Novak & Noonan Say Wellstone Was Good Man -- What Are the Odds?

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Last Wednesday morning as Sen. Paul Wellstone walked into a news conference room in the State Office Building, he spotted me seated in the rear. "Oh, no," Wellstone said in mock dismay. "Call off the press conference. Novak's here."

We had that kind of relationship: disagreeing about everything but good-naturedly with a sense of fun. He was the happy warrior of 21st-century politics. Arguably the U.S. senator furthest to the left, he was a throwback to a different time.

That posture was not always a political asset. Wellstone was fighting for his political life against former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, in what private polls of both parties showed to be a tossup. This was the country's purest Senate race, and one that could determine which party will control the chamber. Wellstone, a champion of the poor and an advocate of big government, was running against a pro-life, pro-tax cut Republican, and they were virtually even with each other.

When pollster John Zogby surveyed key Senate races several weeks ago, he found that Wellstone had higher negatives than any incumbent senator with the exception of New Hampshire's Republican Sen. Bob Smith (who lost in a September primary). That was partly because Wellstone had broken his promise to serve only two Senate terms, but also because his ideology was on the left fringe.

The decision by many endangered Democratic candidates this year to fudge on issues and even use the image of George W. Bush in their commercials was not for Wellstone. He was the only vulnerable Democratic senator to vote against President Bush's Iraq resolution, and he did not agonize about it.

In my many television interviews and occasional private conversations with Wellstone, he never hid his concern with the pragmatic leadership of the Democratic Party. He often stated that the party was losing its soul under Bill Clinton. When I told him he was my ideal Democratic candidate, Wellstone shot back that I was looking for a loser.

Kidding aside, he was sincere about a presidential bid in 2000 and would have tried had he been able to finance it. Laid-back Bill Bradley was not exactly the passionate Wellstone's kind of Democrat, but he was better than Al Gore in Wellstone's eyes. He could not tolerate the strategizing and hedging of the Gore candidacy.

When I chided Wellstone for breaking his two-term pledge, he told me he felt he was needed not only to counter Bush conservatism but also to avert the Democratic drift. Last year, he spoke out against his party's moderation in these words: "I think Democrats are without a politics if they're not bold and honest for the things they think are right."

Nevertheless, Wellstone had changed during his nearly dozen years as a senator. The fighting left-wing professor from Carleton College had not altered his views but did soften his style. Moreover, he came to love the political game and mastered its tricks -- as he showed in the last hours of his life.

Coleman had correctly pointed out that Wellstone sometimes found himself on the short side of 97 to 3 and 95 to 5 votes, particularly when it came to national defense issues. "I'm running against a guy who's been fighting everybody for years," Coleman told audiences. Wellstone was concerned about being labeled an ineffectual outsider, and tried to do something about it at the Wednesday morning press conference where I encountered him. He brought in eight executives from Minnesota's booming medical device industry to praise him for passage Oct. 17 of a bill to speed government approval of new products. In fact, he was at best a secondary figure in backing the bill, was not a sponsor and was not even on the Senate floor when the bill passed.

The businessmen looked uncomfortable. Wellstone came over to me before the press conference began. "This is counterintuitive," he told me, his eyes twinkling. Paul Wellstone was exaggerating his role, but he was delighted by his command performance for CEOs who had made maximum contributions to his Republican opponent. Paul Wellstone was enjoying the great game, with two more days to live.

Liberals don't appreciate conservatives enough. Conservatives don't appreciate liberals enough either. Here's an appreciation of Paul Wellstone, who died a few hours ago in the middle of a great battle in the heart of the great democracy.

I met him only once, in Washington, in 1996. I wish I'd taken notes and could refer to them now. We met in the halls of the Senate, introduced by a mutual acquaintance, and what I remember is Wellstone was funny and modest and shy, and I thought: Good guy. It was an instinctive response, an instinctive read, and I trusted it.

A few minutes ago on CNN, Candy Crowley, a reporter one of whose gifts is an obvious sense of humanity toward those she covers, said that Wellstone was "a pure liberal"--meaning he wasn't kidding; his liberalism wasn't a jacket he put on in the morning to fool the rubes and powers--he meant it. He seemed to be a politician who was not a cynic, who was not poll driven, who was not in it just for the enjoyments of power. He operated from belief. And as beliefs do, his sometimes cost him. It's possible, perhaps likely, that his belief that an American invasion of Iraq was wrong was costing him in Minnesota, his state, which he was furiously stumping, hop-scotching over the snow banks in a chartered plane, in an effort to hold on to his Senate seat.

It's good to have men and women of belief in Congress. It's tragic to lose one. It's amazing to live in a time when these Allen Drury-type "Advise and Consent" plot twists yank the drama of the coming election off its predictable tracks. And it seems to me more and more in our country that we're getting these dramatic and unpredictable and novelistic plot changes, whatever that means and for whatever it's worth.

