Due to recent events in congressional elections, do you foresee a day in the near future where political parties will change out candidates at will, without regard to ballot deadlines simply because they fear losing?? (Example: New Jersey)

More than that, Hawaii, New Jersey, and now Minnesota. Not to be an alarmist, but do you think that the Democratic party would kill one of it's own to try and keep the Senate?

Darcaine

Preview

I don't think they would go that far, but the MEMORIAL SERVICE/DEMOCRATIC RALLY held last night was, in my opinion, disgraceful. I don't think Senator Wellstone would have approved. Most especially the actual booing of Senator Lott who was a friend of Senator W. How disgusting can it be.
Wellstone was obviously loved by all of the members of the Senate so I just cannot see that this would meet with his approval. He was an honorable man.
The excuses that are coming out of the situation are weak and pathetic.

Like in Mo. they have put the Rep. candidate between a rock and a hard place. There it was impossible for the Rep. to say anything at all against the dead candidate. Now they are faulting Wellstone and saying he started campaigning too soon. Actually, the Dems. started the very night Wellstone died with talk of Mondale who was campaigning by not refusing the nomination right away. By doing that everyone knew he would accept.
A picture is worth a thousand words as they say.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/827795.asp?vts=103020021410

The political rhetoric at the memorial was inappropriate. However one can hardly say the dems replaced wellstone because he was losing.

I mean, honestly...

I don't see parties replacing candiates if they are losing in the near future. What happened was merely a freak accident. In our democratic government we have two main parites for a reason, to give people a choice. I don't think what the courts did was the right thing, but what is the point of having an election if there is only one canidate. If a canidate is losing that is the parites own fault, they picked the guy. So they must live with the consequences.

Honestly what? I was not implying that they replaced Wellstone because he was losing. I was merely remarking on the impropriety of the service. The Democrats just seem to do a lot of improper things to win elections.

I agree the memorial was not what most memorials are. I would of thought it would of been a bit more somber. But I saw a news clip this morning and one of the biggest leaders in this so called "memorial" was one of Wellstone's sons. I don't know what anyone else saw on the news or heard but I wonder how this got not to ba a memorial anymore but as many of you have said turned into a democrat rally?

Like I said in another post his "funeral" was only missing Gering, a swastika, and a good old fashioned book buring.

Darcaine

I think Senator Wellstone would have gotten a big kick out of it!! He would want people to carry on his campaign.

Booing Senator Lott? hmmm, I seem to remember...wasn't he the guy that wished Hillary Clinton would be struck with lightning?

I also think Senator Wellstone would approve of Mondale as his replacement. If Mondale had accepted immediately, you'd be complaining that he should have waited.
M.T.

How many times are you going to use this line? It certainly wasn't close to the dishonering the memory of a great man.
You either use the same line over and over or put in articles written by someone else instead of your own "informed opinions" or are they?

Well, I'll probably "use that line" as often as a poster tries to protray S. Lott as someone who should be respected. When he made that statement about H.C., he showed his true colors.


You post your way and I'll post mine.

M.T.

I think using articles is a great way to get one's point across. It shows support for ones' argument, shows you aren't the only one with a particular thought.

As far as the Wellstone funeral-rally, I tend to think Madtown was right in saying Wellstone would have liked this. While I would find it inappropriate for any other funeral service, this was no normal service.

I think it's funny that the republicans were "suprised" at what it turned into. Like this wasn't to be expected of the democrats?

In all fairness, I think the indignancy the republicans purport to show over all this is just as useful a political weapon as was the funeral-rally for the democrats.

Then why did the Min. State Democratic party feel it necessary to apologize?
I disagree with you, Jamie, that posting of an entire opinion from a news article is good. One starts reading it thinking it is the person's own opinion only to find it isn't as the quotation marks are vauge. Also, if we all did that we'd have a forum of news articles..what is the point? Targets of referral should be all that is necessary.
Also I disagree that Senator Wellstone would have liked what happened. He was not that kind of man, and would never had booed Sen. Lott or anyone else.

