re: jan6

yeah - well there are a few points here

the first one is that there is obviously, undoubtedly, a media blackout - and amazingly, it extends to a whole bunch of libmedia. one thing is beyond dispute: on thurs, conyers and other congresscritters *will* object and try to block the official acceptance of the electoral votes - regardless of what you think abuot the merits or otherwise of their claim, it surely qualifies as "news". surely. without a doubt. even if u dont think itll be successful, it certainly qualifies as news. even if conyers wasnt the only person to do the most investigating, it certainly qualifies as news. even if it wasnt the 'most important election', it certainly qualifies as news. even if the smirkingidiots first 'win' wasnt stolen, it certainly qualifies as news. even if nobody ever saw f911 and were already versed in this procedure, it certainly qualifies as news. even if the next four years werent gonna be worse than jihadmin 1.0, it certainly qualifies as news. even if 19% of the ampopulation didnt think that the election was stolen, it certainly qualifies as news. so as far as i can tell, in one way or other, for one reason or other, there is a mediablackout. and i dont think itd matter if there was a soonarmy, theyd find one reason or other to ignore this issue.

its true that keith http://bloggermann.com/ actually covered part of this issue, but he has also been on 2 holidays since the election, and hasnt updated his site since dec30. (i dont get him on the teeve). now, i dont begrudge anyone their holidays, but he coulda kept working - its praps the biggest story he will ever get, and he had the whole story to himself. as a juxtaposition, im nervous getting away from my computer for 48 hours, and im not an american, and i have an audience of four, and theres no potential career upside for me. and he had enuff to report on, accurately, factually, without entering into tinfoil terrortory. theres definitely something odd going on.

now, i dont know jack about the machanations of ampolitics - i dont even know the difference between congresscritters and senatecritters - or the purpose of one house or the other - but there will undoubtedly be at least one congressman (conyers) who is willing to put his name on the motion. and praps the entire congressional black caucus will do the same. and who knows who else - i think ive read 'at least a dozen' or some such - now, if there are a dozen people in one house who are willing to do it, for self-interested reasons, or for career reasons or whatever, then (w/out having a clue about the differences between the houses, and/or their members) then it doesnt seem completely crazy to imagine that someone from the other house (senate) might also face the same calculations - 'irregardless' of whether theres any (current) media coverage of the issue. we know that there will be a challenge, and we know that the media isnt currently covering it - so then the question (for the self-interested senator) becomes 'will the media cover it after thursday?' - if the inappropriate sniggerer still wins, then its unlikely that the media will cover the story, cos they will continue to be good-doggies - and any asterisk on the presidency will undermine HerrCaesar - therefore any senator who standsup (assuming its a dem) is unlikely to do themselves much sore-loser damage, cos it wont get reported anyway. but if, inexplicably, the media does happen to cover the failure of the challenge, then seems to me that the senator gets increased exposure for at least the pretense of standing up for democracy, and it seems to me they have enough cover anyways - under 'ukraine' or 'democracy' or 'conyers thought it deserved another look' (conyers is the highest ranking dem in the judiciary comittee), or 'we fought a long campaign, it was worth another 2 hours' or 'to do nothing would have been even worse, by listening to the conyers concerns, we removed the possibility of a question mark of furiousgeorge 2.0 - no repug could possibly want that' etc etc etc. so it seems to me that the standupsenator could quite easily get around any presumed short-term cost - and in the longer term (say their re-election time), they are faced with similar types of issues (& answers/responses) - they could build an entire platform on this one action. if we assume that there are ten or 20 dems senators with pres08 ambitions, then it is very conceivable that the political calculation simply makes sense for at least one of them - it might not make sense for hillary or some of the other favourites, but it surely *could* make sense for some who might otherwise struggle for a platform or a national profile or whatever - there must be some democrat senators whose *only* realistic chance at being pres will be if they stand up and 43 2.0 is completely fucked - surely thurs is their chance. and even if they get slammed short-term, then the political calculation seems reasonable. or maybe they just give a damn about democracy. or mass murder. or nuclear holocaust or something. or dont care so much about their career - which presumably leads us to older folk like byrd. or women. barb boxer is apparently one of the main hopes - im not sure why - i dont know her at all.

(btw - the ozzie/pom/swede thing was pretty funny - my bro made up a term - instead of lol, he says 'gis' (giggling on the inside))

mmoore has frontpaged the issue again "A very embarrassing moment during the last session of Congress occurred in the first week when none of you would allow the members of Congress who were black to have the floor to object to the Florida vote count. Remember that? You thought no one would ever notice, didn't you? You certainly lucked out that night when the networks decided not to show how you shut down every single member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

No such luck this year. Everyone now knows about that moment of shame. Thank you? You’re welcome.

