WELLSTONE CAMPAIGN CONTINUES RUNNING COMMERCIAL

Fox News ^

[rwfromkansas]

Indeed......that is why I ran a WHOIS search and came up with an e-mail addy: cdsheehan@yahoo.com

On another thread, someone put info@colemanforsenate.com (I think) as an e-mail addy they remembered from before the website was changed.

[Endeavor]

"WHAT ABOUT RESPECT FOR THE LIVING?????"

What about respect for the 3,000 dead on September 11, 2001?

Wellstone's policies and ideologies emboldened the Clinton disarming of our military. Wellstone was on record as voting against the president's policy of holding Iraq accountable for its actions. Someone I admired greatly died in the Pentagon crash on September 11th. Paul Wellstone wasn't willing to protect us against future attacks. He wasn't able to identify our most dangerous opponents.

I hope Norm Coleman beats the hell out of whoever the DIMS run in his place. PERIOD!!!

[Endeavor]

Thank you for the email addy's. I will take advantage of both.

[WOSG]

I cant let the many historical misstatements and biases get un remarked. ...

The Republican party grew out of the Whigs, the free-soilers, and the abolitionists. the Democrats were the dominant party back then, and it left the former Federalists in New England marginalized (as whigs). The whigs hooked up with anti-slavery folks and free soilers in the midewest and the Republican party was born around 1854.

The Republican party was for a slightly stronger Federal Govt? ... that meant maybe 3% of GNP in federal govt instead of 2%. lol. not a real difference.

The real difference was geography and slavery. north and south. Yes, Lincoln grew the power of the GOvernment, but that happened under every wartime president ... however in the peace following prior to the post WWII era, those powers were reduced in peacetime.

"In 1870 you would have been a Democrat unless you are really a liberal. "

IN 1870, the Republicans were under President US Grant, the Democrats were former confederates. only KKKers would identify with the Democrats of that time. The republicans now had support of the Nrotheast industrialists and midwest farmers. Democrats? they were busy lynching black people to initimidate them into giving up their new-found political rights. The strategy worked, as white Republicans grew tired of defending those rights with federal troops and eventually they withdrew - the south "won the peace" and Jim Crow and segregation were born and lived on to the 1960s.

TR vs. FDR? So what? Taft was a conservative. The Republican party of today has not changed as much as is implied. The Republicans ALWAYS WAS A COALITION OF MORALISTS AND FREEDOM-LOVERS AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS ... in 1854 and today: the whigs became the country clubbers, the abolitionist became the christian right, and freesoilers the libertarians.

It is actually the Democrats who have moved, from being populist anti-Federalists to being elitist Socialists. Quite a change!!!

[Redleg Duke]

Is everyone forgetting that Wellstone promised that he would only serve two terms. He crashed and burned on his third campaign.

Maybe someone is reminding all of us that "a promise is a promise!"

[Irene Adler]

"TR vs. FDR? So what? Taft was a conservative."

TR mightily regreted leaving the Presidency after less than two full terms and annointing Taft to run. Taft had gone along with TR's ideas and actions as President, and TR believed he was committed to carrying out TR's programs, but he was NOT. That's why TR made his disastrous foray into third party politics with the ill-fated Bull Moose Party.

CT is correct. During it's early years, the Republican Party was the leftwing party, and the Democratic Party was the rightwing party (remember the "Solid South"?)

[Notwithstanding]

Accurate info about Wellstone's REAL legacy:

http://www.mccl.org/norman_wellstone.pdf

[jchson]

Of the 80,000 absentee ballots that have been mailed, those returned are valid and will not be replaced as codified in state law.

Those that have not returned their ballots may either write in the name of whoever the Dem's put up OR exchange them for new ballots.

Problem is, MANY of those that vote(d) absentee are already out of town or are unable to replace their ballots.

This group of votes will be influential.

ANOTHER POINT OF INTEREST is that one of Wellstone's children is named...........PAUL JR!

If they tap him for the nomination there will not be ANY NEED to provide supplemental ballots because the name on the ballot will be IDENTICAL! So, the absentee ballots would be "accurate" and the continuity would be seamless albeit dubious.

I smell however, a serious lawsuit if his namesake ends up on the ballot.

[Notwithstanding]

The Wellstone legacy:

[jchson]

I was incorrect.

I read a report that he had a son named Paul Jr. It was obviously wrong because all of the other references to survivors list David and Mark as his surviving children.

[The Iron Duke]

Please elaborate why 74 year old Mr. DFL Party Man Fritz Mondale is so formidible a candidate in the state that elected Jesse Ventura four years ago?

Is it his political base? Mondale has not been on a ballot in 18 years. He has been all but invisible in Minnesota for much of that time. When he was active he was respected but not loved, not the way his mentor Humbert Humprhey was loved.

Is it is ties to the deceased? He is not a family member. He is not even really a political ally, having retired from the fray when Wellstone first ran for office.

Could it then be Mondale's appeal to that very large independent voting block in Minnesota, the ones who insist that they always vote for the man, never the party? As a current resident of Minnesota, you certainly know that Minnesota independents love political mavericks. They have elected a group that ranges back to boy governor Harold Stassen in the 1940s, the ever odd Gene McCarthy in the early 1960s, the stuttering Plywood Minnesota mavin Rudy Boschwitz, the goofy Rudy Perpich, Paul Wellstone, Ross Perot and his charts and Jesse Ventura.

