Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

was carried on ABC, NBC, and CBS for 3 1/2 hours and many a radio station in NE Minnesota.

It was an accurate relection upon the man. It was full of enthusiasm and hubris. It was vulgar. It was rant filled. It was emotive. It was a demagogic farewell to a demagogue.


What surprised me on the newscasts (local) that followed was the unease of loyal followers of the late Senator at the style which he had embodied in his political work. We may see a backlash from those people as well as the other half of Minnesota that would have dignity at such memorials...it seemed a 3T affair.

I think you may be reading this one wrong, Mr. Saari. The widespread sense of unease about all these recent incidents involving senators and planes, whether justified or not, is at least mildly energizing Democrats and moderates. As to the funeral, I did not see it but I suspect that this enthusiasm is heartfelt for a change and a definite 4T change. Plus, this is the way the deceased man would have wanted it, is it not? If it is in line with the decedent's wishes, then there is nothing tasteless about it.

However wrong Mr. Wellstone may have been in his views at times, he had the simple human decency to tell me what he actually believed, unlike the overwhelming majority of his peers. God bless him. We need more like him. May he rest in peace.

Minnesota Poll: Mondale leads Coleman 47% to 39%

Eric Black

Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/stories/784/3397944.html

I think what Mr. Patton is trying to say, Mr. Saari, is please don't let your hatred of Bush be tarnished by what you saw last night. What you think saw last night is nothing compared to what I know: Bush, and Rove "Goebbels", had Wellstone "assassinated", Mr. Saari.

...according to this article, "we be 3T"--at least in terms of how election campaigns are run. However, the winds of change are blowing, but no one has figured out how to sail them--yet.

Also, there's evidence here that Carl Rove, at least, has not read S&H. Otherwise, he wouldn't be trying to compare today to 1896--wrong turning entirely!

Standard disclaimers apply:

Seeking Big Ideas To Break A Deadlock
By David Von Drehle and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 30, 2002; Page A01

In a country more evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans than at any time in over a century, an amazing thing may happen on Election Day:

The balance could get even closer.

Two years after one of the tightest presidential and congressional elections
in history, neither party appears likely to open up a clear majority. What
does look possible is that Democrats could elect enough governors to wipe
out the Republican advantage at that level.

In other words, Election 2002 is shaping up, as time runs out, to be a
ratification of 50-50 America, which is a nation of plurality presidents,
gridlocked legislatures and declining voter participation. Strategists in
both parties think and talk about the need to roll out big ideas and make
bold new moves to break this deadlock -- but for now it's just talk.

Instead of big and bold, the campaigns of 2002 have been marked by caution, vagueness, negativism, niche issues and sloganeering. Neither party has offered a clear or enticing way out. Tactics are almost certain to matter more in these races next Tuesday than issues or philosophy.

Stanley Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster and strategist, says the
parties "are so evenly matched at the moment that all the incentives are to be careful. . . . We have tactical elections, we don't have big elections,
because there's every prospect that you can win by thinking small."

In recent months, The Washington Post has asked a range of political
scientists and theorists to talk about what it will take for one party or
other to gain a clear governing majority. Partisans on both sides argue that time and trends are in their favor, but no one seriously disputed the idea that the political battlefield is stalemated. Nor was either side confident that the 2004 election would produce a breakthrough.

That's because describing the situation is easy, but finding a way out is
harder.

"There has been no national ideological majority since the end of the Cold
War," said Kenneth Mehlman, political director for the Bush White House.
"Politics has changed, and I'm not sure either party has figured it out."

Victory by Slice

Between the dreams of political strategists and the realities lies a vast
gulf.

First, the realities:

Most professional, major-party political campaigns are narrowly tactical.
Both sides try to build a winning coalition by first nailing down "the base"
-- that is, the loyal Democrats or Republicans. Then the candidates attempt to add some carefully targeted slices from the independent vote. Very thin slices, often.

