David Blomstrom's Website and Possibly Bush-Related Deaths of Politicians

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 18:13:19 -0600 Central Daylight Time


To: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cc: , , , , ,

Subject: RE: Campaign 2002 Memorial

Hello to kind professors, all:

And thanks to Mr. Blomstrom for the reference.

I wanted to share yet another referral on the Internet for the George Bush Undercurrents website. This refers to my "Notes on Decklogs" chapter file at the non-commercial Aristotle site (http://www.aristotle.net/~m.standridge/decklogs.htm). I'd be quick to again update all that the larger, commercial AT&T Site has still more and updated info. from deck logs and other sources. That Site is accessed best via Netscape (though it can be accessed via Internet Explorer) at:


Please note the AT&T site has a "period" after the m in my name. There, you'll find more data about the possible Bush-Clinton cover-up of 9/11.

In addition, the subject matter of this Site (referred to in this fwded e-mail) is intriguing at this point in time, especially given my recent Web posting of the old Great Old Record of the Grand Old Party and my ongoing investigation of the Clinton-Bush connections in the 2000 and 2002 elections--connections that go back a way, perhaps to Mena Airport and Iran/Contra (and Roger Clinton's own cocaine "connection").

Here in AR, as I write this, the local TV media are reporting on the latest round on the attempt to keep the polls open until 9 pm on November 5, 2002, in the face of some precincts running out of ballots (shades of the 2000 election, again, right here in Pulaski County).

The AR Supreme Court has ruled that the ruling to keep the polls opened "exceeded the authority" of the judges who made it, and should be "remanded." But it provided the Election Commission with no guidance as to how to enforce that, since some ballots cast after 7:30 pm cannot be distinguished from ballots cast beforehand. Some can, but some can't. If the ones that can be, are not counted, but the ones that cannot be, are, some injustice has occurred, anyway.

Meanwhile, referring back to the late Senator Wellstone--the MN race, with Mondale as the fill-in, was hair-close. Some ballots weren't changed to reflect the Mondale name rather than Wellstone.

Also, the tie-in suggested here, that other Democrats may have had a hand in the crash, would be possibly reinforced by the possibility of the Clinton-Bush connection. That includes:

That Clinton doesn't want the 2004 Democratic candidate to beat Bush, so that Hillary can run in 2008 successfully. Please note: W. will not be the candidate in 2008.*

Mr. Wellstone's death is eerily similar to Mr. Carnahan's. Each of these posed a threat to a political strategy that would place Hillary in the lead of the Democrats. Also, a 50/50 Senate, which would have occurred had Wellstone lived, was avoided, thereby denying the limelight to Tom Daschle, who, like Gore, was "in the way" if he'd had such a a limelight.


Max Standridge




*As a later footnote, it turned out that Bill Clinton made a hearty, though unavoidably late, effort to assist the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, win the 2004 Presidential election, campaigning for him here in AR after his recovery from heart treatment. This tends to weaken the "theory" or, really, the fear, that I had, that there might be that level of Democratic infighting motivated by ruthlessness on the Clintons' part. I would also like to note, in referring the reader to the external sites above, that I am not, thereby endorsing any conspiracy theory of an alliance between the Bushs and Clintons. This is irrational, in my view, since it doesn't explain the Perot candidacy in the 1992 election. Also, the theory that Gore and Kerry were just "in the way" doesn't quite explain everything, since Gore's "defeat" (at the hands of the US Supreme Court, not US voters) tended to undo.with the advent of W. Bush's Administration, many policies which Clinton had worked hard to put into place, making his work for nothing. That, too, seems irrational. --mcs.

----- Original Message -----

-- From: David Blomstrom

-- To: bushcon4@yahoogroups.com=20

-- Subject: Campaign 2002 Memorial

-- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:43:19 -0800

At your convenience, please visit my online Campaign 2002 memorials. To see the adult version, go to the Paul Wellstone Memorial at

(Blomstrom's Wellstone site) ,

then click the link to the Campaign 2002 Memorial. It includes 50 tips for fighting back - virtually none of which Democrats have a clue about.

