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

Houston Chronical & Wall Street Journal ^ | 10/25/02 & 10/26/02 | Novak & Noonan (Separately)

[Reagan Man]

MHGinTN, if you read my remarks a little more closely and not allow your passions to dictate what words you choose to utter, you would see, I'm talking about politicians in general and not you personally.

As I said, when it comes to abortion, I'm pro-life. We're on the same side.

[PetiteMericco]

LOL! I'm interested to see if the remaining family is subject to the death tax that Wellstone voted for...

[NittanyLion]

I admired Wellstone for being honest about his core beliefs and fighting for what he believed.

Which is more than you can say about the rest of the Senate. "R's" included.

[unixfox]

Wellstone may have been a good person and all, but I still think he was a traitor. Anybody that belongs to the socialist party is a traitor in my eyes.

[PetiteMericco]

FANTASTIC post.

I went back and read Ann Coulter's column, "Battered Republican Syndrome." http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20020902.shtml

It seemed entirely appropriate right now.

[MHGinTN]

Yes, we are on the same side and we've been arm-in-arm on more than one anti-abortion thread. I just refuse to quell my emotional energy over a societal engineer's sad, accidental death. Didn't mean to fire away at you specifically, if you take it that way.

[x]

When you're old or dead, you do start to look good to people. Old liberals are the main beneficiaries of this. Their faults are forgotten and only their "good intentions" remain. But it's probably even true of Thurmond and Helms. Think what the media said about them when they were in their prime.

And to be willing to lose is something else that wins elder statesmen respect. Wellstone, like McGovern or Jerry Brown or Goldwater or Taft, seems to have been willing to lose rather than to change his tune. Mondale couldn't have won in 1984. Possibly he might have taken any unfair advantages that he could, but those advantages just weren't there. Whether he was really tested, whether he had the temptation to lie or cheat and rejected it or the temptation just wasn't there is a complicated question. Maybe Mondale wanted to do anything to win, but just didn't have it in him either to win or to really go into dirt that wasn't there. So by default, he comes off looking like a noble Quixote or happy warrior.

When Washingtonians and prominent Republicans praise Wellstone or Mondale, you have to understand that there using a sliding scale. At one extreme are those who are hell to work with and who have screwed over everone they've ever known. At the other extreme are saints, who are rare in Washington. In between is a vast area of shades of grey.

Wellstone on abortion or Mondale on race may have been demagogues, liars, cheats, or manipulators, but they didn't fit into that first category of people who would do anything to win or advance themselves, so they win some praise in Washington. And it's not wholly the partisan praise for their positions and partisan passions, but respect for the path not taken. But if you feel strongly against some of those positions and some of their actions in the grey areas, it's inevitable that you'll be angry at them and resent the eulogies.

It may also be that Washington draws a line between attacks on the opposition in general, and actual dirty dealing to individuals. Of course, the Washington media does tend to deal more harshly with Republican attacks on Democrats than Democrat attacks on Republicans. So someone like Wellstone or Mondale does have an advantage with the media. But no one has yet tried to canonize Torricelli, so there are some distinctions made in behavior, rather than simply ideology.

[jsraggmann]

Paul Wellstone represented pure, focused evil and was an enemy of civilization and of the United States. His politics and voting record indicate that he had absolutely no idea what the contents of our Constitution are, nor did he have any idea what the intents of our Founding Fathers were.

[MHGinTN]

Oh, I beg to differ, Wellstone was a poli sci instructor! He knew, but he wanted with all his heart to change the founding principles, to be a societal engineer moving this nation far along the road of socialism and federal authority/nanny state. He was unashamed to use the bodies of innocent babies to do that too!

[jsraggmann]

Like I said, pure focused evil!

[PetiteMericco]

You are spot-on, sir.

[DWSUWF]

"...LOL! I'm interested to see if the remaining family is subject to the death tax that Wellstone voted for..."

I hope so.