Now and then, someone coins a catchy name for a coveted slice of the
electorate. "Soccer moms," for example. Then the political niche marketing catches the public's attention. Most of the targeting happens below the radar, and ordinary, untargeted voters are left to wonder why a candidate is suddenly interested in infant car seats, or promising a new road in this county rather than that one, or talking about the price of a jet ski license.

These realities -- courting the base and targeting the niches -- help
explain two constant themes of today's politics. Disaffected voters complain that elections seem to center on a few intractable hot-button issues, such as abortion and gun control, that matter intensely to the base of each party but far less to moderates. Add to these perennial face-offs a cluster of boutique issues aimed at narrow slices of voters, and you have the recipe for elections that seem to ignore the things that matter most.

Greenberg and others argue that careful and tactical elections, following
this general pattern, drive down turnout and guarantee that neither party
can claim the mandate to govern decisively. "There's a temptation," he says, "to find one small group" -- a niche -- "that gets you a couple extra
[percentage] points, rather than thinking grander."

That other bane of moderate voters, the negative ad campaign, is a
corollary. Negative ads can help a candidate fire up the base by demonizing an opponent. They might even weaken the enthusiasm of the opponent's base.

Campaigns that overemphasize tired battle lines, that gloss over major
concerns while highlighting niche issues, and that fill the tube with attack
ads -- Election 2002 has seen scores of them from coast to coast, so many
that this has come to be known as the "Seinfeld Election" -- it's about
nothing. The problem is not that broad issues don't exist, politicians in
both parties insist. It's that neither party has figured out how to win on
the big issues.

That's where the dreams come in.

Time Is on Our Side I

Elaine Kamarck can do the tactical stuff -- she was an adviser to the
Clinton and Gore campaigns of the past decade -- but she also nurtures
dreams of a lasting Democratic majority, the sort of coalition that Franklin
D. Roosevelt created with his New Deal. Her party has not had a presidential candidate that won a majority of the votes since 1976. But entwined in those results, she envisions a near future in which Democrats dominate.

"The population is increasingly Democratic," Kamarck asserts, but this is
obscured by the archaic electoral college. "We are concentrated in big
states, which are underrepresented. That will change in time. The
megalopolises are growing, and that's where Democrats live. The other areas are shrinking. The Republican coalition is, frankly, an aging coalition."

Kamarck is one of many Democrats who believe that trends in demographics and cultural values are running in favor of their party. Their strategy for breaking the 50-50 deadlock is simply to keep doing what they are doing. In this vision, the New Democrats of the 1990s, led by former president Bill Clinton, successfully shed their old image as a party of high taxes and anti-Americanism, and replace that with a record of boom times, balanced budgets and a sunny tolerance. This is precisely the image that will appeal to immigrants, "New Economy types and social liberals," Kamarck predicts.

This thesis, that demographic and economic forces are working to Democrats' advantage, is at the heart of "The Emerging Democratic Majority," by authors Ruy Teixeira, a political theorist at the Century Foundation, and John B. Judis, an editor at the New Republic. "The transition from industrial capitalism to postindustrial capitalism involves changes in how people relate to whole ranges of issues: to work, culture, sex, etc.," Judis explains. "Democrats have positioned themselves better to deal with those changes."

You might call this the Patience Theory, and it has its strong dissenters.
Tad Devine is one. The veteran strategist, a key planner of Al Gore's 2000
campaign, instead makes the case for "initiatives as bold as the interstate
highway system, in the '50s and putting a man on the moon in the '60s." For example: a program to make college, even at private institutions, virtually free for many students.

Devine agrees that tolerance -- especially on sexual orientation -- can be a winning issue, if handled well. And he argues that Democrats need to
challenge President Bush on national security, an issue they have mostly
avoided since Sept. 11, 2001. They can't afford to go back to the Cold War
era, in which the party essentially surrendered on issues of defense and
foreign policy.