But here's what I really want to say. Democracy requires warriors. It requires leaders. It requires people who will go out there and fight for their vision of a better country in a better world. It requires men and women who will go into politics, and who will, in going into politics, in a way lose their lives. Or lose the relaxed enjoyment of daily life.

Politicians live lives of constant movement and effort, lives in which days are broken up into pieces that don't always cohere--up at 5, first breakfast at 6:30, run all day, on the plane, on the bus, into the van, to the fund-raiser, to the speech, to the dinner for the union supporter, to the late-night meeting with reporters; and don't forget to sound confident, to have the facts, to seem engaged. The exhaustion of constant extroverting; the fatigue of the modern politician. The only good reason to live like that is the desire to pull forward and push into being your vision of How Things Ought to Be. Those who do it for other reasons--well, as George Orwell said, they wind up with the faces they deserve. It takes commitment and hunger to live a political life. But when the person living it brings other qualities--a sincerity, a seriousness of purpose, a respect for the meaning of things--and when it is accompanied by a personal style of natural modesty twinned with political confidence, well, it's a moving thing to see. It's inspiring. It reminds you that there are good people in politics. And modern democracies need all the reminders they can get.

When conservatives disagree with liberals, and they're certain the liberal they're disagreeing with is merely cynical, merely playing the numbers, merely playing politics, it's a souring experience. When liberals disagree with conservatives and they're sure the conservative they're disagreeing with is motivated by meanness or malice, it's an embittering experience. But when you disagree with someone on politics and you know the person you're disagreeing with isn't cynical or mean but well meaning and ardent and serious--well, that isn't souring or embittering. That's democracy, the best of democracy, what democracy ought to be about. Paul Wellstone was a good guy. His friend Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, spoke at some length this afternoon about his "caring and belief." When tough old Pat Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, spoke of Wellstone this afternoon on CNN, he began to weep. And when Pete Domenici, tough old Republican of New Mexico, followed Mr. Leahy on CNN, he too began to weep, and had to beg off the interview.

Senators ain't sissies. They can be one cold crew. But Wellstone touched them in a way that was special, and that I think had something to do with democracy, and those who grace it.

It's sad to lose a good man. Good for America for raising him; good for Minnesota for raising him to the Senate; good for Wellstone for being motivated by belief and the desire to make our country better.

I am completely overjoyed right now. MHGinTN and DWSUWF and everyone else who posted here what I have been thinking as well.

I have been to several different message boards lately, and even the regulars on anncoulter.org chat of all places are playing the sanctimonious "he was a good man/how sad he is gone/he was honest and sincere" song. EVERYONE is in on it! Conservatives expressing their logical opinions are having their posts deleted. And to me that is unbelievable from people who claim to be conservative. Maybe I have been missing something, but if liberalism is so anathema to us, why should we be sad when a liberal who believes as Wellstone did is dispached to the next world?

DWSUWF, your tone was exactly perfect--not disrespectful, not tearful. Just a pithy "move along."

As far as I'm concerned, Paul Wellstone was one of the reasons that America's heart is dying. It seems recent events are undoing the stranglehold that haters of freedom have had on it so maybe it can beat a little more strongly now. We are all FReer now that Wellstone is gone, and that includes the unborn.

Thank you thank you thank you, FReepers, for being here and expressing opinions that are so extremely unpopular right now. I think I will be posting here more often from now on, because I feel like I came home reading this thread.

"...I think Wellstone would have proudly called himself a Communist if he thought it wouldn't prevent his election..."

The more I learn about his record the more I would agree with your remark.

And yet we see a river of tears and mealy-mouthed feel-good pap spouted for him here at FR.

Creepy...

What are the odds that liberal would be a good man?

Steve Allen was a liberal and was a hell of a NICE GUY. I met him once. Allen didn't put on any celebrity airs. He even whipped out a small tape recorder and asked me for my name and address. I gave it to him and soon afterwards I received a nice letter from him. We exchanged letters back and forth for a few months after that. Nice guy. BTW, I didn't discuss politics with him but he was so interesting that we had lots of other things to talk and write about.

About the same as stalin, being a good man.

Boy that makes sense (SARCASM OFF). Wellstone was the happy warrior who didnt say a bad thing about any one else and could defend his positions and then leave the Senate floor and share a drink with his opponent.

Stalin on the other hand was a Communist in name only. He was an authoritarian dictator who would kill his own mother to retain power. He was mean spirited, conniving, and everything was done for his benefit alone. Yeah thats a great comparison.

I realize that if they where to say "Oh well, Just another dead liberal" what most of us are probably thinking, they would have a problem but I have no problem saying it Because I do not believe we are all Just friends in the end and that we are all Americans I see the Liberal movement as a true threat to my secure,safe and free future. I really wish conservatives mostly the Public ones would start getting some balls and stand up and attack liberals just as they do conservatives and stop believing these people(dems)are our friends.