[UPDATE: I must interrupt the quote from David Blomstrom here to add in the new web links for the articles cited. They recently disappeared and Google barely saved them from archived files. The new address links are: www.lizmichael.com



Those are the external links. I'm also adding these internal links, so that we don't risk losing this material--as almost happened recently when it went offline:

First is: Wellstone death

Another is: Congress deaths

Another is: Wellstone and other deaths

Finally, there is Bush-related deaths

and: The Bush-Clinton Body Toll--mcs]

The children's version is at http://www.geobop.com/2002/

Thank you.

David Blomstrom GeoBear@geobop.com

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 22:59:11 -0800

To: Max Standridge

From: David Blomstrom

Subject: RE: Campaign 2002 Memorial

Thanks for the feedback. We certainly have our backs against the wall, and I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

On the positive side, my personal crusade for education reform is FINALLY taking off after stagnating for more than five years. I'm a charter member of the National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse, which launched their website just a month ago or so. Last week, the first website taking on the Seattle School District (other than mine) was launched. And last night, I was contacted by another individual who wants to do battle with Seattle's education mafia, including launching his own website and running for office. (I may run next fall as well.)

Education is the great equalizer - the issue where Democrats and Greens are as lost as Republicans and Libertarians. There are many other important issues - in fact, I'm preparing to launch an environmental website soon - but education is the invisible scandal; institutionalized child abuse in every city in America.

With virtually every political party either corrupt and/or in disarray, the only hope I see is for strong-willed people to educate themselves and learn to function as individuals, then network with like-minded people, either reforming political parties of their choice or starting completely new parties.

Since our next President will almost certainly be either George W. Bush or another corrupt Democrat, and national and state campaigns won't be much better, I hope people take an interest into electing good people to local offices.

David Blomstrom GeoBear@geobop.com

At 12:44 AM 11/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:

Would just like to say that what has concerned me about most recent elections isn't necessarily the philosophical bent, but the way one party now controls all three branches of the federal gov't--something almost unheard-of in US history.

Carter came close in 1976-8

FDR came close in 1937;

But in each case, there were philosophical and political party affiliations of key persons on the US Supreme Court that tended to move the Court away from their political direction.

Under Reagan, while he controlled the Court, he didn't control the House, which meant the Congress was divided.

Under Clinton, while there was a "sweep" from 1992-4, with both houses of Congress and the White House in Democratic control, the Court was firmly dominated by GOP nominees, and by conservatives.

Now, with the close margin in the Senate, it would seem that ideology could be an important divide.

IF one is concerned about ideology per se, one might not be too worried, since a couple or more Republicans are "moderates" with fairly liberal voting records. But, in the real world, I don't think that's what should concern most people.

What should be of concern to most people, at least most immediately, is that the POLITICAL PARTY that brought us Rutherford B. Hayes and Watergate, now controls all three branches of the federal government.

In other words, their first priority, is to destroy their opposition, and that has little to do with ideology. Whether one is of a liberal or a conservative bent, or a moderate, or "none of the above", the idea that the party of Richard Nixon could now control all three branches, should give us all pause.

I know, it's a war. I understand that. It was a war under FDR.

This is worse, I know. We've been attacked here at home. Never mind all the allegations, they haven't been proven, so we have to go with what we've got, and besides, we have to show the world, including the terrorists and their allies and anyone out there wavering, that we're behind our President as he goes after these terrorists, as he goes after Al-qaida.

We have to appear unified.

I understand that.

And, I understand that people see the Democrats in disarray.

And, I understand, too, that people vary in what they think the solutions to problems are. But one thing that isn't going to solve our problems, is for the party of Warren G. Harding, Rutherford B. Hayes and Richard Nixon to have control of all three branches of the federal government.

Right now, I've been examining these Senate races.

It was close in three states: NH, MO and MN. It would appear that NH and MN are lost causes. I thought MN was a possiblity at first because only "99%" of precincts had reported, but it wasn't close enough for the remaining votes to change the tide.

Same with NH. And, in MO, it appeared that 100% of precincts reported.

But here's the thing about MO:

Talent was carrying the state with 49.83% of the vote.