Devine, like Greenberg, worries that, while Democrats are being patient,
Republicans will reinvent themselves. In fact, they are already ahead in the race to forge a winning agenda, he believes. Republicans have one advantage: "They believe this needs to be done."

Time Is on Our Side II

"I'm not sitting here saying we have the model to create a majority," says
Mehlman, the White House political director, but he is willing to talk about
a few guiding theories. One is that both parties need to update their
images. The other is that action, not talk, is the way to accomplish this.
Popular policies make popular parties, he says.

Mehlman is seated in one of those huge, high-ceilinged offices in the
Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a room so large that pictures hung at eye level aren't even halfway up the wall. The space quietly underlines what Republicans -- and many Democrats -- see as the key GOP advantage in any race to break the deadlock: The presidency.

The Bush administration hopes that successful governing will translate into
political gain, such as the administration's education bill of 2001. "When
people see someone working to solve problems," Mehlman says, "they reward them."

But this approach is, perhaps, undercut by the existence of a 50-50 deadlock in the first place. Solving problems is hard when the government is evenly divided and dangerous in a climate when risks may be instantly punished. On at least one of the big problems that Mehlman suggests Bush could solve -- the looming crisis in Social Security funding -- Republicans in close races this year have been fleeing from the president's position to let younger workers invest some of their money in private accounts, evidence that boldness is not automatically rewarded, even by the faithful.

Across a small parking lot, on the second floor of the West Wing -- as if
hovering over the Oval Office -- Karl Rove tends his own dreams. When he was masterminding George W. Bush's 2000 campaign, the strategist spoke often of his desire to command a new and lasting majority. He frequently compared the race to 1896, when Republican William McKinley won a victory that gave his party the upper hand for the next 40 years.

The fact that Bush fell short of that kind of resounding win dampened some of Rove's big talk. While he still talks about the same goal, his language is more incremental.

"It won't be 50-50 after the 2004 election," Rove predicts. "Equilibrium
doesn't last long in American politics, and some party will gain an
advantage."

In his view, Bush laid the groundwork for a GOP majority in 2000 by putting a more welcoming face on the party with his message of "compassionate conservatism," and by speaking to the public's desire for education reform. Tolerance and diversity were the principal themes of the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia. The tools are in place to make significant gains among Hispanics, among younger men, and among suburban women who work outside the home -- all groups that the Patience Democrats are counting on for their emerging majority.

Now it's just a matter of delivering results, Rove explains. "Successful
administrations tend to translate into incremental changes in party
registration. . . . Small changes [in voter rolls] can be big and powerful."

As Rove combs through a sheaf of computer printouts, gleaning statistics to support his case, he begins to sound more like a Patience man than a Bold man. A few thousand new voters here, ten or twenty thousand there, spell, in his mind, the chance to tip a handful of key states away from the Democrats. Over time a Republican majority will create itself.

The man who once spoke brashly of recreating 1896 still believes that big
ideas -- the right ones -- make big majorities. But ask Rove what those big
ideas will be in 50-50 America and he answers briskly: "I'm still working on that."

[quote="Vince Lamb '59"]Also, there's evidence here that Carl Rove, at least, has not read S&H. Otherwise, he wouldn't be trying to compare today to 1896--wrong turning entirely!

I'm pretty confident that Rove is familiar with S&H's work. But consider what he has to work with: George W. Bush. These plans for global conquest were in place before Junior was thrust forward as a candidate so Rove knew he was working on a Crisis presidency. Whatever their defects, Crisis presidents Lincoln and FDR could at least form coherent sentences on their own and they comprehended what they were doing. Obviously, the same cannot be said for Junior. So Rove could not plan with reference to past Crisis presidents because the raw material simply is not there in Junior. Indeed real Crisis presidents do not need people like Rove around in the first place.

What's the more appropriate model? Rove could serve as Mark Hanna to Junior's William McKinley (and McKinley really does seem like an establishment empty suit of the Nineteenth Century). Now Rove is cleverly trying to turn William McKinley into FDR or Lincoln while blinding people to the reality that we are dealing with another Hoover here. Are the American people stupid enough to buy it? I think they are less and less likely with each passing day.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Zogby claims this is strictly a "values" election, and that the values Americans care most about are expressed by Clinton and the Democrats.

