Do you remember the death of Senator Paul Wellstone? Usually the Whitehouse will be represented by someone. Cheney would have gone but was not invited. The memorial turned into a digusting rally for the democratic party. Trent Lott was booed. Yes, booed at a memorial service. The fallout from that was huge. http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/3400441.html So I don't blame them for not letting any democrats speak. Who knows what their agenda would have been this time. They can't be trusted. What republicans are using Reagan's death to push their agenda?
You need to read the coverage from someone who was there. I recommend Al Franken's chapter about it in "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them." The facts speak for themselves.
A hundred people out of 20,000 Wellstone visitors half-heartedly boo Trent Lott, and suddenly Republicans everywhere are quaking in their boots? C'mon. But, for the sake of argument, let's say Democrats *did* use Wellstone's death to further political agendas. If it was wrong for Democrats to do it, why is it right when Republicans do it?
Al Franken again? How about I just read about the coverage from the newspapers that covered it? I've also heard sound clips from there and it was way out of line for a memorial service. The family was not happy. I don't give a rats what Franken has to say. I'm sure you'd say the same if I told you to read a book from Hannity.
I don't recall any people using the eulogy for Reagan to say "vote for Bush". That's what happened at the Wellstone memorial. Take the blinders off, Smarty Jones.
What about if you read coverage from newspaper articles when the writers later admitted that they did not attent the service or watch it on TV? What if they admitted that they just wrote about what they heard happened? Would that change your opinion?
And what if I told you I heard several of the political speeches from the rally, er, memorial service? It was live on c-span for all to see. Even your John Kerry was aware of it. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,388903,00.html Saturday, Nov. 09, 2002 Did the memorial service for Paul Wellstone cost Democrats the election? A backlash against the politically charged service almost certainly helped Norm Coleman beat Walter Mondale for Wellstone's Minnesota Senate seat. And a private poll by Bill Clinton's former pollster, Mark Penn, suggests the service backfired on Democrats nationally as well. Penn found that 68% of voters knew about the service—a high awareness of an event broadcast live nationally only on C-SPAN. What's more, 49% of voters said the service made them less likely to vote for a Democrat—and 67% of independents said they felt that way. One Democrat who quickly sensed that the service was a political disaster was Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a possible 2004 presidential contender. The next morning Kerry called Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, who had been booed at the memorial, to tell him how bad he felt. Penn believes national security was ultimately a bigger issue. His poll shows a stunning 65% of voters thought Democrats weren't supportive enough of the President's war on terror. "That was the issue," says Penn. "But the memorial didn't help."
I doubt seriously Franken would know what a fact checker was if he bit him in the arse. Franken is nothing more than a venomous, washed-up comedian who is absorbed with his hatred for the right. If you want to find all of his lies exposed for what they are, look here.
Those lies have been debunked as well. If you would like the documentation, it is where it belongs...in the footnotes in the back of the book. All of Franken's facts were checked by a team of researchers from Harvard (10 of them) and exhaustively documented.
I DO read books by Hannity and the like (I read all of Slander and Treason by Ann Coulter) because my mind has plenty of space for dissenting views. Again, if you want an account of that memorial service from a primary source (someone who was there) you will want to read Franken's chapter on it. Franken has been a friend of Wellstone's family for years and the family was upset by the GOP twisting of the event, not what any speaker got up and said.
You need to read an account from a primary source, not the "facts" after they were twisted by the RNC.
It may have cost them the election, but that is a direct result of the way the Republicans put their spin on the event. Again, I challenge you to find a primary source. I suspect that you don't think your position would stand up to such a reading, which is the reason you basically refused to do so in an earlier post.
The use would be to inject some actual facts into your head. If you only read one side of the story, you will not hear the WHOLE story. If you REFUSE to read one side of the story, you may be a shill.