He was trailing the field by 6,236 votes.

In a state with 24 or 25 counties, Carnahan, the Democrat, was carrying 7, with another 4 extremely close--with a lead for Talent over the field of only 24-40 votes, or at least not more than about 100 over the field. [As I note further toward the end, Missouri was actually even closer than that, with a total of 13 counties--over 1/2 of MO/s 25-- in the "close" category.--mcs]

That's another bellweather that the state is "shaky" and that the election needs to be looked at: with 11 of 24 counties either going to the Democrat or close, and with a n overall lead for the field, the Democrat is doing well in the counties--something Demos don't always do.

And what a field! The "field" in MO was Libertarian and Green. Libertarians believe in legalizing pot, prostitution, gambling, and sundry other sins. The Greens want more, not less, regulation of US industry re: pollution.

So, what is really shown, is that a "more liberal" Carnahan LEADS Talent in MO.

Don't get me wrong: that doesn't mean I think that's great. But the "message" here, is much different to what we're being fed in the media--and these stats suggest that this MO result needs to be re-examined.

For example, if MO had the same election laws as Louisiana, there'd be a runoff election there, just as there is to be in Lousiana, because no one in MO got 50% of the vote, either.

If I were Pilosi, I'd focus in on this close MO race. The 50/50 Senate hangs in the balance. IF a convincing enough case can be made that the Democrats carried MO, if enough votes can be garnered from, say St. Louis, (where a judge ordered the polls to stay open three extra hours on election night, 2000, we may recall--only to be counter-manded by another judge to only 45 minutes), we might wonder how the election in MO went. Talent's 22,586 vote margin over Carnahan alone, shrinks to his trailing by 6,236 votes against the Carnahan-Libertarian-Green field. How true, it's too bad all we have is the Democratic Party to counter this Bush attempt at an unprecedented seizure of power, in the aftermath of his extremely "iffy" election as Pres. in the first place. But the Democrats could at least serve as a vehicle at this point, to prevent the final destruction of our Democracy, our Republic.


Max Standridge

----- Original Message ----- Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 22:59:11 -0800 To: Max Standridge From: David Blomstrom Subject: RE: Campaign 2002 Memorial

----- Forwarded Message -----

-- From:

-- To: , , , -- Subject: RE(2): Campaign 2002 Memorial

-- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:52:12 -0600 Central Daylight Time

Thanks again, David.

Again, as to specific issues, there should be action and debate.

But can there be?

My immediate concern, is whether the party of Rutherford B. Hayes and Watergate, now in control of all three branches of the federal government, is going to gain too much power through this unprecedented power.

After all, if they are able to bring this off, without any more question than has been raised in the media (Tom Daschle, having just been demoted in the Senate, just told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that "less than 44,000 votes" put the GOP in control of the Senate and, thereby, all three branches.

He didn't go into the Missouri Senate race. He's lost some of his enthusiasm for the fray, because, after all, he did his part, there in SD, and got "his man" elected. But, perhaps partly due to backbiting by Hillary Clinton supporters in his own party, he was demoted for "failure" to get that 50/50 Senate (or 51/49) margin for the Democrats.

I'm not advocating him, per se, as a politician or even as a "person". I am simply concerned that, out of all this mix, Democracy is the loser.Democracy includes the right to debate the issues you've raised, and to have a voice in the political process that is indepedent of the GOP. I'm not sure how long that will stay around, if this GOP control of all three federal government branches goes unchallenged. And the most effective time to challenge that, is right now, whle the recent Senate election is still "warm."

Admittedly, conservative commentators may show some impatience, in the aftermath of Florida 2000 and all the talk of "recounts." Admittedly, too, this sounds highly-partisan. And, please note, I don't consider myself a highly partisan person, nor a person committed to the Democratic Party alone, per se.

Again, admittedly, the fact the Democratic Party is the only vehicle for us in this area, is frustrating. But the thing is, what happens to "the loyal opposition" in general, if the GOP follows its seeming usual philosophy of "once in power, destroy all opposition"?

Their record in this area, is not at all reassuring.

