2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

And I don't think the Wellstone matter has been settled. What's the problem with alluding to an open case?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! :wink:
Along those lines; I didn't understand what was wrong with Craven, or me, asking you about it.

But, I have--you've answered--and I don't want to belabor the point. That would enter into harrassment--and that isn't my intention.

I did think they had agreed that the pilot was inexperienced.

Sofia, it really doesn't seem like you are trying to OPEN discussion, so much as go back to and harp on something you apparently feel is a real weapon to use.

We have, many of us, on many threads, discussed theme and variations on the topic of conspiracies. Some exist; some do not. Some are proven; others are not. Smart people do not dismiss out of hand any theory which has yet to be proven or disproven.

To this day, there are still discussions on whether Dag Hammarskjold's plane was shot down or went down naturally. That's a long time ago - at the beginning of the U.N., so you may not be familiar with the name.

And there are many reputable people (like one of the DAs nationally assigned to investigate the JFK case), who believe there was a conspiracy; that it could not possibly have been one man, based on all the evidence presented to these lawmakers.

So who really knows about Wellstone? If you really want a discussion, then what you do is prepare to discuss the pros and cons, and not dismiss those theories that you don't agree with. And present arguments for your case that are open to discussion.

Most stuff here is opinion, based upon a lot of research and reading, with presentable statements of fact. And many of us have been around long enough to have actually lived through some bad history moments, so there's some perspective too.

And I just thought of something else. One of the glaring, outstanding facets of the little Bush is that he seems to have no sense of history whatsoever. It is simply another one of those useless topics he seems to feel will disappear with a shake of the finger. But history is what shapes us. The latest indication is the repeat of the freedom march with Martin Luther King in Washington. True, it's a long way from a vacation in Crawford, Texas to a meeting of black Americans in D.C. But it was an important meeting, attended by the leaders of the black community. Bush did not speak, did not attend, did not send a message. And yet, history should show him that he needs at least a small percentage of that vote. Howard Dean was there.

But, maybe it was a conspiracy on the part of certain people to show him in a bad light. Like telephoning the families of the troops lost in Iraq. Compassion would have made the calls, but not a president on vacation.

Tartarin,
I share with you a certain anxiety, based on what I have lived through.

I recently sent an email to Dean campaign HQ asking them to please, please ratchet up his personal security.

Am I a worry wart? Maybe.

Do I think that Bush would, knowingly participate in a plan to physically harm an opponent?

No, I guess not.

Do I think that anyone connected to Bush's administration or campaign would do so --if Bush appeared headed for defeat?

...'Probably not' I think, though a little less confidentally.

Are there lots of 'True Believers' on the radical right who see the a republican presidency and control of the country as almost a divine right?

Yes.

I have lived through November 1963, and I have lived through 1968.

For that matter I have seen the Israeli Prime minister murdered by a radical rightist countryman --and the Israeli right profit from it.

I have seen how vulnerable a single a human being is, and I have seen how fragile the vehicle of our hopes can be.

I accuse no one...but I pleaded with the Dean organization to protect Howard Dean.

mamajuana said--

And the first step to entering into that discussion is to ask someone their opinion of it. I did. It was dodged, as if the question was out of bounds. At the beginning, Tartarin was the one unwilling to present her argument for the case... Since she prefers not to--I let it go.

Trying to pin the death of Paul Wellstone on Bush slays credibility, IMO. I do think it is ridiculous. I also think it is ridiculous to expect a President to call every family of service personnel who have been killed. Has any other President done this?

I think there are many credible issues for the opposition to focus on--and I don't agree that these are among them.

Reference to Dean has become common on this thread. In the back of your mind, have you decided the others are a lost cause?

How do you view Dean's recent comment in which he stated the General would make a good VP choice? (sorry...lost his name...duh)

Ok my friend you asked for it.
here's an exerpt from a PM I sent to a friend this morning:
(sorry, no pix)


"...I have become addicted to the Dean blog. it's so full of energy and hope.
I'm sorry if I'm getting a little obnoxious in my singlemindedness about the Dean campaign. I am spending a lot of my time and energy on it in one way or another.

Last Thursday night I got to meet Gov. Dean and shake his hand at a Middletown R.I. house party-fund raiser. Along with a half dozen others from Rhode Island for Dean, I was working the registration table, signing people in and taking checks from attendees who had not yet paid.

The Governor showed what a classy guy he is by going out of his way to come over to the registration table and shake all of our hands BEFORE anyone else.

Later, he got a laugh when he began his remarks by saying that there were a number of republicans in the crowd (of about three hundred) so he was going to: "...Take about five miles an hour off my fastball!.." (and) "...Not throw out some of the red meat I usually do!..."
In point of fact his speech was as tough on Bush and as 'Truman-esque' (my word) as he delivers anywhere else.
His 'Fastball' was blazing...and there was LOTS of 'red meat'.

Another great line that the Governor got off concerned Myrth York and Sheldon Whitehouse, who were together at his side. They fought a bitter primary battle for the R.I. democratic gubernatorial nomination last year. (All the blood-letting undoubtedly helped the incumbent Republican to defeat York in the November election.)
The Governor's line, as York and Whitehouse stood side by side smiling like honeymooners:
"Well, if we can bring Myrth and Sheldon together, solving the North Korea problem should be easy!" The crowd LOVED it.

Friday morning I was up early. Myself and a couple of others were waving Dean signs at commuters coming into Providence between 7-9a.m. We got a lot of waves and beeps!
I was surprised that quite a few truckers tooted and waved.