The simple fact that Sen. Lott came to this memorial service shows that he is a decent man. He was there simply because he lost a good friend, and wanted to be a part of the so-called “memorial” to celebrate his life and accomplishments.
The simple fact that people disagree politically does not restrict them from becoming and remaining good, or even best friends their entire lives. I am very conservative and extremely political, however 3 of 5 five people I love the most in the world are liberal fanatics. I disagree with them on almost every little detail of politics, however I would give my life to protect them, and would dearly mourn them in death.
In the case of Lott’s statement about Hilary Clinton: I must confess that I look for a thunderbolt every time she speaks about her politics, and I believe her to be a very destructive politician. However, if she were involved in a accident such as Wellstone was, I would lower my flag to half-staff and mourn the loss of a senator that spoke her mind, and fought for what she believed in. For those who say that Wellstone would have enjoyed his “memorial” I believe you have sadly mistaken. I believe he would have been embarrassed to see his FRIEND humiliated in his name.
When Lott was booed it showed that friendship means nothing to these people. Winning is all that matters. In my opinion, this moves us one step closer to the complete devolution of the purpose of a republic style democracy – To create unity!

Let's get this statement of Trent Lott's straight. He did NOT say he wished Hillary would be struck by lightning. He said and I quote.

"I tell you one thing, when this Hillary gets to the Senate - if she does, maybe lightning will strike and she won't - she will be one of 100 and we won't let her forget it."

Perhaps one should be more careful about spreading gossip instead of fact.

Mouse, I usually type the name of the article that I am posting. One reason I use articles that I'm in agreement with is because the article says it so much better than I can. After all, don't we form our opinions partly from what we read?
Also, I often delete large parts, so it's not to long.

I still think that Senator Wellstone would have enjoyed his "memorial." He seemed, to me,like that kind of a fellow. His friends were trying to carry on for him...they may have gone too far, but so what? Their hearts were in the right place. We'll just have to disagree on this

I think you are right when you say he would not have liked the booing of S. Lott.

M.T.

It's the same difference..."maybe lighning will strike her and she won't"

A lot of people interpret that statement to mean: Hopefully, lighning will stirke her and she won't.

I'd hardly call it gossip. He said it on television.

MT

Lott should not have been booed at the Memorial service, but S. Lott has a mean tounge in his mouth and has crossed the line many times with his insults to many of the Dems at the memorial.

I have a hard time imagining him as a real friend of anyone, much less a Democrat who speaks his mind as Wellstone.

Winning is all that matters to Republicans also, or they wouldn't be so upset that Mondale lost no time jumping in to take Wellstone's place.

MT

it is most certainly not the "same difference as you put it. It was said mostly in jest, and everyone knew it. There is a huge difference in the meaning and you well know it. You took it totally out of context. By the way, what is your reference?
As far as winning is concerned that is as true or truer for Democrats as for Rep. Good Lord, why else would they be running? That doesn't make sense.
There were many people there that didn't get along at one time or another ..they don't go around booing. They are not upset because Mondale jumped in to take his place. They are upset because the dems made it a different standard for Coleman. He was supposed to sit and be quiet while the dems held what could be considered a rally. Mondale by not refusing was accepting and everyone knew it. Well, he may win,but he is not respected by a lot of Americans that used to respect him, both Rep. and Dem.

I certainly did not take it totally out of context and I don't well know it.

There were many comments about it at the time.

My statement about winning was in answer to mnikmm, who said
" When Lott was booed it showed that friendship means nothing to these people. Winning is all that matters"....so I'm glad you agree that both sides want to win.

I'm sorry, I thought Republicans booed sometimes. I actually think I have even heard them boo.

Well then, remember what you are now saying about Mondale and don't show up at his funeral,blubering about what a wonderful man he was. and complain about his memorial. They all love you when you're gone.

MT..Holy Cow can you spin something. Thank you Mouse for showing MT's real intensions. So, basically your BIG FAT LIE was a LIE. Everyone from now on should do what mouse did and FIND what garbage MT is spouting and bring forth the articles.

Darcaine

I'm sorry Darcaine. What did MOUSE prove? You quote people's entire posts so I never know exatcly to what you are referring.

I think a rally funeral was wrong. I think booing was wrong. The republicans would have been more dignified if they all just walked out in silence.

Okay, this is a bit off topic, but this entire thread seems to have strayed a bit...

I am getting as weary of this "unity" thing as I am of the whole "bipartisan" thing. The purpose of our form of government is absolutely, unequivocally not "to create unity". It is to celebrate diversity. It is to protect minority opinions and rights down to the individual. The idea of some monolithic consent or homogenized agreement on any issue is antithetical to the whole notion of democracy - and, to me personally, horrific.