Former President Clinton laughs with former Vice President Walter
Mondale and his wife Joan Mondale as they enter a
public memorial service Tuesday, Oct. 29 2002 in
Minneapolis for Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife and the three staff
members who died Oct. 25, in a plane crash in Eveleth, Minn.
(AP Photo/ Paul Sancy




Shades of Ron Brown's funeral... (when Clinton was yucking it up, then he saw the camera and immediately began to shed tears.)

Seems the American people have really wierd "values" these days...

That's not fair. There is a surprising amount of mirth at funerals, as people recount the foibles and misadventures and wit and humor of the deceased.

Actually, if anything, he's being too easy on them.

That was most certainly neither a funeral nor a memorial service, it was a political rally, and a photo op for the Clintons. The Democratic Party has definitely achieved a whole new low in taste and respect. Frankly, if I were a Democrat, I'd be ashamed to admit it today after last night's self-indulgent and tasteless exercise.

The bits and pieces of the coverage of that tasteless extravaganza that I could stomach were only confirmed by my review of what was said since. Let's not kid ourselves, folks, that was planned to be just what it was, a rally. That's why they didn't want Cheney there.

Further, the whole thing was arranged with an eye to attempting to make political competition publically unacceptable. They actually had the stone cold gall to suggest that Republicans just cede the races, in honor of Paul Wellstone (as if the Dems who organized that so-called 'memorial' gave a damn about Paul Wellstone).

Marc, if you're reading this, I have to say that the Dems really vindicated several of your opinions last night.

On the subject of the Paul Wellstone Memorial Pep Rally and Democratic Theatre, we now have a sort-of-apology from Wellstone's campaign chairman.

For the Pioneer Press, with the usual disclaimers:

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/4405919.htm


Posted on Wed, Oct. 30, 2002

Wellstone campaign chairman apologizes for service's partisan tone
BY ARON KAHN
PIONEER PRESS

In the wake of the controversial memorial service for Sen. Paul Wellstone Tuesday, the head of the Wellstone campaign apologized Wednesday for the event?s sharply political tone.
"It was not our intent to inject that into the service," campaign chairman Jeff Blodgett said of comments made at the Tuesday night ceremony. "I take responsibility for that and I deeply regret it."

Blodgett said the event at the University of Minnesota was not scripted and the comments of individual speakers were not previewed. Organizers simply asked participants to speak from their hearts, he said.

"I regret if people took offense or were taken by surprise ... We are a hurting bunch here," Blodgett said, referring to campaign members? sadness following the Eveleth plane crash that killed Wellstone, his wife, daughter, three aides and two pilots on Friday.


Blodgett said he'd spoken to campaign treasurer Rick Kahn, who gave one of the most partisan addresses, but declined to reveal their conversation.

"It probably would have been best not to get into the election," Blodgett said.

Some officials from local TV stations are said to be complaining that they were misled into televising live a partisan political rally.

"That was never the intention," Blodgett said.


Yeah, I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the whole thing LOOKED exactly as if it were carefully planned out ahead of time, with coordinated guests and speeches, and flawlessly arranged photo-ops.

Give me a break!

I have to ask, HC, why in the world you would sit through something like that, especially if you found it so personally nauseating.

Why not just change the channel?

Hey, did anyone in here happen to catch last night's Minnesota Democratic Party convention? I normally don't like Jesse Ventura that much, but I'm glad he had the guts to leave once the "memorial service" turned into a political rally. First of all, on the scoreboard at Williams Arena, they had instructions on when to applause, cheer, and laugh, at a memorial service. Second, the people in the crowd distastefully booed the Republican Senators. Finally, the poll showing Mondale in the lead was taken before yesterday's "memorial service", as well as tonight's local news programs, which seemed to heavily lean on the opinion that the service did in fact become a political rally. One reporter almost referred to the event as an actual political rally, going so far as to begin saying "political" before catching her mistake and saying "event which took on tones of a political rally". That, and Mondale has yet to agree with any debates with Coleman. A poll would best be taken tomorrow or on Friday to get a better picture.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I have to ask, HC, why in the world you would sit through something like that, especially if you found it so personally nauseating.

