Do Republicans die in Plane Crashes too?

From Jerky LeBouef:

"Plane crashes, lone gunmen, gardening mishaps... sometimes it seems as though Democratic party members are the only politicians who die in the line of public service. The Kennedy family, alone, tips the balance of numbers in the Donkey Party's favor. Jack and Bobby Kennedy were famously gunned down, of course, during the spate of political assassinations that rocked the 60's. Their older brother Joseph Kennedy Jr., who was essentially bred by his father to be President, died when his bomber crashed over the Pacific in WWII. Younger brother Teddy, long-time Senator and two-time Presidential candidate, walked away from a plane crash in 1964. JFK's son, JFK Jr., was pondering a run for senator when his plane dropped into the ocean three years ago, snuffing him, his wife and his sister-in-law. Other Kennedys have died after mixing booze with perscription pills, or kissing a tree while playing downhill ski football. The complete list is too long to include here.

Other Democrats who died in their prime include Nixon enemy, dissident Warren Commission member and House Majority Leader Hale Boggs, whose plane disappeared over Alaska in 1972. In 1983, firebrand ultraconservative Democrat Larry McDonald was aboard doomed Korean Air Lines Flight 007, "shot down" by a Russian fighter jet for wandering hundreds of miles into a restricted area. Then there was popular young Missouri candidate Jerry Litton, who was considered Presidential material by many movers and shakers, and whose plane went down in 1976, the night he won the Democratic primary for US Senate.

And, speaking of Missouri, more recently, there was Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, whose plane crashed a mere three weeks before the 2000 elections wherein he was running against Republican John Ashcroft for the Senate. According to Missouri law, it was too late to pick a different candidate, but Mel's wife Jeanne said she would stand in her husband's place if people voted for him anyway, which they did. Soon after his humiliating and unexpected loss to a corpse, Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General by the White House. So, as subsequent events have shown, it's obvious that the Bush administration felt strongly that Ashcroft was meant to play an important role in our ongoing national drama... which, in turn, makes Mel's crash all the more troubling.

Republicans DO die in plane crashes. But there's a caveat. In order to die in a plane crash, they have to be either liberal Republicans - like Senator John Heinz, whose plane collided with a helicopter in 1991 - or else they have to be Republicans who, through investigation, epiphany or experience, have come to find themselves arrayed against the Bush Family Evil Empire. I am thinking now of Texas Senator John Tower, whose Tower Commission investigation into Iran/Contra wasn't as white of a whitewash as he'd been ordered to deliver. He also died in a plane crash in 1991.

As for the crash that took Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone's life, other than pointing out that he was previously targeted for assassination (ignore the headline, read the story - www.cnn.com...) while visiting (Bushista infested) Columbia, I don't have anything of value to add. Suffice it to say, suspicion is not unwarranted. People don't steal elections to do nice things, after all.

what a wonderful 'copy-n-paste' BT.

Here's another Democrat that was killed in a plane crash that 'Jerky LeBouef' forgot to mention:

Ron Brown, Former Chairman of the DNC and Commerce Secretary. The Liars for Hire aka the establishment media, have done their best to smear anyone trying to get to the bottom of this very convenient and horrible plane crash in which 39 people were killed. April 3, 1996 the T-43 carrying this trade mission group on a trip to Bosnia crashed while approaching Dubrovnik airport. Ron Brown was on the verge of being indicted and had prior to his departure, made it known that he "wasn't going down alone."

He's a big one on Clinton's Death list! He was in trouble and 'wasn't going down alone'

The question isn't 'Do republicans die in plane crashes' - it should be 'Why do Dems kill each other'




[Edited on 1-11-2002 by Bob88]

PS. Maybe its Gods way of paying the Dems back for all the loss of innocent life theyíve caused through their pro-abortion legislation??? It wouldn't surpise me....

[Edited on 1-11-2002 by Bob88]

The democrats that hace controlled that party for several years have proven that neither life nor law mean much compared to their agenda. Power by whatever means necessary is their motto. Makes me glad to not be a registered democrat; could be more dangerous than ciggerettes!

In America also, you have this saying about the democrats/socialists and their greeds to power.

Or it could be that planes crash,it happens.The Dems sure aren't crying over it,why should we.

The RRW has spoken!
Really guys, look at the lives of the Bush Crime Family for a hot minute, geez!
For #s & giggles, go to this chart & then use your favorite search engine and input 'Bush' and the chart box content, for example 'Rose law Firm'.

Tell me what ya find.

www.ulster.net...

Huh, look at that the Bush family has ties with Clintons.Not surprised to that.

BT - what if the GOP takes back the senate?

Oh, looky, now that he has an acronym for us he's emboldened, empowered almost!
Got a question (I can't believe I'm going to place myself in a position as defense attorney for a politician. I feel filthy), just because there is a link between R.L.F. and the Bush's, does that necesaarily mean that the Bush's are guilty of whatever Hillary did? Being associated with a firm puts you in cahoots with the dirtbags? If that is so, I'd better leave my job and start my own business!

Furthermore, if I am related to someone who drives the limo for a mafia member, does that make me a gunman? The dots take a while to connect.

