garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 03:39 AM
Original message |
Where are the claims that a Senator will contest ohio? |
|
I keep hearing/reading indirect information about this. Supposedly Conyers said it Ed Schultz radio. But there's no archive of the recording, and then the next day he said the opposite on another show.
Now today we've got "Break For News" stating that William Pit has information about senators contesting, but I can't find anything in Pit's published writing to this effect.
Is there any transcript or article or anything in the public domain that makes the claim that senators are going to contest electors?
thanks, gary
|
Pam-Moby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 03:41 AM
Response to Original message |
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. it doesn't give a source |
|
it says that John Conyers is confident of it would be nice to know where that information came from because I haven't heard Conyers say anything like that. Have you? I would think if he did, the exact quote would be available. Is Break For News making their claim based on the Ed Schultz interview? Man I wish I could hear a copy of that.
|
Pam-Moby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I am sorry, but I have not heard it from Conyers words or Kerry |
|
Will Pitt is the only person who has reported it!
|
malatesta1137
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 04:09 AM
Response to Original message |
4. it's nothing but a blogger's conclusions |
|
we had that just 2 days ago and it turned out to be nothing. I wouldn't get so jumpy.
|
KaliTracy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 04:39 AM
Response to Original message |
5. if one (or more) has decided to do this, he/she/they |
|
wouldn't announce it -- they'd be innudated with pressure and people trying to "change" their minds.... the element of surprise really has to be there for this one.
And this one is best left to the very, very, very, very good possibility (i think i used as many verys as will).... and leave it at that. Getting too much information out there before it is time could work against us, though a "break" in the news like that might awaken MSM.
I'm even waiting to see how thorough MSM really reports on the 6th.... I can see things "happening" to disrupt any coverage, like war news, Michael Jackson's plea for forgiveness, a power outage, or a cat that rescues its' known enemy from a fire, or something equally news worthy...
|
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. OK, but where's the 'very very very good possibility' coming from? |
|
I still don't see that anywhere with any source given at all.
|
KaliTracy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-25-04 11:07 AM by KaliTracy
at this point in time, I don't need that. I understand the need to let us know that the possibility is there, without having to give all the information surrounding it -- but I tend to see this whole process in the guise of a huge chess game. I know that some aren't satisfied with that analogy -- they want Kerry and everyone else to be "right there" -- when we are not dealing with a typical governmental situation. It *shouldn't* have to be that way....
I'm going to be "stealthy" today in my all Republican (except for my mom) family gathering. Though I did give a relative yesterday who lives in New York much information -- she's dem. and had no idea what was happening in Ohio.
Today, however, I will keep most of my ideas to myself, knowing that *something* will happen in the next week -- and even if things don't totally go the way we want them to, I trust that once more information is brought into the open that more people will discuss it, and it is in discourse that change will happen. Perhaps not quickly. Perhaps not with the immediate outcome we want. But this is not about Kerry as much as it is about reclaiming our democracy. But the time, and information, must be right, for it's too easy for people to just blow off contrary ideas, especially when their belief structures are being questioned.
|
New Earth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. a few of us here heard it on Shultz's show with our own ears |
|
Shultz doesn't put up archives of his show to keep down costs. He played it live the first day, then after so many people emailing him, he played it again the following day and explained that he didn't put up archives.
The other thing you are thinking of was the Salon article, where it said Conyers was more 'unsure' about it - which if you put it all together, was obviously said BEFORE his LIVE interview with Shultz.
The only thing i can think of is if you email Ed Schultz and ask him to either play it again, send you a clip, or at least confirm verbally that Conyers said it.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 12:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
New Earth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-25-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 08:53 AM
Response to Original message |