BS: New Republican Majority

Subject: BS: New Republican Majority
From: toadfrog
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 02:35 PM

Perhaps George W. is a "better man" than somebody else. But has anyone noticed, the reason the Republicans get control of the Senate is, that Senator Welstone was killed in a mysterious airplane accident. Last I heard, the FAA was quite mystified as to how it could have happened, as the plane was well equipped with de-icers.

I note also, last year attempts were made to assasinate Senator Leahy of Vermont and Sentator of South Dakota, by sending them "weapons grade" Anthrax spores in envelopes. The FBI investigated, and is still clueless. Everyone seems to agree that it must have been Sadaam Hussein who was behind these attempts. In light of Sadaam's well-known hatred of Democratic Senators from small, rural states, that must be right.

Of course, I draw no conclusions from the above co-incidental events, which no one has been able to explain, either. But isn't the coincidence astonishing?

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 02:54 PM

heh, heh. I don't have any paranoia about Wellstone's crash, but the anthrax thing...

It certainly was interesting how the anthrax investigation suddenly got hushed up when they started to narrow the perpetrator down to someone who worked in or had access to a US military anthrax lab. My guess is that s/he:

1) Now works for us
2) Already worked for us
3) Is now conveniently dead

... or some combination of the above :)

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 03:02 PM

Actually I think you're on to something...

The liberal Democrats would have every reason to attempt to assassinate all three of those men, Wellstone because every poll had him losing to Coleman, (and see how well the change worked in NJ). And considering the frustration the Liberals had at both Dashle and Leahy for failing to convert the revealed truth to actual political firepower, they were toast. (And the Postal Union was late with their annual contribution to the Party, so they dusted a couple to get the ante up.)   

And hey, look what happened to Ron Brown two weeks before he was to be indicted; the Secretary of Commerce sent on a special trip to Bosnia? Yeah, toadfrog, I think you're right, there is a trend here...

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 03:39 PM

Now if only the Republicans had trained that sniper properly, we could have had a complete eradication of Democratic voters and a real change in politics....

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 04:07 PM

that's not a bit funny, even if said tongue in cheek....I hope it is deleted.

The entire subject of the thread is ludicrous...and you see what it draws from the woodwork.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 05:00 PM

Just what we need. Another conspiracy theory (by the right-wing wackos no doubt).

Claymore, that's called ...I think ...gotcha!

I side with BillD on the Guest post. Not funny, not clever, not anything.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 08:44 AM

I'm a different guest, but I find it curious that people are so dismissive about the Wellstone crash investigation. There are some very bizarre circumstances about the crash that defy explanation at this point.

I really think it is unfair to characterize suggestions of sabotage in the Wellstone crash as the rantings of lunatic Democrats who suffer from partisan delusional conspiracy theories.

But I note that the Mudcat resident right wing partisans are silent about the anthrax attacks against Democratic senators. Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Troll
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 09:22 AM

Why respond?
I don't know what happened to Seantor Wellstones plane but with the conspiracy theory already broached, there's nothing to say. It "they" could cause his plane to crash, "they" can surely cover up "their" tracks.
Most conspiracy theories are self-fulfilling and any data that doesn't fit was planted to confuse the issue.
The same thing applies to the anthrax attacks. The left has apparently decided that it was a right wing attack that failed and has been covered up. And there's no way to prove otherwise. Even if orders for the attack in Saddams handwriting was found, there are those who would say that it was fake and being used to cover right wing complicity.
So I say again, why respone?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 01:14 PM

Ah, at last an opportunity to post this!

It is a prediction, from a real wacko political site, that was originally posted in April, 2001, claiming to have inside intelligence information that a liberal democratic senator would be assasinated in order to restore the Republican control of the senate. The creepy thing is that it said that a plane crash would be staged--

This is not an after the fact thing, I stumbled across this very page a while back in connection with the anthrax investigation--

I make no claims, I just offer it for your consideration:


Assasination
Prediction

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 02:43 PM

Troll: Amen.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Genie
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 03:31 PM

Just remember, when right-wing 'spin-sters' try to paint the election results as a mandate for Dubya's agenda:

It ain't a very big majority.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 11:33 AM

Perhaps, BUT it is still a majority, Genie.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Genie
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 04:00 PM

My point, Doug, is that the implications of that majority, though it was sufficient to gain control of Congress, should not be overestimated.

