Daily Kos

Lawyer in OH Recount Suit: We Have Evidence of Fraud

by LawStudent

Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:08:01 PM PDT

This is my first diary, so forgive me if I'm doing this incorrectly.  Actually, I can't believe this hasn't been posted already (and if it has, my apologies...I'll delete this diary).

Anyway, there was a pretty lengthy interview on C-Span today with Cliff Arnebeck, an attorney for Alliance for Democracy, who is going to file a suit tomorrow in Ohio challenging the election result.  This is different from demanding a recount.  This organization is actually saying it believes--BASED ON EVIDENCE--that the election result is INCORRECT.  

Mr. Arnebeck said they have evidence that shows the election result was actually the opposite of what's been reported.  He says that Kerry won 51% of the vote in OH, and he seems to claim he can prove it.  

I have no idea about the validity of this claim, but I can say this is the first time I've heard a lawyer involved in this fracas saying they have evidence of fraud.

Listen to it yourself and tell me what you think.  Go to www.cspan.org under "Recent Programs" and click on "Washington Journal Entire Program (12/02/04)"

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 239 comments

  •  Oops (4.00 / 28)

    Meant to tell you also that the interview takes place around 34 minutes into the program so that you can fast forward if you want.

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet Act 1, Scene 5

    by LawStudent on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:05:20 PM PDT

    •  I saw (none / 0)

      the program and was interested.  Cliff Arnebeck has a mulio-party background.  That can tell us a couple of different things:

      • He is even handed and goes to fight injustice
      • He is all over the place looking for attention
      • He will go wherever the money goes
      • He likes face time on TV

      Take your pick.  However, he is filing the suit tomorrow and we will get a glimpse of the "evidence" he has.

      BTW, did you hear the national Guard member threaten him on the air?  Now, That's Entertainment  

      Gregoire ~ Powers

      by NYBri on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:31:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Get used to this (4.00 / 2)

        BTW, did you hear the national Guard member threaten him on the air?  Now, That's Entertainment

        If it even looks like this election could be turned. The militant wing-nuts will be crawling out from under their rocks and threatening civil war -- literally.

        Stay tuned...

        Contact Pelosi about impeachment: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

        by Pescadero Bill on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 07:08:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Totally agree and (none / 0)

          am a bit scared after hearing that guardsman yesterday.  sent chills.  

          YEs.  Every possibility of a civil war and the administration and DoJ will do NOTHING to stop it.  They, after all, have the guns.

          Am I over-reacting?

          Gregoire ~ Powers

          by NYBri on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 07:17:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This could separate the real-fascist from (4.00 / 7)

            the near-fascist.

            If Arnebeck has absolute evidence of fraud, things will get ugly, but what can we do? If we don't stand up to people willing to threaten us with violence in order to get their way, we will always be living under their thumb.

            We were handed this country with the understanding that we will always have to be ready to fight against tyranny for justice.

            And guess what people, we could be seeing perhaps the truest test of what America is supposed to be all about.

            And no, I don't think you are over-reacting.

            Contact Pelosi about impeachment: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

            by Pescadero Bill on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 07:37:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Revolution? (none / 0)

            Yes the militant right wing will be pissed, but a revolution never comes with a warning, and it is never ended without a massive loss of lives and property.

            We must all be committed to defending our country and our democracy.   A media and information war is already taking place, it's only a matter of time before things get uglier.

            Complacency will get us nowhere.  Many thought a revolution was upon us 35 years ago, perhaps a challenged election will be what starts the avalance, and perhaps the revolution will be started by an unlikely group.  It will be up to us to previal, as our forefathers did 225 years ago.

            The people will not tolerate a near 50% tax rate in support or a corporate military regime and fearmongering forever.

            The people will not tolerate oppression and exploitation of our habitat and our brothers and sisters around the globe forever.

            The people will not tolerate 1% of the population controlling 80% of the wealth forever.

            The people will not tolerate the politics of hatred and division forever.

            A revolution never comes with a warning...

            by cheesybear on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 08:44:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Standing up for what makes America (none / 1)

              Standing up for what makes America - America

              Democracy

              .. is not a revolution...

              Its a return to sanity.. and the rule of law...

              These people are filing a lawsuit.
              If that is not working within the system, I don't know what is.

              If the right tries to 'burn the Reichstag' or has stolen the election, the truth will come out.

              The main point is that violence is never necessary. People power is the essence of democracy.

              Peaceful people power.

              by synergist on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 08:52:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What???? (0.90 / 20)

              Dude,

              Relax.  There will be no revolution unless the country fell apart after a massive nuclear attack or some other dreadful thing.  

              Our current government would easily kick our collective asses if we tried anything like what you are saying.  You'd be pissing your pants like the Fallujah Terrorists when the US Military came down on you.  And no, don't think for a minute that the US Military would try to put a progessive politician in power.

              Relax, nobody is going to overthrow anyone using guns.  Anyone who thinks so needs to seriously consider seeing a shrink, or upping their meds.

              Get a life.  This is America, we don't work that way around here any more.  Our enemies are the terrorists, our competition is the Republican party.  Pull your head out your ass and take a breathe - your brain is getting oxygen starved.

              by kerry4pres on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 09:04:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  where did you get that? (4.00 / 4)

                You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.  I am NOT advocating the overthough of our government.  What I am saying is bound to happen is a clash of ideology, and that the people will reclaim our government from facism.  That will be a revolution from our current status quo!

