I'm giving Kucinich a PASS on the Wellstone quote.

[bvar22]

These are the reasons:

1) I am lucky to live in Minnesota.
Paul Wellstone was my Senator, and I was active in his campaign. The correct, full statement to which Kucinich was referring is:
Wellstone was "the only Democrat facing re-election that voted against the war."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/25/otsc.wellstone.schneider/

Wellstone was very public and vocal about his vote. He appeared in National Press Conferences explaining his vote. I could be wrong, but I don't remember the other "NO" votes standing up so publicly. The Republican Party during the campaign in Minnesota contributed to the image of Wellstone standing alone outside the mainstream. Anyone watching the MSM (I know) would get the impression that Wellstone was the ONLY one opposing the War.

The Kucinich Statement was a popular rallying cry for those of us involved in the tight race with the republican "hand picked" candidate Norm Coleman. Over the course of the campaign, it became mistakenly shortened to the statement Kucinich used. I am guilty of repeating it at campaign rallys. After his death, the statement became legend and passed into popular folklore. If you asked Minnesotans today, they would (mistakenly) tell you that Paul Wellstone WAS the only Democrat to vote against the War. While that doesn't JUSTIFY the mistake, it does offer an understandable explanation.


2) On MANY issues, Wellstone WAS the only Democrat to vote against a bush/republican bill. He had earned a reputation of "the sole opposition" to the bush*/republican agenda.

"He took stands on principle, often alone. He was the only Democrat who voted against the Democratic version of the estate tax repeal. He was one of the few senators to vote against national missile defense, against permanent normal trade relations with China. He was often out there alone, voting his conscience. And he appears to have done that this year, just this month earlier on the Iraq resolution."---Bill Schneider, CNN

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/25/otsc.wellstone.schneider/

Wellstone deserved his reputation for taking lonely principled stands against the Republicans. It became common (if sometimes incorrect) to say, "Wellstone was the only....".



I can understand and easily forgive the statement made by Kucinich. His intent was certainly not to intentionally deceive anyone. He is guilty only of repeating a popular folklore. His statement does merit a correction, but not an apology, and certainly does not merit the ATTACKS and OUTRAGE that have resulted. The outrage over the Kucinich misstatement reminds me of the manufactured republican outrage that followed the Wellstone memorial.

The statement was incorrect, but was a minor point in the letter. It was an aside. Nothing in the rest of the letter dependeds upon or directly follows from this statement about Wellstone. It in NO WAY discounts or invalidates the content of the letter.

[Lindacooks]

1. Yup, me too.

Let's get some perspective, people. Considering that, among many other lies, chimpy flat out lied to sucker the world into an illegal war and is getting away with it, we have much bigger fish to fry.

This, in my opinion, is a non-issue. Let's not eat our own.

[WilliamPitt]

2. And, um, by the way, psssst,

The odds are about a billion to one that Kucinich wrote this himself. In all likelihood, a staffer wrote it and sent it, and their fact-check appararus messed up.

Congress is run by 20-year-olds, and sometimes they fuck up.

[Larkspur]

3. Yet Kucinich signed his name to it?

That means that DK approved that letter, errors and all.

[WilliamPitt]

4. Have you ever seen how a Congressional office works?

Have you ever seen how Dennis works? He's got 25 things happening at once.

Posit: Dennis trusts his staffers. They tell him it's ready and he signs his name based on that trust.

Posit: They have a stamp with his signature on it, and he was called about it, and approved the stamping.

Posit: The letter was printed online, so there was no actual 'signature' per se. Just a name at the bottom which trusted staffers are allowed to use.

This is bullshit infighting from the fucking Iowa primaries come back again. Unreal.

[Eloriel]

10. So glad you see it for what it is

This is bullshit infighting from the fucking Iowa primaries come back again. Unreal.

It's really time for DK to get over his little mad on re Dean, and quit misrepresenting Dean's positions, and basically lying about him. It reflects very badly on Dennis, frankly. Why don't you call DK's office, since you have an in with DK, and set them straight?

[redqueen]

11. .

:rofl:

[MuseRider]

15. ??

:spray:

[bvar22]

7. If you want to live a happy life, don't sweat the little stuff.

The statement about Wellstone is the little stuff.
Read the OP.

If you wish to disagree with DK's stand on the Iraq War, you may do so. THAT is not a little thing. But please do so on another thread.
This thread is about the relative unimportance of the misstatement about Wellstone.

Peace

[d_b]

5. I truly miss that man.

It breaks the heart just reading that. He should not have been alone in the wilderness.

[bvar22]

8. We miss him too.

It is sad. But he was not alone. We LOVED him, and had his back.
He fought for us, and could count on us in a fight.

The (original)Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

Paul kicking Conservative Corporatist asses.


Paul, in shorts and sneakers with no socks,
listening to his constituency shortly before his death.


You still see MANY Wellstone yard signs and bumper stickers in Minnesota.

[d_b]

12. I bet you still see those signs.

If Alaska ever produced a senator like Wellstone I would wear it like a badge.

[jbnow]

21. He was not from my state

but I miss him too.

I was amazed when I would hear him speak...so bright, thoughtful and honest. He seemed to speak, not spin.

When I was a child I wanted to go into politics and make a difference. A couple things happened to alter that. RFK's death was crushing. But I also got to know many politicians. My mom worked in the capitol here and would let me come with her, and I loved to when they were in session.
I would learn all I could about issues and ponder them. Then I'd talk to the congressmen. It seemed I knew more about those issues then they did! They didn't give thoughtful reflection, they voted as they "should". They clued me in on political reality. It costs a lot to run and you didn't get the support if you didn't vote the right way. Some phrased it "the will of those who elected me". They were pretty honest. I was a little kid who didn't vote, who cared. They were amused by my earnestness (until they were irritated by it)

Maybe I spoke to the wrong ones but it sure killed my illusions. I know the system is part of it, it does cost a lot to run. But they turned what was honorable and important into something expedient and mundane.