But this Thursday, at 1:00pm, you will have a chance to redeem yourself." http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=179

and moveon have 400,000 sigs on their petition. people will be watching thurs, even if the media isnt - and of course, i disagree with your "it would definitely come as a surprise to
> the media who seem to be asleep at the wheel again" characterisation - i think that is being way too generous.

like i said earlier, if shame doesnt force them into accepting conyers' issue, then ill settle for opportunism.

other things to remember:
1) we saw the astonishing situation of electoral votes from some states being (at least nominally) contingent on further investigation.
2) the ohio recount is *still* in the courts
3) it is the sworn duty of senators to *positively confirm* that they are comfortable with the elecollege votes - passive acceptance of what they have been told isnt sufficient - in that scenario, its almost prima facie invalid that they ignore conyers. im expecting conyers to come out with a new statement before thurs with more detail. the senators dont need fraud to have been proved in any sense - merely that there is some doubt. and any reasonable man-in-the-street would recognise that there is doubt in spades. it would actually be illegal, as far as i can tell, for any of them to *not* standup.

in summary, i kinda agree that it would be a surprise for any of them to standup - experience suggests that it would be silly to hope for anything else - but at the same time, im somewhat hopeful. tsports isnt conducting betting on it any more - and hasnt for weeks/months. if they were, id prolly expect the mkt to be something like 10/1 - altho id personally put it at something like 2/1 - or even less (its nearly impossible to say 'it would be this price, but i think it should be that price' - cos basically u are trying to measure idiocy-at-the-margin).


anyways - here are the dems - do yer dooty. now.
Akaka, Daniel - (D - HI) (202) 224-6361
E-mail: senator@akaka.senate.gov

Baucus, Max - (D - MT) (202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/emailmax.html

Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) (202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm

Biden, Joseph - (D - DE) (202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov

Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM) (202) 224-5521
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA) (202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact

Byrd, Robert - (D - WV) (202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html

Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA) (202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Carper, Thomas - (D - DE) (202) 224-2441
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/email-form.html

Clinton, Hillary - (D - NY) (202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html

Conrad, Kent - (D - ND) (202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html

Corzine, Jon - (D - NJ) (202) 224-4744
Web Form: corzine.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Dayton, Mark - (D - MN) (202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/webform.html

Dodd, Christopher - (D - CT) (202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/webmail/

Dorgan, Byron - (D - ND) (202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov

Durbin, Richard - (D - IL) (202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

Feingold, Russell - (D - WI) (202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA) (202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

Harkin, Tom - (D - IA) (202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Inouye, Daniel - (D - HI) (202) 224-3934
Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/webform.html

Jeffords, James - (I - VT) (202) 224-5141
Web Form: jeffords.senate.gov/contact-form.html

Johnson, Tim - (D - SD) (202) 224-5842
Web Form: johnson.senate.gov/ContactPage/emailform.htm

Kennedy, Edward - (D - MA) (202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html

Kerry, John - (D - MA) (202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/contact/email.html

Kohl, Herb - (D - WI) (202) 224-5653
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html

Landrieu, Mary - (D - LA) (202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Lautenberg, Frank - (D - NJ) (202) 224-3224
Web Form: lautenberg.senate.gov/webform.html

Leahy, Patrick - (D - VT) (202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Levin, Carl - (D - MI) (202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Lieberman, Joseph - (D - CT) (202) 224-4041
Web Form: lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue

Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR) (202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html

Mikulski, Barbara - (D - MD) (202) 224-4654
Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html

Murray, Patty - (D - WA) (202) 224-2621
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL) (202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm#email

Nelson, Ben - (D - NE) (202) 224-6551
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/email.html

Obama, Barack - (D - IL) (202) 224-2854

Pryor, Mark - (D - AR) (202) 224-2353
Web Form: pryor.senate.gov/email_webform.htm

Reed, Jack - (D - RI) (202) 224-4642
Web Form: reed.senate.gov/form-opinion.htm

Reid, Harry - (D - NV) (202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm

Rockefeller, John - (D - WV) (202) 224-6472
E-mail: senator@rockefeller.senate.gov

Salazar, Ken - (D - CO) (202) 224-5852

Sarbanes, Paul - (D - MD) (202) 224-4524
Web Form: sarbanes.senate.gov/pages/email.html

Schumer, Charles - (D - NY) (202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/webform.html

Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI) (202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR) (202) 224-5244
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact.html






----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam
To: luke@lukeryland.com
Subject: RE: activeless judges
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 00:19:43 -0500