Even Abraham Lincoln, a relative hero in GOP history, who admittedly did part of what he did to preserve the Union itself, himself engaged in unconstitutional acts, including the suspension of habeas corpus and, according to some accounts, the threatening of individual voters by Union army soldiers, who marched some voters to and from the polls at gunpoint. (See my Great Old Record of the Grand Old Party at my website at AT&T for more on this, if you'd like.)

Admittedly, too, some Democrats also have tried, at times, to get too much power when President. FDR tried to "pack" the Court; LBJ seems also to have been generally a "bad guy" in many ways.

The Democrats had the opportunity, shortly after Watergate, to pass a meaningful, toothfull campaign finance reform bill, and they passed on it. So I don't anticipate that the Democrats are "the answer".

But, again, at this point in time, they can serve as the vehicle for all those representing alternative views to the idea of the GOP predominant, in control, regardless of its positions or actions--an idea all to frequently demonstrated as key to many Republican Presidents in the past.

That's why I urge Democrat Pelosi to make the point, in the media, that the Missouri Senate race was as close as it was, that Mr. Talent, there in MO, only got 49.83% of the vote--a margin that would have justified a runoff election, had MO had the same laws as Louisiana. I think the latter point, at the very least, needs to be mentioned every time leading Democrats have access to the news media. That, right now, is the best single weapon "we" (all of us who aren't died-in-the-wool, GOP-should-run-everything-ers) is that set of numbers in that Missouri Senate election of 2002 and the fact that race would have gone to a runoff election had it been held in Louisiana. Maybe we can't change the outcome. But if we emphasize that point enough, we may not have to.

Thanks again for your time, and best wishes,

Max Standridge

http://home.att.net/~m.standridge [2010 UPDATE: That was my old web site address; NEW address is: http://www.maxstandridge.net, The George Bush-Undercurrents Website].

[Here, I'd like to insert some stats for the reader's consideration regarding the MO Senate race, because there were actually more than four counties that were "interesting" in MO in the 2002 Senate race:

There were two close counties in Mo, on top of the 7 that Ms. Carnahan was carrying, that were close as to numbers of votes, and there were four others that were extremely close as to the percentage of the vote that was carried by Mr. Talent against the field:

Chariton County, which Talent carried by 18 votes over the field (in a total of 3240 votes);

and Caldwell County, which Talent carried by 21 votes over the field (in a total of 3147 votes).

Talent was also carrying Audrain County by about 103 votes over the field, out of 8427 total votes--about 50.61%. A change of 12-20 votes, in some category, would have made this a 50/50 county.

Other interesting counties as to percentages include:

Carter County, with a total of 2213 votes, which Talent carried by 219 votes over the field: here, Carnahan is 4 votes short of 44%, while Talent is 8 votes over 54-percentile. Had 17 fewer votes been cast in the county, and 9 more votes been cast for Carnahan of those that would have been left, Talent would be at 53%-tile range, Carnahan at 46%, and Talent's lead over the Field would have been only 193 votes.

Carroll County, where Talent led with 291 votes over the field, in a vote total of 3591, he is 12 votes above the 53-percentile, while Ms. Carnahan is 23 votes below 45%.

Callaway County, which Talent is carrying by 387 over the field, out of 3147 total votes, Talent, at 51.55%, is 18 votes above 50-point%, while Carnahan is 32 votes below 47%

In a state with 25 counties, that's a total of 13--over half--where the Democrat either leads, or Talent's lead is miniscule in various ways. We are talking about fewer than 33 votes in these counties either being absent or changing hands, to effect significant changes as to who carried them, or what the percentages of the vote would have been.

And, again, it's important to note: Talent got 49.83% of the vote in Missouri, while the Field got 50.17%. In Louisiana, there is a runoff election scheduled over the issue of no one getting 50%. Finally, we had no Voter News Service exit polls this time, to tell us what was going on in St. Louis. (In another convenient coincidence for W. Bush, the media decided, as Democracy may hover in the balance, that those were "too unreliable" to use this year.) However, if anything remotely similar to what happened in 2000, happened in 2002 in St. Louis, it is highly doubtful that Talent won the MO. Senate race.--mcs]

Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website