Of course, the liberal agenda has always been to exempt themselves from the assaults and thefts they prescribe for the hoi poloi...

With the immediate family essentially wiped out his pile will fall to second tier relatives. I wonder if they'll fight over it?

[GreatOne]

Just to offer my two cents (being a Minnesotan and having my brother work for Boschwitz) - Wellstone WAS a good man. I really do find it hard to believe that there was a more compassionate, caring man in either chamber, for that matter. Now, he was 1000% wrong in his way of thinking, but he truly was one of those people who acted in accordance with what he thought would make life better for people, not solely just to keep getting himself re-elected and stay in power. That's why he would have won again, had he lived (and I can't help but wonder if he thought of his breaking his pledge not to run again on the way down).

[Mulder]

Just to offer my two cents (being a Minnesotan and having my brother work for Boschwitz) - Wellstone WAS a good man

He supported gun-control, which is in direct and flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights. At least one of the bills he supported would have sentenced Americans to 5 years in jail for simply exercising their 2nd amendment Rights at gun shows.

Yeah, a great man.

[Arch-Conservative]

Apparently a few "conservatives" on this board could heed a bit of their own advice. When Rush Limbaugh announced that he had gone deaf, there was a chorus of extreme-left rhetoric that said, basically, that he deserved it. I recall the outrage that emanated from this board that liberals would actually wish physical harm on their political opponents.

However, there is apparently a strain of so-called "conservatives" (though I would severely question the depth of their belief in true conservatism) that celebrate the loss of an avowed leftist. Wellstone was compared, in this very thread, to the likes of Stalin. This is not representative of the inherent decency of conservatism.

I am no fan of Paul Wellstone, and I sincerely wished him political defeat - but to celebrate the death of a political opponent is the most dispicable display of inhumanity I can fathom. He was a liberal - but a principled liberal. He was wrong - but he fought valiantly for what he thought best for the nation. He made no political calulations, and surrendered his principles to no one. There are conservatives - in office, and on this board - that could learn a great many things from Wellstone.

The truly conservative would mourn the death of a worthy adversary, not trample on his grave as if his death is some sort of victory for conservatism. No such victory occurred. No liberal mind has been swayed, and no heart changed. The nation has exactly the same ratio of conservatives to liberals. But, this conservative has lost a lot of respect for the "conservatives" on this board. I always thought the liberal stereotype of rank-and-file conservatives as "mean spirited" was just a method of casting dispersions on a political opponent. Now I see that their observations may have some merit.

Conservatism is, at its root, about a common decency toward mankind (in morality, economics, work-ethic, and foreign policy). It is about promoting good over evil in society. This board is populated by far fewer true conservatives than I had once suspected.

Cordially,
ADE

[NittanyLion]

He was a liberal - but a principled liberal. He was wrong - but he fought valiantly for what he thought best for the nation. He made no political calulations, and surrendered his principles to no one.

Well said. I would happily take 50 Paul Wellstones if it also meant 50 conservative counterparts. Wellstone seemed to truly believe his way was the best course for the country, as opposed to the vast majority of senators - whose political ambitions outweigh any consideration for the country.

[Zack Nguyen]

It already has. Tip O'Neill used to speak highly of Reagan.

Can you quote him? In his book, Tip O'Neill said that the election of Ronald Reagan was a "sinful." Tip O'Neill despised Ronald Reagan even if he might have found him personally amusing. Reagan rode herd over the Congress in his first term, and O'Neill was powerless to do anything about it. Reagan was also proved right in his "peace through strength" foreign policy, and proved the utter stupidity and anti-Americanism of O'Neill's "peace through concession" strategy in dealing with te Soviets.

[Dave S]

Can you quote him? In his book, Tip O'Neill said that the election of Ronald Reagan was a "sinful."

I believe I read it in Chris Matthews book. I know from numerous sources that Tip O'Neill and Reagan used to play poker together.