Certainly we should encourage compromise in debate; we should seek, where possible, common ground; we should strive for consensus. But we should certainly never expect it. When one sees either house of Congress voting 100% behind anything (or, indeed, the citizenry giving an overwhelming mandate to any candidate or position), it is time to start getting seriously worried.

I have no clue as to how Sen. Wellstone would have reacted to his memorial. But I, for one, was delighted to see that democracy appeared to be more alive than I've noticed in quite a while - with Democrats actually behaving like Democrats rather than crypto-Republicans.

SPIN BABY SPIN!
It is absolutely not the same meaning. You are not quoting which makes it gossip. I don't care how many people you heard saying it. In fact, who knows if "there were many comments about it at the time". We have only your word for it. He said this meaning there was no way it would. I can think of some things to say about your understanding this,but it would sound like your sniping, and I won't lower myself.
Jaime,
I think this is what Darcaine was referring to. MT just goes off half-cocked on these kinds of issues. She can't even stand that a non-democrat (no where have I said I am a Republican by the way) could appreciate a good man for who and what he was or is.
For what it is worth, I don't think a lot of people understand how to edit quotes. I notice a lot of this quoting entire posts is done a lot.

MOUSE - please do not get upset with members who may not be as computer savvy as others. Mike has posted useful Tutorials. One of these explains how to use the code buttons. That is the best we can offer. You understanding is appreciated.

Jaime,
I in no way was upset with other people for posting the way they do. I was merely responding to what you wrote and thought that you were a bit upset with was it Darcaine? So it is a misunderstanding and I am sorry about that. Sometimes in haste it is easy to write (especially since I am in no way a professional writer...like you couldn't tell.) in a way that is misinterpreted. I have read the tutorials and even then had a time with it for a while. It is not easy for people not familiar with HTML. I am fascinated by computers and completely self-taught. That should let you know how un-savvy I am! :wacko
Please accept my apology

Oh goodness. No apologies necessary. I wouldn't know a darn thing about computers if it wasn't for Mike. I didn't mean to come off as picking on Darcaine, either. Sorry about that. Not too many days now & the new version of this forum will be up. It will have a guided HTML option that will make it easy for all of us to make stuff look pretty.

Now, back to debating replacing candidates when they appear to be losing...

NO IT IS NOT!!!! If our interest were in minorities, we would be a parliamentary style government, not a republic based democracy.

Mouse, so your interpretation of Senator Lott's remark is: Lightning will probably not strike her, so we will have to put up with her. Ok? NICE!

I DID NOT SAY I HEARD PEOPLE "SAYING IT." No one has to take my word for anything. The remark was repeated several times on tv by most stations.

Mondale, by not refusing was, in your opinion, accepting.

By your following statement: "I can think of some things to say about your understanding this,but it would sound like your sniping, and I won't lower myself." you have, in my opinion, already lowered yourself. NICE!

MT

I agree with this also!

Of course he was. Why shouldn't he?

YOU DID SAY IT IN ANOTHER FORUM. We are not taking your word for it. I looked up the quote in several places before correcting you. You are W O R N G You should have looked it up before shooting off your mouth. No, I haven't lowered myself. If I had you would know it!
People remember hearing what they choose to remember. Also Letterman, Leno, et al twist a lot of things around for one. Perhaps you heard it there..the benifit of the doubt. I would hate to think one of the stations from your fair and balanced channels in Madison that you are so proud of would mis-quote.
Oddly enough Hillary took it as intended and gave it right back to him!
Grow up

OH NUTS!!!

MT

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

mnikmm: If you believe that the parliamentary system is more concerned with the rights of minorities than the representative form of government we have in the US, you have never lived under a parliamentary government (as I have).

The document quoted above, with which you are apparently unfamiliar, lays it out fairly clearly. Governments are instituted to guarantee the rights of "all men", as our Founders quaintly put it. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" were to be ensured to everyone (every one), not solely to the members of a consenting majority. Our government should derive its powers from "all", just as the ends of that government should effect the Safety and Happiness of "all" - not those that some majority deems worthy.

Our Founders - all of them - were informed by the French Enlightenment, which sanctified the rights of the individual. This is best delineated in "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", a document contemporary with our Constitution (which states, for example, that "the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights"). Our legislature, particularly the House of Representatives, was designed specifically to give voice to as many individuals in this country as humanly possible.

The form of government you describe is neither representative democracy nor parliamentary democracy, it is mob rule.

LOL!

Amen to this post! Right on the money.

Darcaine