The country is still sharply and pretty much evenly divided on a lot of issues.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: The Pooka
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 05:08 PM

Congratulations, DougR. When you win, you win; and deserve unbegrudging credit (& without any of the conspiratiral crappola). But Genie, I think you're right, too. Almost all the close ones broke Doug's & Dubya's way over the last few days at the end. (Including one supposedly-tossup House seat here in CT, giving the R's the majority of our House delegation for the first time in memory.) Now, that sure doesn't mean Nothing, as we'll soon begin to learn legislatively (shudder). But it doesn't mean Everything, either. // Hey, anybody like Sen. Chris Dodd for 2004?
-- Parochial Pook, D-CT

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: toadfrog
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 10:35 PM

Claymore: You are mistaken about the polls. Every poll I can find from the month before Wellstone was killed says he was leading, and that his lead was growing. Please click HERE and HERE, and HERE.

Bill D: Why "ludicrous"? Is it not a bit disturbing that shortly after Senator Jeffords crossed the aisle, (and was damned in this Forum as a "traitor," an attempt was made to kill two Senators, both in the opposing Party? Is it not disturbing that after finding that they could not blame the whole business on foreigners, the FBI lost all interest in investigating? There is a widespread mentality that says, anything goes if it is to oppose the foreign foe. And if Democrats are soft on Communism, anything goes to defeat democrats.

Does it not disturb you to know that the FBI actively intervened in California politics to make sure Ronald Reagan was elected governor? It you don't believe this is true, CLICK HERE. Is it not disturbing that it took more thn 30 years to find out what happened through Freedom of Information Act requests? If you don't believe that, CLICK HERE.

A couple of years back, I spent several hours listening to the Clinton impeachment proceedings. What bothered me most was the insistence of the Republican Congressmen that what Clinton did, that is, lie about an affair that was irrelevant to the lawsuit he was defending, was worse that the Watergate break in or the Iran-Contra conspiracy because it was done to protect Clinton's "self-interest." The inference seems to be, crimes are justified if they promote a right-wing political program. (Admittedly the people at the hearing were not typical Republicans - they were the crazies.) If those people could justify crimes in the name of anti-Communism, I think the "war against terrorism," or just about any other cause involving foreigners, would do as well.

Am I wrong, Bill D? I don't know that there is a conspiracy here, mysterious as all these things are. But they really, really do disturb me. Why is that ludicrous? Don't they bother you? Not even a little bit?

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 01:03 AM

Pooka: it will come as no surprise to you that my answer to your question about Sen. Chis Dodd is, no thanks. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Troll
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 06:51 AM

toadfrog, your "conspirators" are not too swift. I mean, if they are so clever, why no knock off a half-dozen Democrats and nail that majority down solid?
I mean, if they have all this great protection and are going to get away with it anyway, why not?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

Toad: I read the San Francisco Chronicle piece you did the blue clicky for and how you could deduce that the FBI got involved in California politics is beyond me. Hoover made it very clear that the FBI did not get involved in politics.

Cleaning up the Berkley campus was of interest to both Governor Reagan and the FBI, so they worked cooperatively. In my opinion, the only regretful thing about their efforts is they did not succeed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Kim C
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 01:02 PM

I want to know where's that big warehouse where they're hiding the Ark of the Covenant.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: curmudgeon
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 01:39 PM

Doug - Were you referring to J. Edgar when you stated, " Hoover made it very clear that the FBI did not get involved in politics."?
I reaaly do respect your beliefs and your intellect, but citing J. Edgar Hoover as a source of anything truthful really weakens your position -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 01:58 PM

Tom: I was using the article Toad posted from the San Francisco Chronicle to support his argument as my source.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 02:08 PM

Genie: the figures are out now and the Republicans won 52% of the votes for House members and the Democrats won 46%. That's a pretty good margin I would say. There are still a couple of Senate races that have not been decided so we won't know about the Senate until after those have been decided, but we do know the Republicans will be in the majority.

The Republicans control a majority of the state legislatures after last week's election, and the projected sweep of the governorships by the Democrats failed to materialize.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 02:15 PM

Right you are DougR. There is no one to blame now but Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: harpgirl
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 02:26 PM

...and just how the hell are going to have democracy with one party running the whole show? Answer: We aren't! Democracy requires dissent! Explain to me why having a republican majority, with the rabid right wing christian conservatives calling the shots, is going to be a better thing for Americans?

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 02:30 PM

Nobody said it was going to be a better thing for all Americans, now did they harpgirl? Remember Bush's stump speeches? It will be better for Bush and "the people he can work with in the US Congress".

Which certainly doesn't include anyone in the minority. Except for conservative Southern Democrats--the entire handful of those cute, beastly dinosaurs.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: harpgirl
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 02:57 PM

...sorry sweety, I don't collude with "trickster"...so please save your chummy remarks for the time when you are brave enough to reveal yourself. Your return presence is most evident all over the mudcat, and I for one, am annoyed by it.