                There will be resistance to this change, from those militant authoritarians who are currently in power.  It is very likely that they will be violent, and we need to be prepared for that, by countering with peaceful sane solutions, however, we must be prepared for the loss of lives and violence against us.  I am no advocating that we participate in this violence, but am merely stating that the potential exists for violence against us, and we need to be prepared for that!

                Yes, Power to the Peaceful.  

                Reclaiming our fundamental values of democracy will be a revolution!

                Furthermore.  I do not appreciate your personal slams against me.  Comments such as that have no place in an intellegent dialouge.

                by cheesybear on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 10:19:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Revolution? (3.50 / 2)

                  In a country where half the population thinks GWB is the greatest thing since indoor plumbing?  Revolutions require considerable groundwork...and they need something to rally behind.  Does anybody honestly see the toothless and increasingly irrelevant Democratic Party as being in the vanguard of substantive social change?  The timid Mr. Kerry is no Che Guevara; and the DP's only response when Opportunity knocks is to rev up their fund-raising efforts.

                  "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

                  by aybayb on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 12:58:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Use of Guns in America? (4.00 / 3)

                  A revolution?  Of course we don't have fringers out there with guns and ideology so far out that they would ever think of using them if they had them.  Why, no one would ever think to use an automatic rifle to kill 6 hunters who were challenging their right to hunt deer on private property.

                  And surely no one in Ameruca is stirred up enough about their particular political views that they would do anything harmful to anyone else.

                  Certainly our National Guard would never shoot into a crowd of noisey but peaceful college students protestering at Kent State University.

                  Hey, listen, I'm old, if you need someone to stand at the front of the line, I will gladly volunteer.  The news media would love to cover the shooting of an old lady protesting fraudulent elections.  Probably on page 36 at the back of the paper.

                  More by Shirl at Village Blue and Matters of Spirit

                  by shirlstars on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 03:42:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  So say you... dude (none / 1)

                : Get a life.  This is America, we don't work that way around here any more.

                Didn't realize you were the authority for this.

                Oh, yeah - have a zero, troll.

                by Terry in Austin on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 03:56:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  well... (none / 0)

            Seems to me that there are plenty of guns in every major blue state city.  I wouldn't be worried about whether or not we've got the firepower, but I would be scared shitless if there were a civil war.

            Reflections on faith, politics and society

            by obietom on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 11:47:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  if they want war, we will give it to them (none / 0)

          i've read enough keyboard commando statements to know that all republicans are sissies.  Just a bunch of bravado wimps.

          We'd destroy them.  

          "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom" - Barack Obama

          by pacified on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 10:01:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and judging by the responses (none / 0)

            to the gun thread a couple of weeks ago, lots of us Lib Dems own guns.  Although, I share the concerns posted above.  If fraud is proven, it could get ugly.

            "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain

            by Shaniriver on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 11:31:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  no need for guns (4.00 / 2)

            dude, it's not the 18th century -- we have a vast network of phantom typists who could very easily (well, maybe not VERY) fuck up the system by hacking, pinging, whatever.

            if the stock exchange can't run, the idiots will wave a white flag...

            AND just for all the intel lurkers out there -- i am actually pro-peace, but i thought you geeks would enjoy the humor as well :)

            Make 'em earn it!

            by michelina on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 01:59:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Sure they will... (none / 1)

          And they will thus once again serve as a shining example what it takes to stand up for your political interests (however deranged they may be).
          Unlike those among us who immediately rolled over and said, oh "let's go to the movies..."

          by HansNYC on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 02:11:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Okay... (none / 0)

        a day later.  Has anyone heard about the suit?  Have they filed?

        Gregoire ~ Powers

        by NYBri on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 04:38:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How did you do that (none / 0)

      You posted your reply to your diary almost three minutes before you posted your diary.  I'm impressed.

      by chezgle on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:08:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What school do you attened? (none / 0)

      And what year are you?

      Iowa and New Hampshire; YOU'RE FIRED!

      by AmericaIsBetterThanBush on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 08:57:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (1.00 / 2)

      A guy on C-SPAN said he has 'evidence' of fraud. There must be some thurth to it.

      This is just what we need. Another saying they have 'evidence'. How many hoops are going to jump through before we start taking a closer look at these extravagant claims? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me a couple of thousand times, shame on me?

      This is not worth a diary. Save it for...I don't know....facts or actual evidence. We need to tell people like this guy on C-SPAN to put up or shut up. Or does hearing about these stories serve as a carthatic?

      Obama/Gore '08

      by crazymoloch on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 10:44:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Link to the program segment here: (none / 0)

    Washington Journal Segment

    don't block my tubes...

    by a lynn on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:08:39 PM PDT

  •  when you get out of school and pass the bar (4.00 / 2)

    your reverence for attorneys will decrease markedly.  

    nevertheless, I had the same reaction when I read about this earlier today, the essence of the story I read (and I am f'in sorry but I can't recal where) was that he intends to show a 150k vote change (i.e., 300 vote swing) based upon what, I dunno.

    mambo

    by Mambo on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:09:52 PM PDT

    •  I get your point (4.00 / 3)

      But, at least attorneys are regulated, unlike politicians.  Which means what they say in public is also regulated.  So, those of you who were disappointed that he didn't point to specifics in his public statement need to understand he's not allowed to under rules of professional responsibility.

      Anyway, what did you think of the interview?  

      There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet Act 1, Scene 5

      by LawStudent on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:19:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  didn't see the interview (none / 1)

        and I will reitterate what I said about understanding lawyers after you have seen the practice from the inside.  get in the game for a year or two and then we can talk about a "regulated profession".  don't dispair, its even better when you beat the f'ers who don't play by any rules.  as for this guy, i can think of no ethical constraint against his making the core of his allegations public, and since no case has been filed, he certainly isn't under a gag order.  OTHOH, he could have very real tactical considerations supporting a decision to keep the specifics of his allegations private for now.