Why not just change the channel?

I didn't sit through all of it, Kiff. I caught as much of it as I could stomach, and that was enough. Today, everything I've read, heard, and seen in rerun matches what I was seeing last night.

I do sometimes pay attention to things like that, though, because I know from past experience that part of the way people like Clinton and Clinton and their associates (McAuliffe comes to mind) get away with the stuff they do is that people turn away and tune out.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

That, and Mondale has yet to agree with any debates with Coleman.

Interestingly, Lautenberg said he couldn't debate Forrester in New Jersey as well, because it was, "too soon".

Huh? The election was then weeks away, no more, and it was 'too soon'?!

:wink:

Both my wife and I lost our mothers early in life: I, when I was seventeen; she, when she was twenty three.

We had a big discussion tonight on the Wellstone "memorial". She was of the opinion that the Clinton crowd was "disgusting" for turning this thing into a "political rally", while I maintained that Paul's kids should have known better.

She won. Death is the final stage of life. The elders, Clinton and Mondale, are utterly beneath contempt in this fiasco.

Paul's surviving kid's are just more "victims" in the very long trail that follows those Clinton folks. They are truly the very epitome of evil.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Both my wife and I lost our mothers early in life: I, when I was seventeen; she, when she was twenty three.

We had a big discussion tonight on the Wellstone "memorial". She was of the opinion that the Clinton crowd was "disgusting" for turning this thing into a "political rally", while I maintained that Paul's kids should have known better.

She won. Death is the final stage of life. The elders, Clinton and Mondale, are utterly beneath contempt in this fiasco.

Paul's surviving kid's are just more "victims" in the very long trail that follows those Clinton folks. They are truly the very epitome of evil.

It is quite a leap to "epitomes of evil" from boosters of bad manners. The Wellstone children and Mr. Wellstone's treasurer and the television networks and Public Radio and most of the ill mannered loutish audience that practiced booing at a memorial service should have done better...they should have gotten a "time out" for their behavior and their ignorance. I think "evil" had little to do with it...it was a vulgar event by and for a vulgar people in a vulgar time...we be 3T.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Also, there's evidence here that Carl Rove, at least, has not read S&H. Otherwise, he wouldn't be trying to compare today to 1896--wrong turning entirely!

I'm pretty confident that Rove is familiar with S&H's work. But consider what he has to work with: George W. Bush. These plans for global conquest were in place before Junior was thrust forward as a candidate so Rove knew he was working on a Crisis presidency. Whatever their defects, Crisis presidents Lincoln and FDR could at least form coherent sentences on their own and they comprehended what they were doing. Obviously, the same cannot be said for Junior. So Rove could not plan with reference to past Crisis presidents because the raw material simply is not there in Junior. Indeed real Crisis presidents do not need people like Rove around in the first place.

What's the more appropriate model? Rove could serve as Mark Hanna to Junior's William McKinley (and McKinley really does seem like an establishment empty suit of the Nineteenth Century). Now Rove is cleverly trying to turn William McKinley into FDR or Lincoln while blinding people to the reality that we are dealing with another Hoover here. Are the American people stupid enough to buy it? I think they are less and less likely with each passing day.

Maybe Rove has read S&H and believes its all claptrap. It happens, you know. :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Let's not kid ourselves, folks, that was planned to be just what it was, a rally. That's why they didn't want Cheney there.