In the same manner that people fail to see Islam as the enemy of the United States, they fail to see liberals as social and legal terrorists bent on the destruction of the Constitution and our country.

Wellestone was a far left-wing socialist. Such ilk are anti-capitalism, anti-freedom bigots who want to impose their politically-correct values on Americans.

They support America's enemies, believe Castro is a brilliant communist leader who has made Cuba a shining example of what our country COULD BE LIKE if only they they had total power to implement their communist policies.

Terrorists come in many guises. Some point a gun at you. Some sit in Washington as liberal Senators and attempt to dismantle the U.S. Constitution. Some fly airplanes into buildings. Some prevent a President from filling Federal judgeships. Some live in caves in Afghanistan. Some live Hyannis and sip champagne while spouting tritisms about conservatives wanting to kill old people and poison the water and the air, of killing social security.

Paul Wellstone was a terrorist, as certainly as if he had been driving around Washington in a two-toned blue Caprice and murdering people. He just did it in front TV cameras in $2,000 suits, to a fawning socialist public who are too craven to take personal responsibility for their miserable lives and want people like Wellstone and Leahy and Kennedy to be their government sugar-daddies from the cradle to the grave.

My only regret? That Daschle wasn't with him. The only people who will miss Wellestone's politics are the people who want to destroy this country and build their own Peoples Republic of the United Socialist States of Amerika!

You are one sick puppy, or should I say pit bull. Its people like you who eventually move on to assasinate their opponents. It's only logical and moral. Bet you are fundamentalist Christian too?

what a crock Stalin on the other hand was a Communist in name only. No. Stalin was a Communist dictator. He followed the ideology exactly "name only"? what a crock! Enemies of the the state were killed. tartars and independent farmers were starved into submitting to collectivist policies, army men who were politically suspect were murdered 1937-1938 purges), innocent people who dared to even joke about Stalin were sent ot the gulag to die. In the end Stalin killed 20 million or more of his own people. It was a logical conclusion of the Communist ideology that put the state ahead of the individual. People were expendable.

similar destruction occured in China during the 'cultural revolution' and under the communist regime of pol pot. And of course practically every communist country under soviet or chinese orbit, including Cuba up until today, jailed dissidents and political freedom-fighters.

>>>That's pretty damn personal in my book as I speak up for the little ones.

Not that I disagree with you, buy you overlooked the point I was making. There is a very obvious dichotomy that exists between a liberal like Wellstone and a conservative like Reagan. I am a pro-life conservative, so you're talking to the choir. In politics, however, it serves no good purpose to take things so personal, if clouds your better judgment. If you allow allow your emotions to rule over your intellect, you're dead meat.

It was a logical conclusion of the Communist ideology that put the state ahead of the individual. People were expendable.

And Stalin, put the individual, HIMSELF, above the state and the collective. He may have followed Communist ideology but his devotion was to self, not the growth of Communism or the benefit of the workers. People are expendable under any dictatorship when they are a threat to the dictator.

He just did it in front TV cameras in $2,000 suits... Doc, I don't believe Paul Wellstone would waste funds on $2000 suits and I cannot agree that Daschle should have been on the plane with the man when it nosed into a Minnesota forest. I don't relish the death of the man and his family, but I will not back off from pointing to the man's societal engineering philosophy that included supporting heinous partial birth abortion.

The clinton snake, Carvile, tried to make the statement that republican appointed moderate judges (read less socialist judges, socialist/activist being the type the democrats desire on the SCOTUS) would result in not protecting women. That is the type of demaogoguery that Wellstone used regularly. Abortion, especially in late term, is serail killing sanctioned and forwarded by the democrat party as 'women's health' or a 'protection for women'. 99% of abortions are just seemy murder of an unborn individual human being, with no applicability to protecting a woman. That type of sick, twisted demagoguery is disgusting and typical of the Carvile snake, but it pervades the despotic democrat party and dribbles out of some republicans as political manuevering. [It was so pleasant to watch Newt dissect the snake of clintonism despite Russert's efforts to allow carvile hit and runs on the truth.]

Reagan Man, 'If you allow allow your emotions to rule over your intellect, you're dead meat' ... try me, bub. My intellect carries far more regarding the issues of abortion on demand than the average pol would care to read. I get emotional boost from warring against sanctioned serial killing of the most innocent individual human beings in our nation. My emotion doesn't overrule my intellect, it feeds to it the energy to carry on against overwhelming sadness for the little ones lost to PC bullsh!t. Wellstone championed serialized murder, for political expedience, probably. But what if he really believed it is okay to murder the unborn? There are too numerous despotic democrats that do believe that and they enlist uninformed voter support to continue the holocaust.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.