        .02

        mambo

        by Mambo on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll take you up on that (none / 0)

          But I'm not going into private practice.  I'll be working for a regulator, so I'll be in a different environment.

          About your claim that he has no ethical obligation to keep his evidence secret...  Well, that's not what I learned in my legal ethics class.  What I learned was you can't give public statements about things you know or reasonably should know would have substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a judicial proceeding.

          There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet Act 1, Scene 5

          by LawStudent on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:37:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read the text of the rule again (none / 0)

            then read it as a prohibition on speach (i.e., interpret it as narrowly as possible in recognition that it fucnctions to restrict otherise protected conduct) and in conjunction with your mandated duty to advocate zealously amd then you begin to understand it.  depending on who your prof is, you may want to forget all that before your final P-).

            Mambo

            by Mambo on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:51:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are LOTS of prohibitions on free speech (4.00 / 2)

              in the legal profession.  Are you kidding me?  Maybe my prof taught me wrong, but I think there could be some ethical rule violations in making your evidence known publicly, especially before your opponent gets to see it.

              Let's not quibble, however.  Beyond ethics, there is definitely a strategical reason why he would not announce the evidence publicly.

              There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet Act 1, Scene 5

              by LawStudent on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:01:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Won't quibble on ethics (none / 1)

                and I'll admit to the same initial reaction as you in terms of pleasure at the improving source.

                OTOH, my inclination regarding his reluctance to provide details is that it is more likely a sign of weakness.  That's my experience, as they say, YMMV.  The flip side of this is that the article associates the entry of KE04 with the delay and that, in an odd way, may suggest that the big boys want to ensure a greater level of credibility before asssociating themselves with the claim.

                Well, now I sound ready to accept my tin foil hat and devining rod (or do they actually work?) so I will shut-up for the night.

                Mambo

                by Mambo on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:09:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You're going to make a great lawyer.... (none / 0)

                Beyond ethics, there is definitely a strategical reason why he would not announce the evidence publicly.

                BINGO!

                "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people... it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

                by KSKathy on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:55:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I thought ... (none / 0)

        the interview was fine, he sounded nervous, and his earpiece problems were annoying to watch, in his natural environment and briefed I'm sure he'll be fine. He seemed non partisan and told people it was the grass roots organizing it and not the Democrats.
        Loved the Republican voters input, it reminded me of the 59 million we live alongside each day that watch Faux and listen to Limbaugh :(

        Avoiding Theocracy at Home and Neo Cons Abroad

        by UniC on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:12:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Different impression re "nervous" (none / 0)

          He seemed pretty unflappable to me. Iron spine and all that. Just not too talky. He also exuded NONpartisanship. Should have answered to a few of the nutballs on their attacks though. He could have struck them down on some of their BS. But I got the impression he just wasnt into doing so with Cspan callers. I think he is going to be good.

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 11:32:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes the nonpartisan (none / 0)

            is really important.  Note how powerful it is when he can say, "the grassroots organized this, not the Democrats".

            Perhaps a lesson for folks who were bemoaning the Dems stay back and watch approach.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 10:37:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the democrats were a large portion ... (none / 0)

              ... of those grass roots. Thank goodness for all we have done, especially when some were urging only silence.

              I sense you mean this as lesson for me, because I was citing Kerry's lack of visible support and monetary contribution. Perhaps  you are right. Perhaps it was the best calculation. But I dont think that would have been a problem. Kerry would have had mixed company with Nader (NH) Badnarik and Cobb investigating. And it would have looked normal to have him check the votes in something so obviously untoward as Ohio's voting. If you mean bemoaning people here, I never said anyone MUST get involved, only that they shouldnt make their contribution be that of denigrating those who were. I never said Kos should. I really didnt care.

              I am more for seeing Democrats stand up and take the slings and arrows, when they come, and send them back, than try to manage things behind the scenes. Let them show they are there for us and mirror what we want. We wanted our votes investigated. Let our leader investigate and explain loud and clear why it's right to do so. Let the naysayers get over it.  

              And finally, yes, the lawyer's credentials, re impartiality, are a very nice bonus, indeed.

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

              by NYCee on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 10:54:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Possibly postponed until Monday (none / 0)

    Welcome and thanks for posting this.

    From an article on JK joining the recount effort in Ohio today:

    "Meanwhile, a lawyer representing a group alleging fraud in the Ohio presidential election put off until at least Friday the filing of a challenge to the results. Cliff Arnebeck, who alleges that votes intended for Kerry were shifted to Bush, said his legal team needed more time to collect and analyze evidence. He said the filing could take place as late as Monday."

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20041203/ap_o n_el_pr/ohio_vote

    Be The Media

    by wild salmon on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:15:16 PM PDT

  •  More on Cliff Arnebeck's doings (none / 0)

    http://www.commonblog.com/story/2004/11/21/222459/38

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:15:19 PM PDT

  •  An Earlier Story Dealing With Arnebeck Here (4.00 / 3)

    That's here (opens in new window.) I wrote this almost two weeks ago for the newspaper I work for, so it's a bit dated. But it indicates where Arnebeck is coming from.