Oh, please. "They" are the Wellstone family...you know, the survivors of the deceased...the ones who normally decide who will and will not come to this sort of thing? They, the Wellstone family, did not want Dick Cheney there. And it is perfectly understandable why they would not. They, the family, are the ones who are aware of the real inside game of politics. They, the family, are the ones who are aware of any attempts at blackmail or extortion which may have been used against the deceased over the years. They, the family, are more aware than any of us of the extent to which Wellstone in particular was despised by the Bush crowd because he has always applied himself as a principled monkey wrench to their plans. Naturally they, the family, cannot completely divorce the notion from their heads that this Bush crowd may have had something to do with the deceased's untimely demise, particularly given the similar untimely demises of other senators. In fact, it is not out of the question that they may have some actual knowledge which would astound the rest of us. Regardless, they have been sufficiently intimate wth the affairs of the deceased over the years to know that they sure as hell do not want any verminous rabble from the Bush crowd anywhere near the deceased's memorial service. This is obvious on the face.

Note that they did welcome Tommy Thompson and somebody else from the administration. Just not Dick. Also, note that Junior did not even consider going at any time. LOL. Now why is that? Why are these individuals in particular, but not the workers of the Bush administration in general, absolutely unwelcome in the eyes of the Wellstone family?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

On the subject of the Paul Wellstone Memorial Pep Rally and Democratic Theatre, we now have a sort-of-apology from Wellstone's campaign chairman.

For the Pioneer Press, with the usual disclaimers:

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/4405919.htm

[i][b]
Posted on Wed, Oct. 30, 2002

Wellstone campaign chairman apologizes for service's partisan tone
BY ARON KAHN
PIONEER PRESS

And here is another example of the stupidity and unseasonal nature of the Democratic leadership. They should not have apologized for anything. Does anybody doubt that the service was full in line with the desires of the deceased? If this is the way the deceased would have had it, then this is the way it should have been done. There is nothing to apologize for. That ridiculous 3T Democratic leadership has to go and be replaced with a 4T leadership.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

It is quite a leap to "epitomes of evil" from boosters of bad manners. The Wellstone children and Mr. Wellstone's treasurer and the television networks and Public Radio and most of the ill mannered loutish audience that practiced booing at a memorial service should have done better...they should have gotten a "time out" for their behavior and their ignorance. I think "evil" had little to do with it...it was a vulgar event by and for a vulgar people in a vulgar time...we be 3T.

Would the deceased have been opposed to the "booing" at his memorial service? I think not. On the contrary, I think he was probably smiling if he was somehow watching it from somewhere else. If you do not want "booing" at your memorial service, may there be no "booing" at your memorial service. But if someone has different desires for their own memorial service, may their wishes prevail over yours.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Would the deceased have been opposed to the "booing" at his memorial service? I think not. On the contrary, I think he was probably smiling if he was somehow watching it from somewhere else. If you do not want "booing" at your memorial service, may there be no "booing" at your memorial service. But if someone has different desires for their own memorial service, may their wishes prevail over yours.

Mr. Wellstone had a history of acting badly when confronting the dead; witness his vulgar behavior at Viet Nam Vet's Memorial in Washington, D.C. and the apology that followed. The spoiled fruit didn't fall that far from the sickened tree. The sons were boors just as dear old dad was earlier. Perhaps it's a tradition.

I shan't have a memorial service so their won't be any opportunity for the cretinous behaviour so beloved in my blue zoned Minnesota. HTH

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

It is quite a leap to "epitomes of evil" from boosters of bad manners. The Wellstone children and Mr. Wellstone's treasurer and the television networks and Public Radio and most of the ill mannered loutish audience that practiced booing at a memorial service should have done better...they should have gotten a "time out" for their behavior and their ignorance. I think "evil" had little to do with it...it was a vulgar event by and for a vulgar people in a vulgar time...we be 3T.

You might note that I use the phrase "the very long trail that follows those Clinton folks" in my determination of the "epitome of evil", Mr. Saari.