As a former Minnesotan who was very active in the politics of that state, I really doubt that this whole sympathy story is anything more than wishful thinking by the liberal media in need of a story for this weekend. I also doubt that the talking heads in the media and most of those commenting on this thread have any understanding of how profoundly quirky Minnesota politics are.

[TransOxus]

Your reponse is quite on the mark. The Republicans were freedom lovers and moralists and also very nationalistic. The radical libertarian response dismisses and categorizes them as left wingers which they were not. The RATs had the South in their camp because of their pro-slavery sentiments especially that of the KKK and Jim Crow politics which prevailed till the 60s. Republicans actually elected quite a number of Blacks after the Civil War for many years until the troops withdrew from the South. The RATs always derisively dismissed the Republicans as the Negro Party or basically the N....r Party.

[Owen]

Okay, listen up.

This is not like Missouri and Carnahan. In Missouri, Carnahan STAYED on the ballot. The sympathy vote was for him. He won, the governor named his widow to replace him.

Get this straight. There Is No Sympathy Vote For A Political Party. Wellstone might get sympathy vote if he was on the ballot, but he won't be. He will be replaced. The absentee votes for him count for him. His replacement will not get those votes unless a ballot is re-issued.

The Dems are not playing this right. They don't get sympathy. Wellstone does. When they replace him, that new replacement has to get his own votes. This has been seen in New Jersey. Dems don't vote Dem just because the guy on the ballot is a Dem. Even they would not vote Torricelli.

The key in Minnesota is to ensure that absentee ballots already cast are not counted for the replacement just because they say Wellstone. That will evolve to be the battle, because they might very well be the margin of victory. Don't let absentee ballots voted for Wellstone be interpreted to be for the replacement. The MN GOP needs to get its legal guns pre-aimed on this issue.

[WOSG]

Two fold point: Taft not TR represents the norm of Republicanism between the Civil War and the new deal; TR was a progressive, and eventually most progressives morphed into democrats. Taft was a normal conservative Ohio republican who didnt fully carry out TR's ideals is less of a surprise then TR's behavior (TR was the John McCain of the day!!). but mckinley, harding, coolidge, Grant, and the powers in Congress all helped keep U.S. economic policy "pro-growth" and pro-free enterprise mostly. on the other side were populists and progressives like W.J Bryant and later Woodrow Wilson.

It was Woodrow Wilson in WW I who first introduced the extensive amount of Government regulation that we think of today, and used income taxes to greatly expand Government. This includes the establishment of Federal Reserve, the setup of the income tax, the vast War Powers implemented in 1917, wage and price regulation, Labor standards, etc. Wilson was the first 'progressive Democrat' - and ALSO A SEGREGATIONIST - who created the predecessor programs to the New Deal.

Before Woodrow Wilson, we had a Federal Government that was miniscule and funded by tariffs. After Wilson, and especially after FDR and the New Deal, we got our "modern sized" Federal Government that swallowed clsoe to 20% of GNP.

second point: The concept of "left wing" is meaningless in any context in U.S. history prior to the progressive/populist era, ie prior to the introduction of socialist ideas, when the people of larger government were men like Hamilton and Clay and the men of smaller govt were men like Andrew Jackson. And the debate was over issues like whether govt should have a federal bank and build roads.

Democratic Party was the rightwing party (remember the "Solid South"?) IMHO, not illuminating description. It is only convenient to Liberals today to call the segregationists "right-wing", but its wrong. in fact the strongest segregationists were populist demagogues who could just as easily attack wall street and big business as attack the negroes. And who were for the giveaways "for the little guy" (as long as he was white) as much as anyone else. Huey Long comes to mind.

Again, the parties operated along other interests and lines better described as 'populist' versus 'elitist' then left and right.

[Eva]

This is the same mistake that Ashcroft made when Carnahan died.

[WOSG]

To followup on previous point of "Democrats as right-wing" ... you have President Woodrow Wilson a 'progressive Democrat' who vastly increased government powers who also kept the armed forces segregated in WW I and did much to hold back blacks in the Federal Govt. Then you have Warren Harding, who invited black leaders to the white house and called for an end to segregation and discrimination, who also wanted to greatly reduce American meddling overseas and in the economy at home. He and Coolidge's treasury secty Andrew Mellon cut income taxes (shades of Ronald Reagan) that had been leived by Woodrow Wilson back during World War I.

YOU DONT HEAR THIS HISTORY BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONVENIENT TO LIBERALS WHO DO MOST OF THE HISTORY TEACHING ON CAMPUS TODAY, BUT CHECK IT OUT, IT IS TRUE. In 1924, the KKK practically owned the Democratic party.

So who is the "right wing" person here???? Cant you see how the "segregationists" were in fact "left-wing" THEN and NOW (Jesse Jackson style quota queens)??

[WOSG]

good point!

My point is that this race should be about the future and about those of who living now and need to face it. The Dems will MAKE THE RACE ABOUT WHATEVER WILL HELP THEM WIN.

[terilyn]

I love your post and the ideas you expressed. The scholarship in Wellstone's name is a terrific idea.

I am on Norm's email list and would love it if you would send him this idea.

The people of Minnesota that are yet undecided would love it as well.

You can email Norm here info@colemanforsenate.com

[terilyn]

Please email your support to Norm's campaign. I don't have a telephone number saved, and his website is only showing his statement, however you can email him at info@colemanforsenate.com

[terilyn]

My understanding is that Paul is too young to run. His son David is just old enough however. Though it was also reported locally that both sons are supporting Mondale's name on the ballot.