    Blog: "Patterns That Connect" Current Dkos Diary: here

    by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:18:16 PM PDT

    •  Aren't Kerry & Edwards (none / 1)

      LAWYERS????  Why would this lawyer be doing this? IF True, wouldn't it have more credibility if K/E came out swinging and joined up? I cannot get my hopes up over any of this anymore. The Picture of Kerry at the coffin has thrown me 1 month backwards to the pre election lump in throat, realizing Kerry is gonna become the next president of the United States, save America and give hope to the rest of the world. It still seems like we are all gonna wake up from this bad, bad, bad dream.

      It's Obamazing!!!!!!!!!!!!

      by Chamonix on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:32:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depends (none / 1)

        If they came out swinging and lost, it would do serious damage to both their reputations and (indirectly) any future presidential bids.  There's a lot to consider in this, and other lawyers have a lot less to lose.

        by Jonathan on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:17:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Who is Cliff Arnebeck? (none / 0)

    What are his credentials?

    Does he have a clean reputation?

    I can't evaluate this information until I see more evidence. We have had our hopes raised before on related issues only to have nothing happen the last few weeks.

    Credible evidence includes who, what, where, when, how. Persons who don't have this raise our hopes that they're GOING to produce something, only they never do. I'm not getting my hopes too high yet.

    Conservatism is Dead!

    by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:35:33 PM PDT

    •  Arnebeck background according to this CSPAN (4.00 / 4)

      Long time Ohio operative. Counsel to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee in the early 90s. Supported Perot in '92, switched parties to Dem and  supported Clinton in '96, McCain in '00, Kerry this time.

      Host said Arneback had been the 1996 House of Representatives Dem candidate against Rep. Deborah Pryce (Pryce won).

      He is currently a mid-wig with Alliance for Democracy a group co-founded by Ronnie Dugger.

      I don't know about Arneback's reputation.

      by Big Jack Stark on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:55:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Martindale Rating (4.00 / 3)

        He has a Martindale rating of BV -- that is a peer rating based on evaluations by other lawyers (don't condemn us all please).  Here is an explanation of the rating system:  http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/Lawyer_Locator/Search_Lawyer_Locator/rating_info.xml?aid=144 7025&lid=1447023&&searchid=200412022356227098037&PRV=LL2&STYPE=N

        by tejassaluki on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:58:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (none / 0)

          (not complaining about lawyers ...)

          Martindale-Hubbell rating system is beyond arcane ... but there's no other system out there

          I'd be more interested in the background that might be found through Lexis/Nexis, with an eye to other cases he's brought (and the result) ... anybody got an account and willing to dig?

          The next fantasy: Obama/Dean (please let it be)

          by wystler on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 01:17:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  KO seems to take him seriously (none / 0)

            From Keith Olbermann's blog:

            But of all the developments out of Ohio, the most provocative, clearly, is still stalled under the weight of its own paperwork. The Alliance for Democracy is not quite ready with its challenge to the vote yet. Lawyer Cliff Arnebeck, with who else but Reverend Jackson by his side today on the steps of the Ohio Supreme Court, said that the group hopes to file its election challenge tomorrow -- if not, Monday -- but it's not guaranteeing anything.

            If and when it gets around to it, the Alliance will be asking one high court justice to set the election results aside, pending a full investigation and hearing. Arnebeck said today  he believes that if all ballots were counted in what he calls a "traditional context," the outcome would not just swing from President Bush's 130,000 vote election night lead -- it would swing all the way in the opposite direction, and give Kerry a 130,000 vote lead.

            "Once we file the litigation." Arnebeck added, "aggressive discovery will proceed, and we'll get to the truth.  I want to reemphasize once again as we did at the previous press conference that the purpose here is not partisan, the purpose here is not destructive toward anyone and we invite all candidates, we invite the Bush campaign and the Kerry campaign to join and cooperate in a non-partisan effort to find the truth, gather the facts, and assure the public, and assure both candidates, that this is an honest election."

            Arnebeck sounded a little like a protestor in Kiev: "Our presidential election affects not just this country but all the citizens of the world.  And therefore it's absolutely essential that the person who assumes the mantle of that office has the full confidence of our public and the world community that it was an honest election."

            Amen.

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

            There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet Act 1, Scene 5

            by LawStudent on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 02:02:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for your info. (none / 0)

        He has strong credentials and knows the state very well. And nobody can dismiss him as a hack. His case has a better chance than Harris' and Fisher's. But let's see what kind of evidence he produces.

        Conservatism is Dead!

        by Eternal Hope on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:22:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this pointer (4.00 / 2)

    I'm at work when this show is on...and the callers tend to make me grind my teeth, but I'm glad you pointed it out. It gladdens me to hear Arnebeck is still trying, and It'll be interesting in hearing what his evidence is that he says "will flip the totals" between Kerry and Bush Junior.

    He made it sound, for those who haven't listened/seen, that there were many individual elements to the "fraudulent" vote totals, and that they're not basing the count shift on one single scheme or trick or action.

    Wonderful all-star classic wingnut call at the 43:45 mark. Really special. It was so out there, the froth was actully spewing from my Real Media player and puddling at the base of my monitor.

    by Big Jack Stark on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:39:17 PM PDT

    •  Arneback (3.50 / 2)

      I watched the link and was impressed by his demeanor and cool answers. He kept his head even when the callers sounded like Freeper trolls (the purported Hoosier was especially infuriating). He implied that exit polls were not his principal evidence, but--somewhat frustratingly--I'm at a bit of a loss to know what his principle evidence is. I'm going to make a donation to Common Cause though, simply because I am convinced that it is the right thing to do. Every vote should counted, and anyone who tries to stop it is the true traitor to America and the ideals it needs to start living up to.

