I've commented on many other diaries. Here, with some trepidation, is my first.
I was intrigued by Rep. Conyers willingness--almost eagerness--to float the idea of challenging the Ohio Electoral Voters. He's mentioned it twice--during the initial hearing and on Olbermann's show the other night. The bottom line is that this is an extreme measure, as we know. It's strange to hear a politician so matter-of-factly suggest something that hasn't been done since the 1800s (I believe). In retrospect, perhaps Jesse Jackson Jr.'s question about the possibility of a challenge was prearranged between the two gentlemen.
At the same time, I started thinking of Jesse Jackson's opening remarks at the hearing that put the situation in the context of Selma and Birmingham. I thought he was on target, of course, but assumed that he was speaking rhetorically. Now I am putting two and two together and think that the he and the people in the group truly see what is happening in Ohio--and their mission to counter it--as a bookend to the Civil Rights efforts of the 60s. It's all there--the apparent repression/suppression and the use of the power of the state to apparently seek to prevent these discriminatory and illegal activities from being brought to light and prosecuted.
Folks here have spent a lot of time wondering, after the loss Nov. 2, about how the party should redefine and position itself. Perhaps this very issue is the opportunity to do so. And to do so dramatically. Standing up against what is happening in Ohio--both the illegality and the subsequent obstructionism--is the right thing to do. It's also the smart thing to do. It's a chance to recapture the spirit of the party's finest hour and remind people that Democrats can be something other than GOP-lite.
This is possible if the Democrats truly are convinced that Kerry might have won Ohio in a fair fight. Those affidavits about Triad and Diebold must be found to really have indicated rigging and be repeated elsewhere. The lack of voting machines in urban areas must be thought, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be planned and malicious--not just accidental. The recount must be truly, objectively, thought to be a farce. The democratic leadership must be convinced that the apparatus of the Ohio government is working to prevent a true investigation of those activities.
If all of these things are truly thought to be true, a challenge to the seating becomes a viable tool--even a responsibility. And it becomes a goldmine for the Democrats.
Perhaps, technically, one Senator will officially object. But to do something meaningful and something that doesn't explode into a disaster, the Democrats must educate the vast majority of Americans about what is going on. This means a PR campaign. It means trotting out the elder statesmen and most respected members of the party at a big event (people like John Glenn, Richard Gephardt (sp?), Lieberman, Gore, Clinton, etc.) before the vote. These folks must explain, clearly and simply, what is happening. It must be cast in non-partisan terms. It must make the point that democracy itself is in danger. It must make the point that this is worse than Florida in 2000, since--if true--this is far more premeditated and preplanned. In 2000, the Republicans acted wrongly when the chance presented itself; this year, they planned to act in such as a way.
A long list of Democratic Senators and Representatives must state that they support whoever is picked to lodge the official objection and say they would have done it if given the chance. John Kerry must make a speech explaining that he was ready to move on--as Gore did, as Bob Dole did, as Walter Mondale did, etc.--and return to the important work of the Senate. But he must say that he simply can't. He must say that he would have been willing to move on if Ohio officials really looked into the allegations. When they didn't and acted in a blatantly partisan way, he must explain, it became his responsibility to speak out.
If they do this effectively, such a framing of the fight will give the requisite number of Republicans cover to vote against Bush. If--as is likely to happen--Bush wins, the Democrats have succeeded in taking the higher morale ground and reestablishing their bona fides with the American people. In the process, they have made a great case for meaningful electoral reform.