Perhaps I am being too harsh, too judgmental, too extreme on this manner? But consider that while the Democratic Party retreat from the memorial fiasco, and just like Clinton, and hide behind the Wellstone children ("How dare you criticize how they produced it!"), Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, is off to Hawaii to do it all again...

The Honolulu Advertiser reports that Clinton "rallied the faithful" for the election at events that "were promoted as a tribute to Patsy Mink, the congresswoman who died Sept. 28 during her re-election bid." Actually, she died in the hospital. They make it sound like she died on the campaign trail. Note this next line: "Clinton used the tribute as an opportunity to urge people to vote Democrat in this year's governor's race."

That Bubba is a real bad boy, folks!

Republican Tommy Thompson said the memorial was really no shock to him. Because he is a politician himself, he didn't think much about it.

I think that if we didn't practice this American form of "civil" politics, there would be bullets flying.

I was at the memorial and it's just amazing how the major media has spun this event (I expected as much from the talk radio/drudge crowd). First, the event was billed from the beginning as a CELEBRATION of these people's lives. It wasn't supposed to be a somber, black veiled, morose event, but a CELEBRATION. Maybe some don't get that concept. Private funerals are being held separately for grieving.

Second, as the members of Congress were coming in, some of their faces were shown on the big screens in the arena. This was BEFORE the event had begun. Naturally, the crowd was predominantly liberal/progressive, and cheering the mostly Democratic officials. Therefore, when Trent Lott was shown there was a short chorus of booing, but it wasn't of a viscious kind. It was much more like when the villain in the old silent movies gets hissed at and booed. Or a rival sports team. Lott good-naturedly flashed a smile and it was over. He did NOT walk out because of this either, as has been erroneously reported. Tommy Thompson was interviewed yesterday also, and he said he wasn't offended.

Third, Norm Coleman's (Paul's opponent) name was never mentioned. Pete Domenici, Jim Ramstad, and several other Republicans were mentioned as people who had worked with Paul on certain issues. They were warmly applauded.

Fourth, there were many non-political anecdotes about Paul's and the others' lives. Stories of their family lives and funny stories that were touching. But these people were very committed to political activism. How could you commemorate them and NOT inject politics, and talk of carrying on their legacy. The only speakers who were overtly political were Rick Kahn (Paul's BEST FRIEND), and Paul's 2 sons. Paul's son Mark yelled "WE WILL WIN" over and over at the end of his talk. This related to an anecdote told earlier about how Paul had all these scratch note reminders that he kept around (being a kind of absent-minded professor type), and how his wife Sheila had written "WE WILL WIN" across one of them just recently and left it for him.

Fifth, the Democratic Party had no connection to the event. If anyone has a problem with the event, they should bring it up with the family members. I'd like to see them try THAT.

I could go on, but this overreaction is simply a way for the Republicans to get back to negative campaigning, since they know they are losing and there isn't much time left. Believe me, we'd rather have Paul Wellstone back and lose the election (though he was on his way to winning before the tragedy). His inspiration did not die though, and will only grow.

Thanks for posting,alias. I appreciate and value the first-hand account.

Originally Posted by alias

I was at the memorial and it's just amazing how the major media has spun this event...

There's a reason for that. The media were dupped all weekend long by Democrats: 1) From Tom Daschel on down, warning the GOP not to "politicize" Wellstone's death, and 2) how the memorial service was only going to be just that (and not a political rally).

Thus the Democrats encouraged the wall to wall 3 1/2 hour television coverage. Check my first post on this matter. I linked a local TV station from the morning after.

In short, the Democrats hookwinked the media. Nothing new there, but ya live by the media, ya die by the media. As the saying goes. :wink:

Virgil, I am very disappointed in you. I thought you better than that. Before church on sunday next, I would recomend Amos from the Jeroboam Crisis ca. 786-753 B.C.. HTH DMMcG

Originally Posted by cbailey

Thanks for posting,alias. I appreciate and value the first-hand account.

I do, too. Thanks, alias, for your report.

And "bravo" to Tommy Thompson for having a little perspective on things.