      Takin' back truth; takin' back Texas. http://vanosfortexasag.com/

      by Passage2Truth on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:07:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  if the evidence for the lawsuit is compelling (4.00 / 4)

    the dems need to get behind it. Clinton, Boxer, Kennedy need to support it publicly, not to mention Kerry.
    I'm afraid the big name dems will remain silent, as they have remained silent about so many of Bush's crimes, trying to get along I suppose, but that approach has left us devoid of real political power. Now the Bushies are threatening to do away with the filibuster. What will they do away with next? Exit polls?

    Dean for DNC chair. We need a dem who still has the will to fight in that post. No more appeasement.

    by warbly on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:06:52 PM PDT

    •  Agree about party support (none / 1)

      one point I keep hitting on is that now is the time to press our reps on their support "in principle" for overturning an election result which cannot withstand scrutiny (flip the burden).  It should be much easier to garner support for this idea in the abstraxct than when (and if) push comes to shove.

      Mambo

      by Mambo on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:12:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's a transcript of the relevant parts... (4.00 / 14)

    "The only logical explanation is that there was a movement of some 65,000 votes or so that were cast for Kerry into the Bush column. Which created a margin that is approximately the total margin by which Bush was reported to have won Ohio. So our current view of the evidence is that this is where the fix occurred.

    "There were a variety of other problems in the election. There was the suppression of black voters in Franklin Co. by shorting machines in black and high Democratic performance districts. There was what we would call a precinct shuffle in Summit Co. and Cuyahuga Co. where a deliberate confusion was created about where people could vote. They cast their provisional ballots...there were election officials were telling them that they could vote in any precinct of the county and it would be counted. And then you've got Blackwell saying they won't be counted.

    "Our present feeling is that this is, while a serious conspiracy to violate the civil rights of a protected class of voters namely those of the black race, that this is not where the real fix occurred. This is something we will discuss in the lawsuit, but we intend to focus very, to hone in very aggressively in full tilt litigation with full discovery on what we believe is the fraud that occurred in the southern part of the state with the shift of votes.

    "Look at the two races. In effect the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court race is a benchmark race for the presidential race because both of these races were competitive, they were running neck and neck. All right so this gives you a basis to say "all right what happened in this situation and how does it relate to the other, the benchmark." Now a more ingenious approach might have been if you're going to do this you should have made the adjustment also in the Supreme Court race too, so this wouldn't stand out. This stands out like a sore thumb.

    I think what happened is, all this civil rights violation was a red herring intended to stimulate the public interest groups and civil rights organizations to hone in on this, on this horrendous, horrendous attack on the rights of black voters. They thought that's what we would go after, the clock would run out, we wouldn't be able to prove our case. The real fraud occurred in this switching of votes in southern Ohio. That's our present view of the evidence."

    by pointsoflight on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:21:32 PM PDT

    •  Wow (none / 0)

      That makes such utter, sick sense.

      Bait and switch for evil????

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

      by jbeach on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 07:41:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This Makes Me Uneasy (none / 0)

      The linking of the Kerry/Bush vote to the vote for the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court makes me uneasy.  This has been discussed before on Daily Kos at some length.  No party designation appears on the ballot for the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, but some people are constructing an argument that says why would someone vote for Senator Kerry and not vote for retired Judge Connally, an African American woman from Cleveland, who had been endorsed by the Ohio Democratic Party.  

      by eafredel on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 12:02:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually the reverse logic (none / 0)

        The logic is why would someone vote for Judge Connally and not for Kerry.  I believe that this makes more sense than some similar arguments.  Among them "Why would one vote for a Democratic Governor and not for Kerry?" Obviously because there are a lot of ticket splitters.

        So, to make the argument against the logic about Connally, one would have to have reasonable evidence that there were Bush voters who voted for Connally.  Only and Ohioan can tell us what the chances of that were.

        -6.00/-7.18

        by TarheelDem on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 05:03:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They only have until Mon., December 13 (3.50 / 2)

    to recount and finish this up because, under federal law, December 13 is when the members of the Electoral College cast their votes.

    I bet that's another reason why Blackwell keeps delaying the certification of Ohio's vote.

    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

    by thebes on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:28:43 PM PDT

    •  i think an election can still be overturned (none / 0)

      after the electors vote. Olbermann blogged about this but I can't remember the specifics. Anyway, he concluded that if the election result in Ohio is overtuned by courts or recounts the dec.13 deadline would not matter. Maybe the lawyers here know more about this.

      by warbly on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:44:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excerpt from Olberman Blog (none / 1)

        Cobb, Badnarik, Arnebeck, and everybody else actually has more time than they think. I addressed this topic with the wonderfully knowledgeable George Washington University Constitutional Law professor, Jonathan Turley, back on Countdown on November 9th. He noted the election process is a little slower-- and has one more major loophole-- than is generally known. It begins on December 7th, the date "when you essentially certify your electors... it gives a presumption to the legitimacy to your votes. And then, on the 13th, the electors actually vote."

        But, Turley noted, "those votes are not opened by Congress until January 6. Now, if there are controversies, such as some disclosure that a state actually went for Kerry (instead of Bush), there is the ability of members of Congress to challenge." In other words, even after the December 13th Electoral College Vote, in the extremely unlikely scenario that a court overturns the Ohio count, or that the recount discovers 4,000 Gahanna-style machines that each recorded 4,000 votes too many for one candidate, there is still a mechanism to correct the error, honest or otherwise.

        "It requires a written objection from one House member and one senator," Turley continues. Once that objection is raised, the joint meeting of the two houses is discontinued. "Then both Houses separate again and they vote by majority vote as to whether to accept the slate of electoral votes from that state."

