Yeah, I can't believe both parties in this...

Post #60,242 by Simon_Jester 10/30/02 1:39:56 PM Reply	Yeah, I can't believe both parties in this... Good grief, the guys not even in the ground and both parties are vamping for his seat. Vamping at the funeral is imo, damn near at the top of heap of all the possible tacky things a person could do. But, give Republican's credit, Newt Gingrich did [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28274-2002Oct27.html\| try ] when he started in Mondale before Wellstone was even in the ground. "Walter Mondale chaired a commission that was for the privatization of Social Security worldwide. He chaired a commission that was for raising the retirement age dramatically. He has a strong record of voting to raise taxes," former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I think that what you'll see on the Republican side is an issue-oriented campaign that says, you know, if you want to raise your retirement age dramatically and privatize Social Security, Walter Mondale is a terrifically courageous guy to say that," Gingrich said. Of course, Wellstone was not for privatizing Social Security, so this is particular effective. Trouble is, of course, is that that while Mondale did chair the commission - he and 6 others wrote a dissent opinion to the conclusions that the commission reached. But the question is - which is worse? Pimping for a Senate seat at the dead guys funeral or lying about the record of next candidate before the Senator is in the ground. Frankly, both sides disgust me on this issue.
Post #60,322 by mmoffitt 10/30/02 8:05:41 PM Reply	I'm not sure that would make Paul frown. I watched and listened to his sons. You know, Wellstone was a rarity in the past 20 years. From all accounts, he believed in traditional progressive, left-of-center government. I remember that he said he wouldn't run for a 3rd term, but that he had decided to because he did not want a Republican majority in the Senate. From what I've read, it was not an easy decision for him to make, but he did it out of a fear of how much more rapid our decline would be if the arm-band-wearing party had full control. I was a little taken aback by what I saw, but after listening to his sons speak, and considering that Wellstone's own decision to run was more a decision to block a Republican majority than it was to stay a US Senator, perhaps he would have approved. I mean, from what I gather, his real fear was a Republican majority in the Senate. I believe he would be pleased immensely if that disaster was avoided. That's what I got from his kids, and who is anyone else to say different? bcnu, Mikem
Post #60,428 by Simon_Jester 10/31/02 10:10:40 AM Reply	Unforuately... and Wellstone's case proves it so well, there seems to has been a (fairly) recent move in politic to regard races at a national level rather than at the local level where they belong. Both the Democrats and the Republicans in Wellstone's race have people pushing for the race to tilt one way or another not because of what they parties will do for that state but rather to the nation as a whole. One side starts, then the other responds, escalating. Then the reverse. What bothers me the most is that I see nothing but increased polarization of the parties in the near future.
Post #60,508 by mmoffitt 10/31/02 4:09:39 PM Reply	Huh??? What bothers me the most is that I see nothing but increased polarization of the parties in the near future. And this would be bad how? Hell, I can't tell the difference between them now. If they don't "polarize" to some extent, voting is almost useless. bcnu, Mikem

Welcome to IWETHEY!