>
> You make a pretty damn good argument for someone stepping up to the
> plate, but really, if anything out of the ordinary (ie something)
> happens, I would be shocked. If it wasn't for you, even *I* wouldn't
> know about the importance of January 6th. I watch my share of news, and
> I haven't seen or read a peep about this. It's been all tsunami,
> tsunami, tsunami...which is deserved, but you think they could squeeze
> in one story about the US elections in lieu of yet another
> Aussie/Pommie/Swede being interviewed about their experience ("I heard a
> crash, and then the water was up to my knees, and then it was up to my
> chest, and then we swam out and got to higher ground, and just waited
> there until the water came down again...everything was destroyed. It
> was just horrible")
>
> Maybe I'm not watching enough Keith Olbermann, but the whole election
> seems to be far from the mind of the media, and thus the masses. Any
> senator who took action will come off looking like a trouble-maker(which
> may not be the worst thing) and would definitely come as a surprise to
> the media who seem to be asleep at the wheel again...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: luke@lukeryland.com [mailto:luke@lukeryland.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:55 AM
> To:

> Subject: activeless judges
>
> VOTE
> * g says "I'd love to see *any* Senator stand up on January 6, but alas,
> I don't think it's going to happen. Who is brave enough to put their
> career on the line, for something as trivial as democracy and justice?
> Obama, can you hear me?" my fee;ing/hope is that someone/s will actually
> join conyers. whether that makes a diffference in terms of jonk44 im not
> sure - at a minimum it'd put an asterisk next to the jihadmin 2.0 - and
> the remnants of the mandate thingy would be undermined. pre-911, i read
> that a plurality of amcits really thought that something treasonous had
> happened with scotus et al. 911 did actually 'change everything' at
> least wrt the badmin. id love to see obama get immortalised in the next
> f911 - what a fairytale 12 months it would have been for him! as to g's
> point about standing up for democracy & justice - id get my rocks off if
> it was a repug, rather than a dem - the moderate repugs could do a zell.
> wouldnt that be sweet. to the extent that there are some moderate
> repugs, surely they would feel more at home in the dem camp anyways. and
> to g's "putting their career on the line" - seems to me that its not
> difficult to imagine that someone can actually *increase* their career
> status / visibility by actually standing up. why not? given what we now
> know about 2000, if some dem senator had stood up with the cbc then and
> signed, they prolly would have had a good platform to run in 04 - even
> if that challenge had been effectively 'unsuccessful'. remember, 43
> 'will be' inaugurated with the lowest approval ratings ever - if things
> go downhill over the next 4 years (likely), then the person who stood up
> to him will have a triffic basis for an 08 campaign: 'i tried to warn
> us'. and once the gao study comes out, and the dems have promised their
> own investigation of 04 (in a few months time) - then itll become
> increasingly obvious, in retrospect, that 04 was stolen just like 2000 -
> seems to me it could actually be career-enhancing to be the senator who
> stands up - for some of em at least. or why cant someone soon to be
> retired sign on - like robert byrd? or someone without presidential
> ambitions from an uberblu state? im not sure if *only* one senator can
> sign on (officially) - or if multiple senators can - surely theres
> safety in numbers - whether its official or not. its not difficult
> seeing a situation in four years time where *only* demsens who signed on
> could conceivably run for pres. and btw - with a modicum of spin the
> decision to sign can be framed as 'making every vote count' or 'the
> congressman who was investigating ohio fraud (conyers) figured that
> there was sufficient concern - that was sufficient for me to be
> concerned." or "it wasnt about jonk/bush, its in the name of democracy -
> we celebrate that the peeps of ukr got a 2nd chance - yuschenko didnt
> get tainted as a 'sore loser' " or "if i ahve to put democracy above my
> own self-interest, id do it everyone" or "there was a pending legal
> challenge in ohio - therefore i couldnt pretend that there werent any
> concerns" blah blah blah. anyways, i hope that someone stands up for
> democracy and justice and/or fear of fascism and/or ww4, but id settle
> for some self-interested, perfectly rational, political grandstanding
> :-)
>
> * ftr - its not exactly obvious what happens if a senator does stand up
> - the headline is that the Houses would split for a 2 hour debate -
> altho it seems that this is a procedural 'rule' which is subject to
> challenge - and its not exactly obvious whether its 2 hours period, or
> 2hrs per state - or even 2hrs per electoral vote - and then (i think) if
> either House decided to reject the electoral votes, then i think it
> falls to the Speaker - outcomes include giving the election to jonk,
> calling for a revote, or even nominating the next pres. probab the only
> thing we could count on would be litigation (on that issue, rhenquist
> seems to be having a deathbed conversion). its difficult to imagine that
> there might even be the infrastructure for a revote - how to ensure that
> the same probs dont appear again?
>
> * its not impossible imagining repugrats deserting a sinking ship
> pretty quickly.fear of being hung for treason might be a catalyst of
> sorts.
>


________________________________________________________________________________
war makes me mad, sad, bad. tsunamis makes me sad.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com