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

        "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people... it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

        by KSKathy on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:52:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the deadline really is the 13th then (none / 0)

          a majority vote decision in congress is a dead end for us.

          by warbly on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:03:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  except... (none / 0)

            that then we'd be relying on congress to "do the right thing" and choose to support a different set of ohio electors.

            tunesmith's latest song: My Favorite Clown

            by tunesmith on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:11:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Majority" not what you think... (none / 1)

              The House gets to vote on the President in this odd scenario.  Each state gets ONE vote, total; the state Congressmen all get together and decide who gets the state's one vote.  So the calculation isn't quite as simple as "majority rules".  Both Dakotas and Tennesee are Dem votes under this scenario; Mississippi is tied 2-2.  If no candidate can get a majority of states, they keep debating - it could get ugly.  One or two vote switches in states like Nevada or Connecticut would make all the difference.

              In the Senate, each Senator gets a vote, and they vote for the VP.

              We could yet wind up with President Kerry and VP Cheney (he gets to vote for himself in the unlikely event of a tie...)

              Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

              by Phoenix Rising on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:13:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're mistaken (none / 0)

                That's what occurs when no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes.

                If a slate of electors is challenged, with objections raised by a House and Senate member then the members debate on which slate to accept.  I'm not clear on the process as to how they determine which to accept or whether there is a deadline.

                -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

                by DWCG on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 04:50:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don' worry (none / 0)

                  >>>
                  ...I'm not clear on the process as to how they determine which to accept or whether there is a deadline.
                  >>>>>

                  I'm sure we can rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide those kinds of issues and sort this all out.

                  "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

                  by aybayb on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 01:19:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No, (none / 0)

                FIRST the joint congress must determine which set (if any) of electors' votes to count, if there are two competing slates (as happened in 1876 from where the rules originated) then the joint houses will determine if one, the other or neither is valid...ONLY THEN (if Ohio's EV's are invalidated) would neither candidate possess a majority, and the election be thrown to the house and senate respectively for P. and V.P.

                --------
                Please don't bite the heads off the chocolate Elvises.

                by PBJ Diddy on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 04:56:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What procedure indeed (none / 1)

                  I wrote this out a week ago for a diary, which got into deadline issues about deciding Pres elections.  By time I was done, the diary was gone.  (I'm new to this, and finding out they don't call dailykos daily for nothing.)  So, I'm gonna jam it in here, where ideas are whirling around about deadlines and procedures for a possible final showdown before a joint session of Congress.  It includes a little tangent about 2000.

                  A sturdy site for getting Federal statutes, the Constitution, and reg's (and many state ones) is law.cornell.edu.  Go there, click the following sequence:  Constitutions and Codes; US Code; (scroll down aways) Title 3; Chapter 1.  You'll have a range of sections on presidential election procedure, up to about sec. 15.  (You cite these, e.g., 3 U.S.C. §15.)

                  The timing rules begin in §7, setting a day for the vote-casting meeting of each state's electors (putting aside for the moment who they be).  It's the 1st Monday following the 2nd Wednesday in December.  Taking that alone, this year it's Dec. 13.  In 2000 it was Dec. 18.

                  (However, I just noticed the intriguing clause in §7 coming right after "December":  "next following their appointment."  Does the "next following" refer to "2nd Wednesday"?  Thus, you'd count off your 2 Wednesdays not from Nov. 30, but after the day of "appointment," in case there's still a fight about that into Dec., or beyond??  It seems that would be hard to make sense of, since, as seen next, the "safe harbor" deadline is figured as 6 days looking back from the meeting date, and anticipates that the "determination" of electors' identities might be only made on that date, in which case you couldn't count off 2 Wednesdays from there, resetting the meeting date you thought you had, etc.  Maybe "appointment" in this clause refers back to the activities of what is normally called Election Day, back in November, that being in theory the day the electors were "appointed," if not actually identified.  I don't recall any mention of this clause back in Bush v. Gore, concerning SCOTUS's appalling exploitation of the safe harbor day.)

                  So, the safe harbor language is in 3 U.S.C. §5 (key parts in caps):  "If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, SUCH DETERMINATION MADE PURSUANT TO SUCH LAW SO EXISTING ON SAID DAY, AND MADE AT LEAST SIX DAYS PRIOR TO SAID TIME OF MEETING OF THE ELECTORS, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned."

                  Now, there's 3 U.S.C. §6, talking innocuously about how, in uncontroversial cases, the "executive of the State" (apparently taken to be the governor) is to "ascertain" the elector slate and send it to the Archivist.  I.e., for Florida 2000, Brother Bush.  (Has anyone ever FOIA'd that treasonous document and put it on the Web?)

                  But for the possibility of controversy, we wind up in 3 U.S.C. §15, and the joint Congressional session which is always Jan. 6.  It includes the rule about how, if there is objection to a purported slate from a state, it must be supported by at least one member of each house.  (This framed the wrenching scene in F911 of the series of African-American congresspeople - - speaking bravely and incisively, the only people defending elemental democracy in a den of subversives - - juxtaposed against the row of cowering honky senators.)  After the objection requirement, had it been met, there follows the language that brings in the §5 "safe harbor."  The first clause seems to refer just to an easy case without competing claimed slates for the state, and the §6 "executive" document:  ... "no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified."  (H'mm doesn't say what happens if the purported slate is so rejected.)

                  Then, where there are multiple claimant-slates, the §5 safe harbor seems to rule: "If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; ..."