But listening to Wellstone brought back my childhood image of what the profession was about. First time I thought "I love him" about a politician since RFK. Evidently my love doesn't keep them alive.

[mzmolly]

6. I don't. His letter was full of "error" and innuendo.

;)

[MuseRider]

9. Considering how many people

on this site go out of their way to tell us how little Dennis Kucinich means or affects anything in this country he sure managed to stir up a storm. I guess he really is important.

:loveya: DK

Thanks bvar22.

[Desertrose]

25. I was thinking the exact same thing, Muse Rider

For such an unimportant far lefty nutcase with no real hope of ever being a "real" candidate guy...some folks sure get in a big uproar about his every word!

DK :yourock:

[redqueen]

13. "reminds me of the manufactured republican outrage ..."

Hmmmm... interesting.

*bites tongue*

[dsc]

14. Senator Byrd

does he ring a bell? I seem to recall hearing him a great deal before the war. Frankly it showed sloppy staff work which isn't a big deal. The bigger deal was the rest of the letter which was misleading at best. Dean's position hadn't changed which Kucinich claimed it had.

[bvar22]

16. Senator Byrd is up for re-election in 2006.

Wellstone was running in 2002.

Byrd was NOT running in 2002.
Please read the OP.

[dsc]

17. I did

It included this paragraph

Wellstone was very public and vocal about his vote. He appeared in National Press Conferences explaining his vote. I could be wrong, but I don't remember the other "NO" votes standing up so publicly. The Republican Party during the campaign in Minnesota contributed to the image of Wellstone standing alone outside the mainstream. Anyone watching the MSM (I know) would get the impression that Wellstone was the ONLY one opposing the War.

Note that no where does it mention re election. It says the other no votes didn't stand up publicly. That is what I took issue with in regards to Byrd.

[bvar22]

18. You are correct.

Byrd WAS indeed a passionate and vocal opponent to the IRW.
I LOVE Sen. Byrd and would be proud to have him for MY Senator.

[madfloridian]

19. Here is a letter from an editor of The Nation.

Whew, after that post about me in your forum, I was sure glad to get this. I guess I don't expect an apology, but I sure hate seeing that accusation there that DFA and I altered his letter. A ridiculous statement, which of course I could not do.

I left out the person's name in this and couple of other things...so as not to cause more problems. I am defending myself. I would be willing to give a pass, but I did not get one. And that post is still there.

The email received by me on May 5th.
Dear_____,

....."We made one change in the letter after
____ ______ in Kucinich's office asked us to because they had gotten
one fact wrong, which we neglected to catch and fix before we published
it on our site.
Thanks for writing and allowing me to clear this
up.
Sincerely,
Peter Rothberg, The Nation

[madfloridian]

20. A shame really.

I would never do anything like that. :shrug:

[dansolo]

22. Dick Durbin was also facing re-election

The statement that Wellstone was the only Democrat facing re-election to vote against the Iraq Resolution is false. Dick Durbin voted against it.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. That is true, but Dick Durbin wasn't facing a serious challenge

Don't get me wrong, I think that Durbin is one of the best guys in the Senate, but Durbin did have the ability to vote against the IWR without any serious political consequences. Illinois is a solid blue state and the GOP there is weak. Durbin's re-election was inevitable one way or the other. Wellstone's, re-election, on the other hand, was not safe.

[dansolo]

26. I'm just saying that the statement was false

Durbin may not have been facing a challenge, but he was up for re-election, and he still voted against the IWR. You'd think that Kucinich would be willing to acknowledge that, especially since Dick Durbin has been consistently one of the most liberal (and forceful) voices in the Democratic Senate caucus.

[bvar22]

27. The statement was false.

Sen Dick Durbin did vote "NO" on the IWR one month before re-election in 2002. The point made in the OP was not about the actual reality of the vote count, but that a widespread myth has developed around Wellstone that he was :

a) The ONLY Democrat to vote against the Iraq War,
This is a widespread and popular folklore about Wellstone since his death.
"He was often out there alone, voting his conscience. And he appears to have done that this year, just this month earlier on the Iraq resolution."---Bill Schneider, CNN
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/25/otsc.wellstone.schneider/

b) The ONLY Democratic Senator running for re-election that voted for the Iraq War,
"... including hundreds of thousands of dollars for the late Paul Wellstone, the only incumbent Senator running for re-election who voted against the Iraq war resolution."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1120-05.htm

"Sen. Wellstone, the only member of the Senate voting "Nay" who was facing election that fall,"
http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/203117.shtml

c) The ONLY Democrat in a contested seat who voted against the Iraq War.
"Wellstone was the only Democrat facing a difficult reelection battle to vote against the resolution,"
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/PWawvdh.html



The point in the Original Post was not that Dennis Kucinich was correct in his statement. He was not. The point is that there is a widespread myth about Wellstone's vote that has entered popular folklore since his death.

Since this myth is so widespread, I can understand and easily forgive the statement made by Kucinich. His intent was certainly not to intentionally deceive anyone. He is guilty only of repeating a popular folklore. His statement does merit a correction, but not an apology, and certainly does not merit the ATTACKS and OUTRAGE that have resulted.

The statement was incorrect, but was a minor point in the letter. It was an aside. Nothing in the rest of the letter dependeds upon or directly follows from this statement about Wellstone. It in NO WAY discounts or invalidates the content of the letter.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. When did he make this statement?

I'm confused