With no one to attach these political views to, I am inclined to label you as an agent of the government, stirring up trouble and dissention among a group of moderately questioning citizens to obscure truth and real debate on the changing American way. You have no credibility with me because I believe you are antisocial and therefore most interested in disrupting the community. hg

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 03:48 PM

Right Guest. For the next two years, at least, the Republicans get the praise, or the citicizm, for what happens.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 04:28 PM

They also get to back their trucks up to the Federal Reserve, with no one to stop them, and loot the country.

Just like they did under Reagan/Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: toadfrog
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 04:37 PM

Doug, normally I disapprove of the practice of pasting political stuff into the forum. It should be enough to provide a hyperlink. But as you misstate what the article contains, I will paste in the following excerpt:

Reagan's car pulled up at the Piedmont home of Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford later that summer, and the candidate was ushered inside for a secret meeting.

             Reagan had easily defeated San Francisco Mayor George Christopher in the June 7 GOP primary and was running all out against Brown.

             But he broke from his intense campaign schedule for a two-hour meeting with Mulford, a longtime critic of Kerr and "special contact" of the San Francisco FBI.

             Mulford had summoned to his home several university officials who despised Kerr and had been secretly feeding the FBI internal university information that, they believed, showed
             Kerr not only had tolerated campus dissent but might be subversive himself.

             Among those at the August meeting were Alex Sherriffs, former vice chancellor at Berkeley; Hardin Jones, assistant director of UC's radiation lab; and John Sparrow, associate
             general counsel to the regents.

             Sherriffs, who had bitterly opposed Kerr's handling of the Free Speech Movement, had steadily supplied the FBI with information from personnel files about students and
             professors involved in campus protests.

             Jones had been a paid FBI informant and had helped the FBI set up a network of campus sources to gather allegations that went into FBI reports about campus demonstrations
             and Kerr. He had told the FBI he was working with the Burns committee "towards removing President Kerr." But Jones' claims about campus communism eventually became so
             exaggerated that the bureau began to doubt his credibility and stopped paying him.

             Sparrow had contacted the FBI at Jones' suggestion after becoming disgusted with Kerr's handling of campus unrest. Sparrow confidentially gave information to the FBI -- as well
             as the Burns committee -- about campus unrest.

             In an interview, Sparrow confirmed the meeting and acknowledged he was engaging in partisan activity against Kerr. He said he took the "extraordinary" actions against a member
             of the board he represented because he was concerned about the "welfare" of the university.

             During their meeting at Mulford's, the three men briefed Reagan about "communist efforts to influence the students" at Berkeley. And they told Reagan that Kerr's removal was
             "vital" to the university's future.

             Afterward, Reagan thanked Mulford for "a most interesting meeting.

             "I very much appreciate the help of yourself and your associates in providing the true facts on this matter," Reagan wrote in an Aug. 17 letter.

             A letter from Hoover

             A week later, Hoover gave Reagan's campaign a boost when he endorsed the candidate's proposal to set up a new police training academy.

             On Aug. 20, 1966, Reagan had announced his plan for a new anti-crime academy that would teach "police, sheriff's deputies and other law officers the newest methods in crime
             prevention and solution."

             The academy would be located in Berkeley. And "with Mr. Hoover's help," Reagan said, "such a school could become a sort of FBI academy of California."

             Reagan already had written the director to solicit his help.

             "Because of your long record, not only of successfully fighting crime, but also of developing new techniques and methods, and because you have given the United States a
             crime-fighting force second to none in the world, we are eager to have your aid and advice in this project."

I assume that you innocently misread the article. You are well known as a gentleman, and I believe you would not intentionally misrepresent what you read. Finally, I don't know exactly what to say about the view that Berkeley had to be "cleaned up" because opinions were expressed that you disagree with. I was in Berleley in the 1960's. A lot of very extreme views were expressed. I was often offended. But then, your own views are also extreme. Should they be "cleaned up."

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 05:45 PM

So Hoover approved setting up the police academy and that means Hoover and the FBI imposed themselves into the political process?

I think that is a pretty far stretch, Toad.

That article is filled with lots of "facts," Toad, but I believe the reporter failed to mention the source of the facts. The story is written more like an episode of "Your FBI in War and Peace," or something like that. I'll go back to be sure, but I don't think the reporter shared with the readers where he got his "facts." If he does, I will acknowledge it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 05:51 PM

Okay, Toad. The writer did quote some sources, which I assume could be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, but your tying JEH's offer of assistance to establish a police academy in Sacramento to the FBI getting involved in political activities there is still a pretty far stretch I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: toadfrog
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 10:33 PM

Yes. Perhaps a stretch, to say he only provided an offer of pork. But there is also the matter of covering up the fact that Reagan lied when he reported his background to the FBI. And, although not mentioned in that particular article, having Clark Kerr investigated - although he found nothing damaging.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 10:42 PM

If J. Edgar were alive today, he'd probably publicly vamp on homosexuals and have them investigated, persecuted and discredited by day and by night..................................................