                  But here's the thing, there's never such thing as a completely "safe harbor," as there can always be a dispute whether the conditions for gaining a "safe harbor" were met.  It's just turtles all the way down.  Sec. 15 recognizes this, especially the critical ambiguity of what constitutes "the State" who does this determining or certifying, etc., and puts the decision about the true slate into the hands of this joint Congressional session, as follows:  "but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; ..."

                  Finally, the case of multiple claimant-slates, but lacking an even arguable §5 "safe harbor," is addressed:  "... and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State."

                  This might have all been academic in 2000, where the Repugs ruled both houses on 1/6/2001 (I think), and presumably would have put their guy in.  But they would have been forced to do it in public:  the separate meetings of the two houses are presumably recorded public sessions of the bodies, not closed "committee" meetings.  Who knows, it might have gotten interesting.  For the final kicker, though, and the next sentence of §15, note that in all the above cases, a decision requires the two houses to agree on it.  Suppose they split.  Well - - "But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted."  Referring back to §6 governor's document after all, it would seem.  So there was the real "safe harbor":  to have your brother as governor.

                  I remember in 2000 thinking thru to a scenario, perhaps involving the Constitutional language on elector identification, which is pretty much just "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors."  (Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 2.)  Say Gore had prevailed in the courts and on the vote-identification tables (say "identify," not "count," because that's where the problem is, and "re-count" make you sound like a whiny kid), but the Harris-Baker-Jeb axis maintained for Dubya, and a court-appointed receiver, or some such, sent a competing slate to the Archivist.  (Or suppose, even wilder, that Gore won just on the vote-identification tables, as the workers - - by then they were all in Tallahassee - - took it on themselves to keep going - - the state court order COMMANDING them to work was reversed, but they were never literally commanded NOT to keep working - - for the heck of it if nothing else, and announced that Gore got more votes.)  A Jan. 6 objector might raise the point that the whole 3 U.S.C. procedure was not consistent with the above one sentence in the Constitution, and that the "State's" appointment, in the manner that the Florida Legislature had directed, was either the Gore slate, or no slate on the grounds that the "manner" had not been followed, and that these were ultimately to be decided by the Jan. 6 "Congress."  Neither the Constitution nor statute dictated how to decide a question like THAT, and (I further fantasized) it was regarded as a procedural point to be decided by the presiding officer of the body, who was of course, named Al Gore.  So that would have been the really, really ultimate "safe harbor":  to be the incumbent vice-president.

                  It is truly painful to re-live all that crap, but as the posters were suggesting, the "safe harbor" claim could well infect the situation this year again, with the rightists planning similar disrupt-and-stall tactics.  I wish I were back in my (home state of) Ohio for the thing to do - - go march on Blackwell's office.  Sounds like the CSNY song all over again.  "Please come to Ohio ..."

                  More a propos to the present diary:  it seems to be proposed that the outright voting process of the January Congress applies to disputes over identification of (some state's) true electors.  I tend to think not.  In short, the Constitutional provisions (Art. II, Sec. 1 as modified by the 12th Amendment) seem to blissfully assume that there will be no dispute over the identity of true electors:  THAT's dealt with ONLY by the statutory stuff only, cited above (as I read the Constitutional stuff).  And the rule where the two bodies split off and by outright vote, make the end decision of who's Pres (the House) and V-P (by Senate), are in the Constitution (not statute), and arises in the case of a lack of a majority for any candidate (after the true electors are identified, i.e., any dispute is hammered out somehow).

                  The latter case arises only where there is at least a third candidate getting electoral votes, such that nobody has a majority of electoral votes, or, an exact split of the total of 538.  (But see next, about the 538.)

                  I think one of the bloggers here was suggesting that, suppose there's a dispute over some state's (Ohio's?) true electors, that "Congress" just can't resolve, there maybe no votes from that state at all, causing neither candidate to have the 270+ needed for a majority - - of the 538.  Then (it was suggested) on to the outright vote by the House, with one vote per state, etc.  But I don't think that's right.  The key 12th Am. sentence is "The person having the greatest number of Votes for President, shall be the President, if such number is be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed ..." wherein it depends what "Electors appointed" means.  If in the last scenario, no electoral votes are countable from Ohio, say, it means there are no "appointed" electors from Ohio, then you deduct its 20 (I think) from the 538, and you're looking for a majority of the remaining 518.

                  by From Occupied Oklahoma on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 03:02:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  key thing there is "vote by majority" (none / 0)

          in the last line of the quote. Even if you PROVE that kerry won, the congressional republicans will just vote Bush in, regardless of how unpopular it would be. After all, they're willing to launch war based on nothing against a country that wasn't harming our national interest. I am extremely supportive of this effort, but I'm mentally preparing myself for disappointment. Disappointment in either the merit of the case, or that real proof will change anything.

          Investigate War Lies --> Evidence for Senate Conviction --> End the War. Got it?

          by bejammin075 on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:07:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And the response to that would be... (none / 0)

            ... millions of people going "Ukraine" across the country.

            They are power hungry ... but I think they wouldn't isk this.  They would fall nback and regroup.  They have the House and Senate for now.

            Those who fail to learn from history...are invited to submit an application for a position in the Bush administration.

            by Timoteo on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:20:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And every Democrat (none / 0)

              Who intends to be a candidate in 2008 would be calling on people to protest.  It won't just be Jackson and the NAACP, we're going to see Gore, Dean, Governors and Senators leading the charge.

              In 2000, we weren't organized.  But today we are.