And, if my father is a criminal, does that mean I follow right in his footsteps?

I'll not only give you Bush '41, I'll tell you I was ranting about '41 when he was in office (I can't imagine you ranting aginst Clinton when he was in office as much as you defend him now). But that doesn't mean the Shrub is the same man. As a matter of fact, the reason I voted for him is because he and his father do not see eye to eye on the conspiratorial things that concern me. Doesn't mean he's perfect, and we cannot ignore the fact that no matter how much more dignified and just he seems compared to Clinton, he's still a politician, and one does not become president soley on being the best man for he job and by running a clean life.

There was a chap called John G. Tower from Texas -tipped for the top, surrounded by scandal, who perished about 10 years ago - and I recall a Rep. from S. Dakota called, I think, Mickelson -but Dems do seem by and large to have the monopoly.
And touchÈ, Bob - a little gem if ever Estragon read one.

Then we're likely to see the birth of what this country has needed for some time - a Third Party. There are, if you follow the stuff like I do, many Republicans that are so uneasy these days - they can't fully enjoy the "In Power" afterglow because they are opposed to somethings on a visceral level. Jim Jeffords is by no means an anomoly. I think that if a Straight Flush comes into power, you'll see a real dramatic growth in GOP party disserters, with Dems in pro-big business districts ( Liberman for example) also going along with them.

That would be intersting to see, people abandoning their party because they took the majority!

Jumpin' Jim Jeffords isn't someone I'd hold up and call a republican; he never voted as a republican.

The idea of having more than two parties sounds good. Refining the positions of three-four parties so that the voters could vote in who most closely represents their opinions.

the 3rd party theory is a good one though they seem to be special interest. Plus, it never seems like voters find them viable. We have a Natural Law candidate running for governor in my state. I frankly think the guy is a nut - talking about meditation and feng shui and what not. I do however like how the Libertarians stance on many issues.

[Edited on 4-11-2002 by Bob88]

Well, if you're John Gotti Jr (GW) and you use ALL of John Gotti Sr.'s (GHW Bush)CONSIGLIRI, how are you going to pass yourself off as a Bible Salesman!?!?
He used all his fathers oil contacts. He used all his fathers government contacts. He appointed all those contacts into positions where ever he went. Now, O Lord of Republican Logic, please tell me how he's NOT cut from the same cloth!?!
If he wasn't a coward with no honor and served his tour of duty, he WOULD be his father.

Thomas: the issues that Jim Jeffords( how did I know my Radical Right Wing bud Thomas would have issue with Jim?) brought to light are still in existence and would be even more brought to critical mass under the worst case scenario of Republican rule. You know, absolute power corrupting & all that.
Like I keep saying, the GOP needs a house cleaning because the lunatics are running the asylum now!

Bob: that's been the rub - the third parties have always been fringe dwellers. Libertarian, if you put the economic platform to formula, are damn wacky, though for the most part, they hold a good point. No, I'm talking an amalgam of moderate GOP & moderate Dem's coming together, with name brand recognition, and being an immediate impact. Particularly if they do it while holding seats.

Certainly the USA is large enough, diverse enough and sufficiently populous to support rather more choice than the two-party race it is now offered.
However, the history in recent times of Third Parties and their candidates has been less than edifying and there is this problem in the US of election funding and no amount of recent legislation purporting to restrict spending seems to have been effective.
There's also the fear that a Third Party may simply be a subsidised "stooge" party set up to damage one of Big Two (probably to damage the Reps. who appear to more susceptible to Third-Party damage)

That is true, Estragon, just as the man with the big ears and the bad haircut ensured Clinton received the presidency by such a small amount of votes, but I think it's be workablr after a couple go-arounds. Everyone would adjust their thinking and it'd function decently.

What B-T is crying about is that there are a few republicans that do not support the planks of the republican platform. He suggests that those few that do not suppost the republican platform are the true republicans and are in fact representative of the republican party. These majority/minority folks, along with equally wishy-washy democrats from the other side, should come together and form a third party.
What might be their name?

The bland band coalition?
They wouldn't be able to move forward by using any of their own party members, we Americans don't like to be led by those who have no direction and just wait for a poll to be taken to determine....wait a minute, Clinton was elected, Carter had a stay in the office as well....B-T, you might be on to something!!

Whayever you do, leave James Carville where he's at; he makes me howl with laughter defending the democratic kooks. He wouldn't be nearly as fun arguing for milk toaste!

[Edited on 5-11-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

The Rabid Right Wing speaks again!
Estragon was talking about accomodating more than polar opposites( real world) and Thomas goes off on a tangent about 'true conviction'! Typical. And of course, typically sad, Thomas!
I know Republican political animals, and they are not oligarchs. That's what the national persona of the GOP platform has turned to, Oligarchy.
Bush/Qualye lost because they were woefully inept and their agenda of catering to the wealthiest strata of the country further tanked our economy. Gore, though having won, was still more vastly affected by the Green Party campaign of Ralph Nader.
No, to be effective, there would need to be a grass roots 'jump' of seat holding politicians.
Besides legislating a women's reproduction rights, what are the 'planks of the GOP platform', the ones that include the $30K a year guy?