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:14 AM

Just one question for those willing to entertain the conspiracy theory:

How does murdering/assasinating a politician of one party or another guarantee that the man you want to put in his place succeeds? Surely there is an election and if the State is solid Democrat then the likely-hood of a Republican being elected is as remote as it ever was.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:08 PM

Teribus, you seem to either not know about, or have forgotten the terrible era of political assassinations of liberal politicians and civil rights leaders in this country in the 1960s. You seem to either not know about, or have forgotten the FBI's history of targeting the political left, including the COINTELPRO operation of domestic spying and smear campaigns against civil rights and anti-war leaders and organizations.

In fact, Teribus, you seem to either be ignorant of, or conveniently denying much of post-WWII American history altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:15 PM

Did I forget to mention the McCarthy era, and the FBI's role in the red baiting debacles in the 50s? The House UnAmerican Activities Committee?

It is one thing to argue your case, but another entirely to turn what is well documented history on it's head in your efforts to win the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:21 PM

Guest: I am sorely tempted to reply to your posts to Teribus, but I'm determined not to feed you.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: toadfrog
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:43 PM

Teribus:
In the United States, when a Senator resigns or dies in office, the usual procedure is that the Governor appoints a new Senator to fill out the remainder of his/her term, which may be 2-4 years. I believe there may be states where things are done differently, but so far as I know that's almost universal. In 2001, South Dakota had a Republican Governor, William Janklow, who would probably have appointed a Republican in Dashle's place had he died. Vermont had a Democratic Governor, Howard Dean, who would probably have appointed a Democrat to replace Leahy.

I am not necessarily proposing a conspiracy theory. I am just disturbed by the juxtaposition of facts here. A conspiracy would require agreement by several persons to commit a crime. The fact that someone attempted to kill two Senators immediately after the balance in the Senate shifted suggests that the attempt was politically motivated. It does not necessarily suggest that more than one person was involved.   Anti-abortion groups in the United States frequently mail out false anthrax powder for purposes of intimidation. The fact that highly sophisticated biological weapons were used does not prove a conspiracy. But it is troubling, because very few people have access to highly sophisticated weapons of that kind. And the fact that the police do not investigate energetically does not prove anything. But put together with those other facts, it looks funny.

On the other hand, people immediately jumped to the conclusion that if somebody was mailing out anthrax spores, it had to be Saadam Hussein, or Al Quaeda, or some Arab. Why? Why would Arabs choose these particular guys as targets?

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:09 PM

The immediate popular American assumption was that it was Arabs/Muslims who were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing too.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:15 PM

Toad: no disrespect intended, but if you want to continue the conspiracy theory wouldn't a separate thread be appropriate for it. I think it might make an interesting thread on it's on. If you are suggesting that the only reason the Republicans got the majority was because of the Wellstone situation, that is a different matter, but the numbers wouldn't support it because the loss of the Wellstone seat did not give the majority to Republicans. It helped, but wasn't the deciding factor.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:38 PM

I think the difficult word for a lot of people is "conspiracy" in relation to the Wellstone crash. I know for me personally, the word sabotage is really the more accurate. It is not too soon to suggest the possibility of sabotage as a cause of the crash, but it is too soon to suggest the possibility of conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Troll
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 06:12 AM

Small planes crash every day for a large variety of reasons and some seem to crash for no reason at all. That isn't the case of course. It simply means that the investigators are unable to determine the cause.
That may be the case with the Wellstone crash.
No sabotage, no conspiracy, just a cause that cannot be determined. Just like other crashes. It could be wind sheer, contaminated fuel, a broken control cable, the pilot had a heart attack, any one of a number of things.
As I said, no sabotage, no conspiracy.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 08:10 AM

Thanks for answering my question Toadfrog, coming from the other side of the pond I was not aware of the procedure that would apply under such circumstances. In the UK if a Member of Parliament dies a Bye-Election is called in his constituency and a new member is elected.

Guest of 12.11.02, 02:08 & 02:15 - I was merely asking a question, not attempting to make any point in an arguement.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: kendall
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:16 AM

I don't believe he was assassinated because I don't WANT to believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:26 AM

As opposed to troll, kendall, who says sabotage and/or conspiracy absolutely are not possible explanations for the crash, before the results of the NTSB investigation has been released.

Talk about refusing to accept what you don't want to believe!

Teribus, thanks for clarifying that. I apologize if I offended you.

Subject: RE: BS: New Republican Majority
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 11:38 AM

I heard on the Fox News Network, troll, that the pilot faked the number of hours he had flown that type aircraft to the charter company he was flying for. I don't know how that could be done, but an inexperienced pilot could have had a lot to do with the accident.

DougR