              -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

              by DWCG on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 04:52:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Bush would call out troops (none / 1)

              Bush/Rove don't give a damn what the public thinks, they would call out the National Guard- those few who aren't getting shot to pieces in Iraq.

              Don't ever expect any of these current batch of Rethugs to have any decency, morality, or respect for our constitution, this is all about a mad lust for power.

              by MD patriot on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 06:51:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  They would vote Bush in ... (4.00 / 2)

              Hard to imagine that the result would be anything other than that, no matter how strong the proof of voter fraud in Ohio, the Republicans would simply vote for the Bush electors.

              Amid almost 100% of Bush voters and a large share of the rest of the electorate, there is simply no mental preparation for massive voter fraud.  Most Americans believe the election is a done deal ... that Bush won with a large enough share of the vote to show that he "won".  

              If there were a won case of fraud in Ohio, the Republicans would adopt an (extremely) aggressive perception management campaign against activist judges, false data, etc ... and talk about how Bush "won" the nation by 3 million votes.

              In a Republican House that had no problem voting to change the rules so that Tom Delay can continue to hold a leadership post even if indicted, do you realize expect a great deal of hesistancy in voting to keep George Bush in office.

              There might -- emphasize MIGHT -- be a few Republican defections but, by definition, their careers as Republicans would be over.

              If it ends up in the Congress, the "best" case probably would be that:

              A -- There would be a major debate and some part of the (so-called) 51% would listen in and absorb.

              B -- There would be at least a few ("moderate") Republicans who ended up siding with the Democrats and then switched parties (or went "Independent"), thus bolstering the Democratic minorities.

              C -- Enough people are outraged leading to a currently unlike shift to Democrats in the 2006 elections.

              D -- Evidence becomes strong enough to directly link Bush & Cheney to election fraud ... impeachment of both by a Democratic Congress in 2007.

              A long, not that plausible, but dreamy trail of events if the Ohio vote is successfully challenged in Court but is sent to the Congress to choose between competing electoral slates ...

              The clock keeps ticking ... Osama bin Forgotten

              by besieged by bush on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 06:52:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I would like to see that (none / 1)

              I'm for big, big, BIG, ANGRY demonstrations against what the F%$K is going on here.

              People who don't scream, curse, strike, block traffic and flip police cars sometimes just aren't listened to.

              "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

              by jbeach on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 07:44:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You've got it! (none / 0)

                Let's get it on!

                by OldFlame on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 09:09:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Seattle/WTO So Effective 'Cause Polycultural (none / 1)

                The Seattle N30 demonstrations against WTO were so effective because they used so many different tactics at the same time. Teach-ins, peaceful marches, passive resistance, vandalism.

                The high-minded tactics are, long-term, best, but if the antagonist (in this case, the Bush Junior team, who follow the Leninist playbook very precisely and who behave in consistently Leninist ways tactically) is willing to use violence, extra-legal activities, outside-the-box shenanigii, because they believe "winning" is more important than "being right", then high-minded purity will always lose in the material world.

                The Ukraine will not get a new election because they went through the process inside the system. Had they not done all that groundwork within the system, no other tactics would have mattered, but all those other tactics -- threats, demonstrations, filibusters, marches, angry meeting, vandalism, threats  -- are what is making the recount/revote/realignment possible.

                Lenin tactics versus Kerensky tactics (ends-justifies-the-means vs ethical democratic legitimate high-minded openness). Run 1000 simulations...in the immediate, the Leninists always win. You can't beat Leninism with compromise and trust and granting your antagonist legitimacy. Kerensky tactics, basically what the Dems have been doing since they purged the machine bosses in the North and the cross-burning yellow-dog leadership in the South, are beautiful and what we stand for as a Nation. Sadly, they are close to a guaranteed losing approach (evidence -- the Dems' failure to take offices, even when they won the votes to do so -- since 1994).

                Plan on winning this thing fairly and without rancor or trips to the ER for anyone. But fully and rigorously prepare for the dirty necessities if/when high-minded fails to deliver.

                by Big Jack Stark on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 09:15:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  aoeu (none / 0)

            I wouldn't be able to wait for the 06 midterms.

            turtles consider
            every single vote deeply
            yet always vote dem

            by TealVeal on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:20:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  uhh.. (none / 0)

            the congressional republicans will just vote Bush in, regardless of how unpopular it would be. After all, they're willing to launch war based on nothing against a country that wasn't harming our national interest.

            so was Kerry

            by wage zombie on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 03:00:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  aoeu (none / 0)

        Who overturns it?  Bush can be impeached, but do you think that he will be?

        turtles consider
        every single vote deeply
        yet always vote dem

        by TealVeal on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:00:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ready to be overturned. . . . (none / 0)

        see:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/2/153540/428

        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

        by Einsteinia on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:56:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not Fast enough (none / 0)

      This won't happen fast enough. We can only cause a stink on 'Nixonian' proportions that would cause the President to resign.

      Worst President Ever!

      by tchoup on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 07:15:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, House Judiciary dems challenging Blackwell (4.00 / 12)

    http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohblackwellltr12204.pdf

    Unfortunately can't cut and paste any excerpts, because it's in image rather than text form. But here are some of the issues they want him to respond to:

    Warren County lockdown
    Perry County counting discrepencies
    Perry County registration peculiarities
    Unusual results in Butler County
    Unusual results in Cuyahoga County
    Spoiled Ballots
    Franklin County overvote
    Miami County vote discrepency
    Mahoning County machine problems
    Machine shortages
    Invalidated provisional ballots
    Directive to reject voter registration forms

    by pointsoflight on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:42:25 PM PDT