court this time.

[bones_7672]

20. Kerry's "nuanced" attitude won't cause any Senator to stick his or her

neck out for him. If he doesn't have the cajones, he can't expect anyone else to risk theirs.

[Jo March]

5. We have to MAKE them stand up - fax them

Fax them this wonderful fraud compilation that IndyOp has on his site:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=221594#223783

Ask them. Beg them. Plead with them. Whatever it takes but do it with the FACTS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=221594#223783

[New Earth]

6. 2000 was TOTALLY different

The media took control of the issue because Al Gore tried to fight it. The media took control and the people followed. We did not protest or rally like this election - it wasn't a grassroots effort (WHICH IS ALWAYS STRONGER!) like it is now.

2000 was (at least on the surface) a matter of 'uncounted ballots' and some voters being purged from the rolls. 2004 is a matter of massive suppression and fraud - and the most revealing of all - COVER UPS.

From what I know at least, in 2000 - there weren't thousands of people emailing, faxing, and calling the Reps. and Senators asking them to contest the election. THIS TIME, WE DID.

This entire election was completely different. The case is stronger to contest the election than it was in 2000.

[WI_DEM]

7. Where were you in 2000?

There were many protest rallies. I know I was at a few. Democrats were very much up in arms and not just us activists--but rank and file democrats who honestly believed that Gore was cheated out of the election. That is why when Bush came in he was pelted by tomatos and eggs along his inaugural route and thousands of democats demonstrated against him. I don't see that kind of passion in 2004 except among people on DU. I live in Madison, WI which turned 100,000 people out for Kerry in the final week of the campaign for a rally and not one protest have I seen--unlike the situation in 2000.

[New Earth]

8. well for me

i didnt' have the internet back then, i didn't know anything other than what was on the news. i didn't know of any protests or anything. i can't imagine how many other people had no idea in 2000, let alone 2004.

[pointsoflight]

9. One big difference: Gore asked them NOT to object.

I think that was a major mistake on Gore's part, but he made the decision that he didn't want to win that way.

[mountainvue]

17. Well, the Supreme Court

certainly put a damper on things. There is no challenging the Supreme Court.

[Garbo 2004]

18. The Supreme Court ruling did not prevent Congress from contesting

the Florida electors as per Federal law. That was not an obstacle.

[NVMojo]

10. WI Dem, I hope you are wrong on this but I fear you may be right ...

Many of those Democratic Senators of ours are controlled by more than one topic. For many of us, we have spent a huge amount of time focusing on just one or two topics tied into election fraud. I have often wondered how much more a state senator is focused on "pork spending" so they can keep their voters happy at home on their issues instead of the great good issues like not being in Iraq...I am approaching a high level of "YUCK" for most elected officials these days and the whores who own them.



WASHINGTON — The truce appears to be expiring among Democrats in Washington.

In the immediate aftermath of Sen. John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush in November, Democrats notably avoided the postelection squabbling that's consumed the party after almost all recent presidential races — even those it won.

But as the new year begins, a series of high-profile articles in leading liberal journals is suddenly reopening old divisions.

On one front, a liberal operative at a top think tank has accused the Democratic Leadership Council, the principal organization of party centrists, of pushing the party toward a pro-corporate agenda "that sells out America's working class — the demographic that used to be the party's base."

In equally combative terms, a leading young centrist commentator published a manifesto in the New Republic magazine accusing the Democratic left of slighting the struggle against Islamic terrorism and undermining the party's image on security — an argument instantly embraced and promoted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

In the near-term, the Democratic desire to unify in opposition to almost all of Bush's agenda is likely to take the edge off these disagreements.

But these twin firefights, which have inspired volleys of responses, Web postings and e-mails, reflect enduring divisions over strategy, message and policy that could influence the race for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee next month and are certain to loom over the contest for the presidential nomination in 2008.

"There is a big fight about the direction of the Democratic Party still going on, and these are big documents in that fight," says Robert Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future.

more ....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20050102/ts_latimes/democratssplitagainoverpartysagenda&printer=1

[Southsideirish]

11. Agree - never in a million trillion years would one stand up.

[Imagevision]

12. I disagree! -- we didn't have the info in 2000 we do today!

[bemis12]

13. I expect you're right.

And the key point is that it looks as if Kerry lost. And by an enourmous margin, as compared to 2000, which was a tie.

[burn the bush]

14. conyers is predicting several will stand

I'll bet he knows.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Fraud is more clear this year, 2000 was abuse of power by SCOTUS

TPlus, the whole "this applies to this one election" thing could have made the Senators feel comfortable acting like pussies back in 2000. Now the pressure is on them to show some balls. One of them will crack from the strain and stand up. Remember this is America, the land of John Wayne, where people have to force themselves NOT to respond to the taunts of bullies.

[mountainvue]

16. You're forgetting the Supreme Court. n/t

[Garbo 2004]

19. The SCOTUS ruling did not prevent Congress from asserting its perogatives

as established by Federal law.