Saturday night four of us were at 'Waterfire', a recurring nightime event in Providence. We had a table, Dean buttons, bumper stickers, signs etc. and, without 'getting in anyones face' we talked to anyone who smiled, or stopped etc...."

A conspiracy theory that has been belabored so much as to have had in excess of $100 million spent on it and has achieved 2 (count them, 2) convictions not even realated (one for income tax evasion, the other for not talking) is the Clinton dog and pony show. Now that is the epitome of belabored and wrong! Go figure, all because the Dems went after Nixon and Reagan - two true criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, Bill!

No, Sofia! I have no idea why you think you're owed an explanation about Wellstone from me. We have access to the same, rather porous, news about Wellstone's death. We draw different conclusions, that's all. When I was most concerned about the issue and read through the materials, I concluded that there were significant questions. There is nothing odd about putting Wellstone's death on the docket, referring to it, when speaking of Bush's untrustworthiness. Having seen Bush's behaviors, having heard from those who know him well here in Texas, I know we can't take it for granted that he would never involve himself in such a matter.

Bush has a sleazy reputation. My guess is that he wouldn't involve himself directly, but that's a guess. I do think anyone would be silly to trust the guy, but how do I know for sure he's untrustworthy? Well, based on the lies which he has told so far and which have come to light, I'd say yes. He's deeply untrustworthy. Do I think he deserves respect? No, I think he forfeited that long ago. Do I think there's a chance that he has manipulated our lives in ways which would disgust us, in ways which may emerge later? I absolutely do.

"Reference to Dean has become common on this thread. In the back of your mind, have you decided the others are a lost cause?" Maple, that's a good question! No, not a lost cause. Lately there have been shifts in the positions of other candidates in the general direction of Dean's positions which would make one reconsider the winner of the nomination if Dean doesn't win it. So Dean has served us all very well, whether he gets the nomination or not. He has greatly widened the discussion, something which we need to be careful to do, not just get stuck in the same rut. This morning Kerry addressed the Vets in San Antonio (just after Rumsfeld, I believe) and hammered the administration quite ruthlessly compared to his previous speeches. Don't think he would have done that if Dean weren't a thorn in his paw.

Only because you had just referred to it, and as is the practice on a message board, I asked for clarification of your comment.

Are you clear, Sofia?

I felt the subject was clear, as evidenced by this post, at 9:45 this morning. People kept bringing it up.

Gary Coleman could even win against this logic:

Dean's grass roots growing in Texas
Some excerpts:

CLICK TITLE TO READ COMPLETE ARTICLE.

I'm still trying to decide how to spend the extra $3 I'm getting twice a month. A happy hour pint suggests itself. It's not a yacht, but I'm doing what I can to stimulate the local economy...

D'art, You are helping the economy by all counts; many are even convinced there's some growth going on. Consumer confidence is up, house sales are up, stock market seems to be on a upswing, and more American soldiers are getting killed in Iraq. c.i.

Yes, Maple. As a Texan, I can verify that support for Dean is growing rapidly, is vocal, and has really surprised me, a dedicated Deanie. As I write, I'm missing a rally in San Antonio (where there's a relatively small Dean team so far) but buses will be bringing people in from everywhere (very organized!). It will be interesting to see how many people turn up on a hot pre-Labor Day afternoon in hot ol' Texas.

<grumble grumble> You people are a trick sometimes.

I'm sure I musta missed some posts, but just like Sofia all I'd seen from Tartarin were vague, "meaningful", but otherwise un-argued allusions to "Wellstone", in lists that purported to indicate Bush's wrongs. So, Sofia puts her on the spot & asks her to at least just clearly state her case if she's gonna insinuate something as drastic as political murder - and now its Sofia who 'doesnt want an open discussion', cause she should have come with preparations and arguments? Some kinda upside-down world that is ...

If you're gonna make allusions about allegations as serious as all that, you better be prepared to back them up with some kind of arguments or information. If you're not willing to make your case, then dont state it. I mean, insinuating stuff like political murder will get you critical questions, duh. Nothing untoward in that. <impatient shrug>

(Sorry, Sofia, I know you were trying to make this discussion go away. But its just too exasperating. Damn. Scrat, say, is mean and annoying, so she can be summarily ignored, ridiculed or required to underpin whichever position she takes with whatever is deemed enough uncontested links - but ask a critical question to one of "our" leading lights, and you get lectured to about confrontative style. Now, I happen to think Tartarin usually makes a much better case than Scrat, but the sensitivity with which the 'majority population' here reacts to critical questions from the political minority is just - yeh, doesnt say much good.

Anyway, water under the bridge. We know the case now. Bush "has a sleazy reputation" and has lied on stuff before; Wellstone is dead; ergo, there could well be some connection. By consequence, we can justifiably put random "Wellstone" references to suggested political murder in any list of stuff about "what Bush might well do next", and objecting to that would obstruct "open discussion". Makes sense, right?

<grumbles some more before ending rant. So much for Craven calling me the "diplomat" of A2K - **** it>).

This is very significant, isn't it? I mean - it's the first time a plurality said they didnt want him back, right?

Nimh -- By way of explanation -- there have been long threads dedicated to Wellstone closer to the event, so it's been discussed and discussed and the mention of "Wellstone," for many of us, has passed into the history of great unknowns about this administration. To raise it again now as a topic for discussion seemed, in all seriousness, heavy and unnecessary, and Sofia pleas to do so seemed more like needling than like a request for a review. You will find this kind of off-hand reference quite a lot, but it's meant as reference, as indication of position, not as either a provocation or an opening.